How do you debunk the "rapid fire" approach without sounding like a jerk?

[zaphod2016]

Scenerio: attempting call-in show, I get a truther on the line. I'm trying to be polite, but the guy starts going off, rapid-fire on me:

- the hijackers are still alive (BBC corrected this story)

- passport found outside the rubble (what was the story with this?)

- nothing hit building 7 (except a chunk of the falling towers)

etc.

Every time I attempted to debunk, or even question a point, he jumped on to another point. It was like swatting at a fly, while stuck in slow motion.

I don't want to come across as rude- many in my audience are currently "truthers" and I am trying to convert them "from the inside" if that make sense.

I also don't want to rely on censorship (i.e. drop the caller) because this usually reinforces paranoia.

There are tons of great resources here, but it is hard to read so much material while live. Has anyone made a FAQ format, with linked questions? Something that can be easily browsed?

Failing that, how do you handle the 'ole "rapid fire" approach? Is it better to roll with it to the next point, or stick with one debunked claim until they admit they were mistaken?

[fourtoe]

Failing that, how do you handle the 'ole "rapid fire" approach? Is it better to roll with it to the next point, or stick with one debunked claim until they admit they were mistaken?

I'd say the latter. It is rare that you would hear a Truther admit they were incorrect on anything, so I think it will have much more of an impact.

I could answer the questions that you listed but I don't think that that is what you are looking for. The best way is to try to get the person to stick to one claim at a time and when he gets off topic or dances around call him out on it.

And hell, take calls from debunkers too, I bet I'm not the only one willing to call in and take on a bunch of Truthers on this forum.

[uk_dave]

I would say you should stick with one issue and hammer it home that the idiot is wrong about it.

So why is he wrong about it? Is it because he's been lied to by others? if so, what else may they have lied about?

What criteria does the idiot use in deciding what information is believable and how does he feel when one of his beliefs is shown to be wrong?

If the idiot wants to jump to another talking point, refuse to move off of the one you've debunked until he admits that he is wrong.

"No, no let's go back to your claim about the two trillion. Did you discover the basis of your claim yourself, or did you learn it from someone else? Do you understand why you are wrong about this? Do you realise that you've been lied to by the movement you support? No, no I want to discuss your claim about the two trillion dollars you claimed were missing...... how did you come to that conclusion? Do you realise now that you're wrong?...."

Etc etc
Hammer it home.

[MikeW]

What I would do is laugh a little (with, not at), applaud the caller's enthusiasm, but say something like not a single one of them are actually quite as he's said (choose your own phrasing for the circumstances, but be sure you make it clear that there's a case for arguing that he's 100% wrong).

If the caller then piles on more points without addressing that, it looks like he's covering up, and you can point that out.

Hopefully what he's more likely to do is pause for a moment, get defensive, asking what you're talking about. You can then jump in, pick one of his points and address it at length: pile on the rebuttals (so make sure it's the one you know best). There's no time to address everything he said, but if you make it clear that you know what you're talking about and there's good reason to question one or two of the points that was made, the audience may start to wonder about the others, too.

[McHrozni]

Conventional wisdom would suggest you pick on one or two claims and try to stick with them.

The problem is that twoofers will just just ignore you jump to other claims. I don't know how would that work in radio talk show, but their general tactics everywhere seem to be just that. It's annoying, especially if your time is limited.

McHrozni

[Sam.I.Am]

Yeah. You can't win by being "Polite" in that situation. Call yourself a "Fixed goalpost zone". Stick to the question(s) at hand. Make it clear that moving the goal posts while you're kicking is dirty pool.

At the bottom of the hour tell them what the next hours subjects will be (hell tell them at the top of the hour but the idiots probably will be raving loons after an hour of contemplation...). Let them know what will be examined and stick to it unless there is a huge (and I do mean huge) event overshadowing it.

I'd also tell them that shifted goalposts might be subjects of future conversations if enough goalposts are shifted, but for now lets stick to the subject.

[athon]

Good interviewing practice calls for you to take up a single point and follow it through. Don't let them dictate the terms of the discussion - they can offer information, but it's you as the interviewer/journalist/reporter etc. who picks and chooses what to do with it.

So select one of their points and keep returning to it. They then seem to be evading the questions by offering random noise, rather than you evading their questions. Politely state you'd be happy to return to their follow-up points shortly, but reiterate that they brought up an interesting misconception that many people often accept, and you'd like to discuss further...and then address it. If they ignore you, they'll appear rude. Not you.

Athon

[TruthersLie]

Scenerio: attempting call-in show, I get a truther on the line. I'm trying to be polite, but the guy starts going off, rapid-fire on me:

- the hijackers are still alive (BBC corrected this story)

- passport found outside the rubble (what was the story with this?)

- nothing hit building 7 (except a chunk of the falling towers)

etc.

Every time I attempted to debunk, or even question a point, he jumped on to another point. It was like swatting at a fly, while stuck in slow motion.


This is truther tactic #2. When hit with a debunk, drop it and shift topics. Don't let them. Be direct and focused. They start with hijackers are still alive. Great. Then stick with it until you have demonstrated that it is completely and utterly full of ****. Don't let them just shift shift shift until you have fully debunked the point.

IN fact the easiest way to do it is to say "We'll get to it, now about the hijackers being alive..." Make sure you have answered the question, then say "Lets move on to your next issue, I believe it was the "unscathed passport" which is bunk as PSA 1771 was hijacked 20 years ago and when it was crashed there was a hole in the ground with random papers floating in the wind. NO wreckage was visible, just a hole. What is amazing is that they found the suicide note from the passenger who killed the pilots. Random stuff survives crashes. And the passport was not "unscathes" or perfect. Lets go and look at wtc7lies."

And focus on that point until you have ALL of your points out with the support to show it. Then move on to the next point. Don't let them do shift shift shifting.


I don't want to come across as rude- many in my audience are currently "truthers" and I am trying to convert them "from the inside" if that make sense.

I also don't want to rely on censorship (i.e. drop the caller) because this usually reinforces paranoia.

There are tons of great resources here, but it is hard to read so much material while live. Has anyone made a FAQ format, with linked questions? Something that can be easily browsed?


The best collections that I know of are wtc7lies by gravy, and 911myths (www.911myths.com)


Failing that, how do you handle the 'ole "rapid fire" approach? Is it better to roll with it to the next point, or stick with one debunked claim until they admit they were mistaken?

Oh no. Don't just roll with the next point. That is how twoofs work, if you roll with it, they won't admit they are wrong. It is just dropped and they will circle back to it.

[rjh01]

You have all missed the obvious. This is not a thread, nor is it a town hall. It is a radio show and he is in charge of who has the microphone. If they start doing the tactics as per the OP then ensure that he cannot speak, then you can say what you want. Once you have finished then you can allow him back on air. When he starts making another point and ignores what you have said, cut him off permanently and say, well looks like I have successfully rebutted your arguments, lets leave those points for other listeners. Next on the line we have...


Change the above to suit your style.

[zorro99]

Why not simply ask the caller what they believe "really" happened on 9/11? Tell the caller that you want all the details - the five w's and how - about what they believe really went down, and don't let them change the subject. I'll bet dimes to donuts you'll hear dead silence.

[Furcifer]

You have all missed the obvious. This is not a thread, nor is it a town hall. It is a radio show and he is in charge of who has the microphone. If they start doing the tactics as per the OP then ensure that he cannot speak, then you can say what you want. Once you have finished then you can allow him back on air. When he starts making another point and ignores what you have said, cut him off permanently and say, well looks like I have successfully rebutted your arguments, lets leave those points for other listeners. Next on the line we have...


Change the above to suit your style.

Seconded. I'd explain the tactic to the audience while the audio is cut.

[uk_dave]

It would also be a good idea to stress that the idiot'truther' is the one with something to 'sell'. In other words, it's not up to you, the host, to defend anything or answer their questions, it up to you to ask questions of them and make sure they don't wriggle out of answering.

The 'truther' is the car salesman. They want you to buy the shiny new 'truthmobile'. You want to know why it doesn't have any wheels, there's a big pool of oil under the engine block and a funny smell coming off the back seat.

[BigAl]

I suspect that most Twoofers have never been contradicted by someone that had actual facts to present or had some relevant expertise.

One thing that I am mulling over is how to approach someone who has no knowledge of the details of 9/11 or any relevant expertise and is willing to consider both sides. I'm afraid that the avalanche of detail that we can provide is, to them, indistinguishable from the firehose of BS that comes from someone like Gage.

[Careyp74]

Here is what you do:
1. Mute the guy
2. Read aloud-"Friends, in order for us to keep the show interesting and useful, we have to agree to certain rules of discussion. We cannot expect to accomplish anything if we are just going to fire out a bunch of already debunked ideas and not let each other talk."
3. After a point is made that you don't have an answer to, admit it, and open the question up to other listeners and let them call in to argue against it. Don't act like the only source for rationality, no one knows everything and has all the answers.

[A W Smith]

I agree. as soon as he asks the question or makes his first point. mute the mic and refute it. then unmute for the second point, mute again and refute. You are making the very basic mistske of allowing the caller to dictate which direction the call in show should go. if he starts to ramble or speed talk trying to make three points in one sentence. mute him and thank the caller for calling in and refute those three points. Point out that you are not muting the caller because you have any difficulty refuting them. You just disagree that the scattergun approach is an effective way to present their points as it is not productive in a discussion. In fact the scatter-gun approach is the last bastion of a caller who cannot support their argument.

[AJM8125]

Most live brodcasts have a five second(or more) delay and a host who is on the ball can cut a mic off before anything stupid is even put on the air. I agree with the others have said, you are in control, you shouldn't think twice about cutting off the mic of someone who just wants to parrot debunked truther talking points.

And teh truth would do the same thing. Look how fast Alex Jones cut off Unsecured Coins.

Oh right, not fast enough. Sorry, carry on.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] stick with one debunked claim until they admit they were mistaken?


As others have said, this one. Additionally, before picking a point, I would bring attention to the rapid fire tactic; remind the truther that it's easier to ask questions than answer them.

[Brainster]

The other option is what I call the nuclear option. Rather than debate his mini-factoids point by point, go after his underlying premise and attack it. For example, on the Pentagon issue, most truthers present endless evidence that a Boeing did not hit the building: hole too small, lack of debris, mystery hole in the C-Ring, what about the anti-aircraft defenses on the roof, etc. Rather than answer those individually, put them on the defensive with something like, "We all agree that large jetliners hit the Twin Towers, right? So from the plotters' perspective, what would be the reason for not having a jetliner hit the Pentagon?"

Similar nuclear options can be created for all areas of 9-11 Trooferism. They are not as satisfying as debunking every little point, but they are very effective with listeners.

[jaydeehess]

"""Well apparently our caller is just asking questions. As in soley and exclusively asking questions with out any care to hear any answers.
Next caller"""

[TjW]

Scenerio: attempting call-in show, I get a truther on the line. I'm trying to be polite, but the guy starts going off, rapid-fire on me:

- the hijackers are still alive (BBC corrected this story)

- passport found outside the rubble (what was the story with this?)

- nothing hit building 7 (except a chunk of the falling towers)

etc.

Every time I attempted to debunk, or even question a point, he jumped on to another point. It was like swatting at a fly, while stuck in slow motion.

I don't want to come across as rude- many in my audience are currently "truthers" and I am trying to convert them "from the inside" if that make sense.

I also don't want to rely on censorship (i.e. drop the caller) because this usually reinforces paranoia.

There are tons of great resources here, but it is hard to read so much material while live. Has anyone made a FAQ format, with linked questions? Something that can be easily browsed?

Failing that, how do you handle the 'ole "rapid fire" approach? Is it better to roll with it to the next point, or stick with one debunked claim until they admit they were mistaken?

I suppose you could ask them if their motto is: "Ask questions, interrupt answers."
The funnier you can make it, the better. You'd like to have people laughing with you at the rude caller.

[triforcharity]

Well, using twoofer logic, you blow up the building with controlled demolition, or a missle, or space beams, or HOLOGRAMS!!!

[zaphod2016]

Thank you all for the wonderful replies. Excuse my late response- hectic week.

And just to be totally clear: this is a tiny, amateur-hour web-based show. The audience is mostly insomniacs and nutters, hence why this topic keeps popping up. I myself went hardcore CT at the start of my blog, and so I am trying to guide my (few) viewers/listeners towards the skeptical light at the end of the tunnel. I.e. "I can relate, I used to be crazy too, but check out JREF because they really don't work for the CIA, at least, not most of them"

Combining your excellent suggestions, I had an idea for a "bit" that might be interesting, entertaining and help keep the debate focused. Basically a knock-off of the "Skepticality" Podcast by "Skeptchick"

List 3 "facts" about 9/11, two false, one true (this is the tricky part)

Ask the panel to identify the "true" point, and use that as a basis for discussion. If callers go "rapid fire" just say- we'll do this bit again and address more points next show, today we're focusing on a, b and c.

Example:

Which of the following "9/11 Facts" is true?

1. According to BBC News, several of the 19 hijackers are still alive
(debunked by BBC itself when they corrected the story)

2. Marvin Bush, brother of ex-president George W. Bush, actually worked for a company responsible for the security of the World Trade Center, but resigned from that company nearly a year before the 9/11 attacks
(I believe this is true- please confirm)

3. You can see "squibs" blasting out of the sides of the towers as it is collapsing (cue: Loose Change), which is clear visual evidence that the towers were destroyed with controlled demolition.
(debunked: squibs shoot off BEFORE the collapse in a CD, so even if they were squibs, they were firing too late to be effective)

This allows me to get my facts straight before I go on the show, and focus on each claim specifically. I also like offering one "fact" (in this case #2, because it speaks to some form of compromise- not everything they believe is wrong, but they ARE missing key details, i.e. Marvin resigned a year before 9/11)

What do you guys think? Has this already been attempted? Would anyone be interested in helping write some of these with me? Perhaps they would be useful on other blogs/shows too.

EDIT: Not sure if Skeptchick roams these parts, but in case she sees this: mad proppahs to my homeslice.

[TruthersLie]

Thank you all for the wonderful replies. Excuse my late response- hectic week.

And just to be totally clear: this is a tiny, amateur-hour web-based show. The audience is mostly insomniacs and nutters, hence why this topic keeps popping up. I myself went hardcore CT at the start of my blog, and so I am trying to guide my (few) viewers/listeners towards the skeptical light at the end of the tunnel. I.e. "I can relate, I used to be crazy too, but check out JREF because they really don't work for the CIA, at least, not most of them"

Combining your excellent suggestions, I had an idea for a "bit" that might be interesting, entertaining and help keep the debate focused. Basically a knock-off of the "Skepticality" Podcast by "Skeptchick"


Well find what works for you. This would be fine and I'd love to listen in on it.



List 3 "facts" about 9/11, two false, one true (this is the tricky part)

Ask the panel to identify the "true" point, and use that as a basis for discussion. If callers go "rapid fire" just say- we'll do this bit again and address more points next show, today we're focusing on a, b and c.

Example:

Which of the following "9/11 Facts" is true?

1. According to BBC News, several of the 19 hijackers are still alive
(debunked by BBC itself when they corrected the story)

That is correct, it is based on how in the initial reports some of the names or photographs were incorrect.


2. Marvin Bush, brother of ex-president George W. Bush, actually worked for a company responsible for the security of the World Trade Center, but resigned from that company nearly a year before the 9/11 attacks
(I believe this is true- please confirm)


Umm sort of. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company called secruacom/stratasec who was PART of an upgrade for the security systems of the wtc towers. Their company was not running very well, and was in fact removed from ANY part of the upgrade a full 18 months before the attacks.

so while they were part of UPGRADING the system, they were NOT "responsible for the security."


3. You can see "squibs" blasting out of the sides of the towers as it is collapsing (cue: Loose Change), which is clear visual evidence that the towers were destroyed with controlled demolition.
(debunked: squibs shoot off BEFORE the collapse in a CD, so even if they were squibs, they were firing too late to be effective)

That is quite true. You might also want to use a simple example of a bicycle pump because it is the same principle.

And if you are going to have squibs going off.. then there would be clear and easy to identify EXPLOSIONS hear by everyone present (that is what the squib is). Also on the "squibs" They happen after the collapse initiates but what is very interesting is that they CONTINUE to spew ejecta and actually increase in volume and velocity as the collapse progresses towards them. What explosives actually increase in explosive power over several seconds?


This allows me to get my facts straight before I go on the show, and focus on each claim specifically. I also like offering one "fact" (in this case #2, because it speaks to some form of compromise- not everything they believe is wrong, but they ARE missing key details, i.e. Marvin resigned a year before 9/11)

What do you guys think? Has this already been attempted? Would anyone be interested in helping write some of these with me? Perhaps they would be useful on other blogs/shows too.

EDIT: Not sure if Skeptchick roams these parts, but in case she sees this: mad proppahs to my homeslice.

I think it would be fine... but you need to make sure of your FACTS on the correct one and be absolutely sure of it.

[tfk]

zaphod,

The situation that you describe is similar to a person who dearly believes that a stage performer is REALLY doing "magic".

A typical believer will tell you "I saw him do this, and that, and that... How'd he do that?" Along with a very, very poor description of what he really saw. Because the questioner is an absolute "stage magic amateur" and doesn't know what to look for.

As soon as you answer one question, he'll launch into another, and another, and another. It does not matter to him that one bit of "magic" after another after another gets proven purely pedestrian sleight-of-hand. There will always be one more "unexplainable" trick that PROVES that the Shyster is "real".

When trying to convince the believer that the magician isn't, it does no good to go thru the list of tricks. The person is not really paying attention anyway. It is good to give the big picture: Lots of people can do these tricks and you KNOW that those other people are stage conjurers. What makes you think that this guy is any different. Others do far more impressive tricks.

In the case of 9/11, the big picture is that there are a bunch of REALLY crazy people offering REALLY crazy theories: "attack monkeys" (Deagle), holographic planes (Ace Baker ?), Space Rays (Wood), planes flying over the Pentagon without 100 eyewitnesses noticing (Ranke & CIT), all the passengers being off-loaded to other planes, etc.

Ask them to present, uninterrupted, their one, most impressive bit of "twoof pwoof". Make them think about it, because they're going to get only one shot at this. And ask them if, in the spirit of the magicians, if you can explain their BEST trick, would they begin to entertain the possibility that the rest of the Twoofer Traveling Dog & Pony Show might be a giant Barnham & Bailey Road Show. They'll say, "Absolutely." But they won't really mean it...

Don't let them move on to any other tricks. Stay with the one they brought to the dance.

There are several analogs between the Magic show & the Twoofer show. It takes an expert (a professional magician), or at least someone familiar with the arts, to spot the strong points & the misdirections in a Shyster's tricks. The unschooled audience are lambs to the slaughter.

Similarly with 9/11 issues, it takes someone with some expertise in the fields that are discussed to be able to see the trivial "turns" in twoofer woo. (You should be familiar with the magic terms: the Pledge, the Turn & the Prestige.)

Another analogy is that, for truthers, they really, Really, REALLY do not want to be shown the tricks. They want to believe the "magic" (the conspiracy) with all their fuzzy little hearts. And they'll grasp at any reason or excuse, no matter how flimsy, to remain twue believers.

Good luck.

Tom

[Edx]

Ask them to present, uninterrupted, their one, most impressive bit of "twoof pwoof".


Good idea, you just gotta take a chance that its a subject you know enough about :) otherwise its egg on YOUR face.

[patchbunny]

Scenerio: attempting call-in show, I get a truther on the line. I'm trying to be polite, but the guy starts going off, rapid-fire on me:

- the hijackers are still alive (BBC corrected this story)

- passport found outside the rubble (what was the story with this?)

- nothing hit building 7 (except a chunk of the falling towers)

etc.

Every time I attempted to debunk, or even question a point, he jumped on to another point. It was like swatting at a fly, while stuck in slow motion.

I think in creationism circles this is known as the Gish Gallop, no?

[HeyLeroy]

Don't be afraid to come off as a bit confrontational, it makes for good radio.

[Trojan]

What radio show and do you have a 1-800 call in line? ;)

[George152]

The trouble is that generally the kooks control the show.
Coast to Coast for example

[zaphod2016]

I think it would be fine... but you need to make sure of your FACTS on the correct one and be absolutely sure of it.

Emphasis mine; hence why I'm here. :) Thanks for the correction of #2 above. This is the major challenge for me- presenting ANY 9/11 facts as true, because even the most tame are often wrong.

When trying to convince the believer that the magician isn't, it does no good to go thru the list of tricks. The person is not really paying attention anyway

I would disagree, and I think James Randi and Houdini would disagree too.

I understand entirely that most true believers are hopeless; but they aren't my focus. I think Travis posted a "5 stages of a CT" article here a few months back; I'm aiming for those not completely over the edge yet.

"twoof pwoof"

I love this phrase; mind if I steal it?

What radio show and do you have a 1-800 call in line? ;)

Check out Talkshoe (http://www.talkshoe.com)- its actually really easy (and fun) do do "your own show". If anyone here wanted to attempt a "Skeptic Chat" I'd be happy to participate. Just make sure you do it for love; very hard to actually make any money doing this.

NOTE: I'm not here to "plug", I'm here for truth. I don't own Talkshoe and that's not a referral link. I just use this service for my own show, and found it pretty neat.

The trouble is that generally the kooks control the show.
Coast to Coast for example

Mr. Noory, is that you? :)

Imagine "Alex Jones" meets "This American Life" with a healthy dose of skepticism. Worst premise ever? Or one of the worse premises ever? ;)

[nicepants]

And teh truth would do the same thing. Look how fast Alex Jones cut off Unsecured Coins.

Oh right, not fast enough. .

I didn't know he was on the AJ show.....mp3 anywhere?

(sorry for derail)

[AJM8125]

Read this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113706

Then that:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115744&highlight=RFID

I'm surprised you didn't know. Awesomest. Setup. EVAH!!

[Brainster]

Umm sort of. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company called secruacom/stratasec who was PART of an upgrade for the security systems of the wtc towers. Their company was not running very well, and was in fact removed from ANY part of the upgrade a full 18 months before the attacks.

Marvin Bush resigned from the board of Securacom/Stratesec effective June 30, 2000. Their contract had to do with electronic security. Building security was still handled by the Port Authority Police as (ironically) shown in the Oliver Stone movie World Trade Center.