It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is interesting to me that people will buy anything that claims to "debunk a conspiracy theory".
The public has been conditioned to accept rhetoric as long as it is disguised as skepticism and as long as it is presented in a humorous fashion and supported with fallacious ad hominem arguments.
It is far easier, and more reliable, to call into question the theorist himself or herself.
The Dunning Kruger effect picks up the slack here. Since most people are not smart, they cannot tell who is actually smart from who claims to be smart.
Call someone dumb, then throw out a lot of big words and links to things you've never even visited... and you will convince the majority.
So, I have a question. What makes someone qualified to be a "debunker"? What education does it require? What experience does one need to "debunk"?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The onus is on the presenter to prove their position. If they can not, it's debunked. If they can, then the onus is on the debunker to show why the evidence presented is wrong.
originally posted by: misterz
Not the better argument.
The more natural argument that feels easier to accept.
Feels easier to accept because it seems like "everybody agrees with this".
Feels easier to accept because "only crazy people don't believe this".
Humans are emotional creatures.
Politicians know this.
Leaders know this.
All those in power know this.
A good argument cannot compete with fear.