[–] srayzie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

@wokeasfook, please write this on the comment section and ping us next time. We need quality submission posts. I copied your words in case you want to comment and ask others. I don’t usually give people like that much attention...

Your words

He is very disingenuous but I'd like to blow him out of the water. Can anyone here help me witth a reply to this message from him. See below. @srayzie @crensch Sorry to ping you guys but hoping you can help me with this one. Maybe you guys know someone else here who can help. I'd love to make him swallow his pride. Bear in mind I linked this cunt to the pizzagate executive summary and he still regarded it as nonsense. That's about 2 years ago.

His mesaage...........Just Like Trump was really cleaning out the paedophiles... nothing has happened. They initially claimed 1500 arrest. The stats and events proponents claimed turned out, upon close inspection to have nothing to do with him and not some mythical paedophile ring either. They were operations planned along time before, the arresting of run of the mill prostitutes and other non-interesting things. It was all hype and misinformation . You just believe things that align with your other beliefs - its called confirmation bias. I am only interested in facts and evidence. But you will manufacture in your mind an idea that somehow I am an NPC, MSM loving, Hillary loving blah blah blah. Ad hominem thinking and attacks. For the record, at all times prior to the 2016 election I was telling people - I'd prefer Trumpy than Hillary because she was a war monger. Yet you are able to delusionally invent a memory that somehow I was all for Hillary. It's cognitive dissonance at its highest. You need to admit you are not interested in the truth - you are interested in your pre-conceived view of the world. I prefer the truth - whatever it may turn out to be, even if it lands me on my backside looking quite foolish about a position I once took. I've had to eat my hat many times and happy to do so.

I will debate anything with you. In a rational and proper manner. Put forward a "proposition" you say is true, lay out your evidence, link to your sources. I will go and do my research and respond in detail, with references, with evidence, with facts. My bet is that almost all the conspiratorial, out there things you believe/assert will not withstand the scrutiny of a thorough, objective and intense investigation. I research for a living, I get to the facts, that's what I do. I am also fair and objective - if the evidence supports what you assert/believe I will readily concede it. When we talk you just run off at a million miles an hour with a lot of asserted facts etc. I can't necessarily contradict what you say without proper investigation because I haven't necessarily been down the rabbit hole you went down. But, in a rational written correspondence where you are forced to lay out in detail with sources etc your belief/assertion and I get to test it over time, it will be interesting to see how you stack up. When I talk to you it is like talking to either a salesman or a religious evangelist - its all passion and stream of consciousness but a conversation is not really possible.

I think it would be a good experiment to do it by correspondence, we give up the personal attacks and just debate propositions and evidence. It may be of benefit to you. Surely you would have to agree it would be a benefit to you if a belief you hold is false and you were able to be shown that. It can't be good for you to labour under false beliefs. It would also be good for me if there is a belief or assertion you hold that I suspect is not true and I find out that the evidence is, in fact, compelling. I am better for that.

So by all means set out your first proposition, its evidence and your sources. I am sure you will decline to participate.

[–] Crensch 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

@wokeasfook I need a more succinct explanation here.

Lawyer. Liar. Fallacy-user. And you want to argue with him?

You'll have to take care of the fallacies first. You'll have to pull out a chalkboard or paper or whatever, write out his words, and show how they're ad hom or strawman. Then you'll need to show how your words are not.

Humiliate him with this publicly if you can.

Even starting an argument with someone that doesn't understand those things is an exercise in futility.

[–] wokeasfook [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

He's a lawyer. He's also a liar.

I don't really want to be arguing with him but I've probably gone to far now to ignore it.

I'd be happy to give him a list of things that are and have happened similar to https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3170224

Also if anyone has any real hard evidence that the media work on the 4am talking points that'd help. That would at least let me know if he's worth any more time.

I listed project veritas and judicial watch and WikiLeaks as my favorite sources to which he replied

"Project veritas was caught out trying to peddle a false story to the Washington Post. And you think the MSM is bad.! Oh my. The story of the Jamie Philips story is eye wateringly nauseating. What's more nauseating is that the fake story was designed to undermine the Washington posts earlier expose of a Republican Candidate about his molestation of 14 year olds. If that's your reliable truth source you need to think again I think. It tried to protect a pedophile..... My oh my...

As for our project - let's start with the 4am drops conspiracy. Where's the evidence". End.

Me again... He seems to have zero self awareness and seems ok requiring more of me than he's willing to produce from himself. I need to back up everything I say while he needs to back up nothing.

I had sent this when I mentioned the 4am talking points. He didn't comment. https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE

Sorry I don't know how to be more succinct.

If I could put him on the back foot over the 4am talking points I'd probably be happy to ignore him after that.

[–] Crensch 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You'll have to write out his claims, exactly, make sure he agrees. Then go through and debunk them one at a time.

After a while, point out that he is not admitting he was wrong - not conceding any points despite his claims being massacred.

[–] Jewed 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There is no point arguing with a jew.