unfortunately having the correct position has no correlation with rhetorical skill. people that have valid skepticism of [many things] generally get bulldozed because they dont take the right verbal approach. ur, validly, pointing to unknowns. u dont need to prove specifics [...]
so someone comes along and says, why wont you just let brian hold your money. youre saying hes stealing money right now? prove it. prove that he is stealing peoples money. you have literally no evidence or data to support that. and, maybe you dont, so it looks like you lose.
in this situation, all u need to do is prove that being skeptical or untrustworthy of brian is a valid position. thats it. the specifics literally dont matter at all. maybe he is stealing peoples money, maybe he isnt. u only have to show that its logical to not blindly trust him.
i see over and over and over literally hundreds of times in totally completely unrelated fields and cases people lose arguments like this because you let the other person suck you into attempting to prove the unknown. which you cant. its unknown. thats what ur whole case rests on
if my uncle is not worthy of total complete trust, i dont need to prove anything specific about anything he is doing in any specific case. its literally completely and totally irrelevant. the fact that he isnt worthy of complete trust, if i can prove that, validates skepticism.
just consider that if u get into arguments about this kind of thing with people or if they get in your face about it. do not get sucked into minutia. its a bigger picture. your skepticism is valid. just focus on that. is skepticism valid here. if it is, game over, thats the point
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
