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 really appreciate what you are trying to do here and I do think good will come of it but...
My best Q arguments have been the ones where I don't mention Q. It just gives them an easy out to end the conversation unfortunately.
Discussions with people who would be open minded enough to mention Q we're had back in 2020. It wasn't very many in my circle....
My best 'conversions' are when I'm there to verify facts as people open their own eyes to things. It really is about letting people figure this out and verifying when they ask questions. Showing them where to dig for themselves when the curiosity finally strikes.
I understand what you're saying. I personally couldn't care less if Q was mentioned directly when trying to redpill others. I'm more concerned with getting the idea and viewpoints across than where it's coming from.
So yeah, a great tip could be to just read your audience and not mention Q if you think it would not help your cause.