How to debate with an idiot...

[240-185]

Hi,

How to debate with an idiot who almost claims at every post that the ultimate evidence that 9/11 was an inside job made by a Rockefeller guy is that crappy interview between Alex Jones and Aaron Russo, knowing that Aaron Russo's words are quite impossible to verify since he's dead?

Has that video been debunked?

How to bash such a stoopid person who only has this argument in order to challenge the "official" version of 9/11?

[CptColumbo]

I don't know the video, but you have to ask he/she believes this video and not others? Is there any actual objective evidence in the video?

Put it to them to prove the video is true and in need of debunking, rather than play their game.

The burden of proof is on them to prove it, not you to disprove it.

[240-185]

Hm, you're right, next time he'll present the video, I'll ask him. :)

[T.A.M.]

For me personally, I stop listening the minute the truther utters the words "Alex Jones".

TAM:)

[TinfoilCat]

Are you referring to the video where Aaron Russo claims to have had an interview with David Rockefeller, who states that he is a major leader in the NWO? There was already a thread on that one a while ago. I think. Maybe. .... Actually, I'm not sure at all. :D

[Roadtoad]

How to debate with an idiot?

Don't.

[ktesibios]

CptColumbo has it exactly right. You have no obligation to refute a "Here's my bizarre claim. I dare ya to prove it wrong, neener neener neener" argument with anything but a reminder of where the burden of proof lies and perhaps an explanation of the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

Conspiracists often think that they're entitled to hold up an endless series of hoops and expect you to jump through them. Obliging them rarely accomplishes anything since the moment one argument has been staked, decapitated and garliced they will simply pull out another one and demand a repeat performance.

Don't fall for it. Some claims can justifiably be classified as "ain't worth the powder to blow 'em to Hell".

[Brainache]

Surely there is enough footage out there of Alex being a complete jackass for you to put something together and fight fire with fire (or video with video in this case).

"You expect me to listen to this guy? Mr High-Fives at GZ? Mr I'm Just Like Galileo? Mr The UN Plan To Kill 80% of Humanity? Mr ..." etc, etc...

Poisoning the well? Maybe, but that is a pretty toxic well anyway...

[eromitlab]

There's an old George Bernard Shaw saying that pertains to debating with someone who chugs whatever Alex Jones puts in front of them.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

[Tweeter]

Is there any "one" person in all the world you would believe just by words alone?

[MarkyX]

Is there any "one" person in all the world you would believe just by words alone?

Nope. There is a reason why the Courts don't allow hearsay.

[PhantomWolf]

Never argue with a idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[Tweeter]

Nope. There is a reason why the Courts don't allow hearsay.
Great. This thinking should throw out about half the threads and posters here.

[Reality Believer]

How to debate with an idiot...

When you find the answer to that question, perhaps you can tackle:

How to dance with a paraplegic ..
How to kiss a jellyfish on the lips ..
How to invent anti-gravity ..
How to power a car with water ...
And how to reconcile the Palestinians and the Jews.

[A W Smith]

Hi,

How to debate with an idiot who almost claims at every post that the ultimate evidence that 9/11 was an inside job made by a Rockefeller guy is that crappy interview between Alex Jones and Aaron Russo, knowing that Aaron Russo's words are quite impossible to verify since he's dead?

Has that video been debunked?

How to bash such a stoopid person who only has this argument in order to challenge the "official" version of 9/11?


Practice (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4034048&postcount=1)
Practice (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4034465&postcount=1)
Practice (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4030961&postcount=42)

[Tippit]

Nope. There is a reason why the Courts don't allow hearsay.

That isn't the reason, genius. Hearsay is mostly disallowed because it represents what one person thinks another one has said, not because no one is credible. Even the most credible people can lose something in translation, misunderstand or otherwise take out of context words that were said.

There are exceptions which allow hearsay, and a statement is only hearsay if it is an attempt to prove what the original statement asserted.

[Roadtoad]

When you find the answer to that question, perhaps you can tackle:

(snip)

And how to reconcile the Palestinians and the Jews.

Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

[Whiplash]

How do you keep an idiot in suspense for 24 hours?

I'll tell ya tommorow.

[240-185]

Thanks for you all replies.
I must agree that it is a complete waste of time to answer this guy.

Practice
Practice
Practice
Ouch.
I never thought that there were such retarded guys like "Galileo"...
The first link deserves a simple facepalm, the second a double facepalm, and the third contains dubious links... Ouch again.

How do you keep an idiot in suspense for 24 hours?
I'll tell ya tommorow.
I'll be waiting for you.
Wait. OH SHI- :D

[Firestone]

How to debate with an idiot...

Best advice is probably: don't ;)

In this particular case, maybe start by asking who Nick Rockefeller is, and how he relates to "the" Rockefellers.