"There is more and stronger evidence that the election was stolen than there ever was for the Holocaust."
This forces your opponent to compare the two bodies of evidence to try to prove you wrong. Go along with him. Eventually, one of four things will happen:
- He admits that the evidence for election theft holds up.
- He admits that the evidence for the Holocaust doesn't hold up.
- He admits to both. Good job!
- He doesn't admit to either (in which case nothing was ever going to convince him anyway) but at least some readers or listeners of your argument are now drawn to conclusions 1 and/or 2.
Use the state legislature hearing transcripts and the Navarro Report as your sources. Let your opponent worry about Holocaust evidence
"There is more and stronger evidence that the election was stolen than there ever was for the Holocaust."
This forces your opponent to compare the two bodies of evidence to try to prove you wrong. Go along with him. Eventually, one of four things will happen:
1. He admits that the evidence for election theft holds up.
2. He admits that the evidence for the Holocaust doesn't hold up.
3. He admits to both. Good job!
4. He doesn't admit to either (in which case nothing was ever going to convince him anyway) but at least some readers or listeners of your argument are now drawn to conclusions 1 and/or 2.
Use the state legislature hearing transcripts and the Navarro Report as your sources. Let your opponent worry about Holocaust evidence
(post is archived)