Yep. It's way easier to deboonk a lousy source than find proof that a lousy source is lying. It generally uncovers a lack of understanding on a topic, too. That can lead the way to education.

When the leftists would cry about "Trump's Project 2025," I would always ask for proof Trump has anything to do with it. The "best" claims came from people in his administration going to work for a think tank that wrote it. Usually they'd calm down after realizing that 1) Think tanks would naturally hire people with high level government jobs, and these people needed to go find new jobs, and 2) Just because you work for somebody doesn't mean your positions align today or for the rest of eternity.

The worst claims were outright agit prop. No wonder people were freaking out. I taught a few people how agit prop works and they were able to calm down after seeing how it works. Hopefully they learn to deal with other forms of propaganda.

With the anxiety level down, it's "Here's video of Trump denying Project 2025, directing people to Agenda 47. Can you find any video of him endorsing Project 2025?" Nobody could, because it doesn't exist. The natural follow up - "What seems like a better source to you? The man's own words, or the harmful agit prop meant to cause you undue anxiety and mental anguish?"

For those that were not reasonable and otherwise trying to rally the leftist tards, they got ridicule. The Always Sunny in Philadelphia conspiracy guy meme fit the bill wonderfully.