They say x, ask for where they heard about x. They say from y news organization, ask the source for y. If they say z, if z is actually an actual document or otherwise, ask them where in z does y claim x is true.
If z is just another news organization, keep going until they provide (or don't provide) an actual document. If they can't procure an actual document, send it yourself. If z is just another video cIip, ask them for the whole video. Provide them the entire video if they can't.
Do not try to antagonize. Just simply ask the questions as if you were trying to understand their point of view, to learn something we might not have heard.
THANK YOU!! I have been trying to find something like this. I would also like to know exactly how to try to tell people that "Even though we do not see eye to eye, does not mean we do not have to get along."
You could always ask if they agree with Republicans like Lincoln, and when they bring up the "party switch", tell them that those og Republican liberals were classical liberals, aka what most modern conservatives are.
Me, however, I prefer to use simple logic. I start by saying I really wish I could press a button that would make the world instantly wonderful but, ultimately, a lack of resource requires some form of governance or centralized arbitor of law. The only question here in my mind is how much power should it have.
Then, the actual thought experiment. You have a room with ten people and ten phasers. Every so often, they Ieave for a new group of ten.
In one scenario, everyone has one phaser.
Even if there's a Romulan every ten or so rooms, it'll be next to impossible for them to take on the other nine, even if they set the phaser from stun to kiII. And, even if he does, he'll have to wait for the next ten people, all of whom have their own phasers.
In the other scenario, only one person has access to a stockpiIe of phasers.
Let's say there's only one Romulan in even a thousand rooms. But it only takes one to completely destroy everything. Not just for that group, but for the next group, and the next group, and the one after that.
Then, I'll say if I was assured that only good people could be that one guy, I wouldn't be a conservative. That being said, I look at what's been done to the world throughout recorded history all the way to current day and ask myself. Have we truly changed? Or has it simply only been the times?
Most people are wonderful, don't get me wrong. But it's the few that would try to destroy a good thing. We've all seen it in many companies, and a government is nothing more than just another one. They deal with other peoples' wealth like any non profit, but instead of do nations, they call it taxation.
But non profits are relatively transparent over their expenditures, but even if they're not or you disagree with them, you have the choice to stop giving your money away. If you want some transparency, which would require a court filing or otherwise (only to yield a heavily redacted paper if you're lucky enough to be approved) just simply to see where your money's at, you don't even get to choose which jaiI you get to go to if you try to stop your payments.
Sorry for the length. Hopefully there's something of use here.