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’m saying a bunch of librarians would be a billion times more valuable than well reasoned arguments.
The moment an individual wants do descend the rabbit hole, they need a librarian, a guide, a Virgil, to point them at something to discover within their own time and space. Not to put the idea in their head, but to simply say here are the pool of ideas related to the topic.
Theres zero chance a person newly introduced and interested in Q or converting from Qanon is fake disinformation would do anything in the way of a meaningful debate.
That said, you do you.
Well, that's an idea right there. I keep a folder with various sources that I've found helpful.
It would be interesting to see what we would have if we pooled our sources together.
One of the biggest hurdles I've found is finding sources that can't be easily dismissed.
I 100% understand the appeal to authority. On both sides. But there are some sources better than others.
If nothing else, cutting down on people using tweets as sources would be a huge help. That's one of the most common criticisms I see among normies.