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.
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.