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 think this would be useful.
One logical fallacy I hear all the time is "argumentum ad hominem" where they attack Trump's character rather than address his platform.
So to get through that, I'll just agree with them on the character stuff ("Yeah, he really does give people childish nicknames and seems to have no filter--but he's actually right about the border!") to get it back on topic. Have had a bit of success with that.