You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] Crensch 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] 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

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.

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 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.

[–] wokeasfook [S] ago 

Thanks I'll put some time in tonight. What about the 4am talking points to MSM. Is there any proof or real evidence that you know of?