Got called out for my 'flat earth' argument style and it stung

Honestly, I was in a debate about the moon landing last month, and this guy straight up told me my whole approach was trash. He said, 'You're just listing things you think are weird, you're not building a case.' Tbh, it really got under my skin for a few days. I went back and watched the recording, and ngl, he was right. I was just throwing out random 'anomalies' like flag movement and shadows without connecting them to a bigger point. So I changed my whole method. Now, before I post anything, I force myself to write down one clear claim and find at least three solid pieces of evidence that directly support it, not just stuff that seems odd. It's way harder, but my arguments don't get shredded in two seconds anymore. Has anyone else had to completely rebuild how they debate after getting some harsh truth?

3 comments

Log in to join the discussion

Log In

3 Comments

johnb956mo ago

Feel like that guy missed the point though. Sometimes the weird stuff is the whole case. If ten things about a story don't add up, that's the argument right there. You don't always need one big claim, you just need a pile of stuff that makes the official story seem shaky. Like with the moon landing, if the flag moves and the shadows are wrong and the radiation should have killed them, maybe the problem is you're looking at a studio. The little things can be enough.

8

sarah2686mo ago

Exactly. The details are the story.

2

jenny_jackson3mo ago

Read a piece in Skeptical Inquirer once that broke down the whole moon landing flag thing. It just fluttered from the astronauts touching the pole, same as any flag would in a vacuum with no air resistance.

3