Would anyone be interested in learning how to make better arguments in support of Q?
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I believe it could really help in convincing normies.
To clarify, I'm not trying to criticize anyone or present myself as a great debater. I just see a need and believe this is the best way I can contribute to the group.
Objective: To help other Anons improve their arguments, which could assist in persuading skeptics.
How:
- Identify common logical fallacies and explain how to avoid them.
- Provide practice opportunities by role-playing as a skeptical normie.
Please let me know if you're interested and feel free to contribute your own tips and insights that you believe can help the community.
I never took debate, don't know all the terminology, but I try my best to argue with facts.
These people don't care. You can be as polite and respectful as you can, but in 1-2 replies they devolve to name calling and hatefulness, and no matter what you write or how well-thought out it is, they don't even read it.
We shouldn't just give up, but it's one gigantic uphill climb, and you don't know who or what you're arguing with in the first place. Is it a person? Is it an American? Is it a bot? Were they hired for this?
I don't know. I've tried, but they are not at all open-minded enough for your argument, no matter how well presented, to matter.
One big big thing against our arguments is that they dislike our sources, but their trusted sources are the ones that lie. There's an excuse for everything. "That's a right wing site, so it's bullshit." "Wikipedia can be edited by whoever, so it's bullshit." "Snopes disproved this, so it's bullshit."
The amount of rabbit holes you'd have to send them down just to get them to a point of being willing to read what you write is unfathomable to them.