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.
Here's the thing:
Republican arguments tend to be logical, while Democrat ones are emotional. (What about the children/immigrants/waamen).
So, a logical, reasoned approach seems anathema to those obsessed with appearances. A logical fallacy is just an irritation. (How dare you)
Even the 'saving lives' argument for the vaccine is fundamentally untrue, but there it is. They will stick with it.
And you don't see any way that communication between the two can be improved?
Is it not worth at least trying?
It's a bit like a mathematician arguing with an artist.
So then we should just not even try?
Ok, so you're not interested. Got it.
Did not say I was not interested, otherwise I would have not answered. Duh
I did not say we whould not try, just that it is very tricky.