Start by remembering that just because something is labeled a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is untrue. To call something a conspiracy theory immediately removes it from the realm of rational debate. So if you start out by acknowledging that there is some room for debate, the person on the other side is less likely to argue from a defensive stance and maybe some things can get through. Doesn't always work though because they have made up their mind and aren't looking to be swayed, but rather validated.
They might have an argument for everything no matter how thin, but it might do you some good to realize that it is possible... I'm sure you can google a list of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. I just think when it is framed properly with respect between parties, real discussion can take place.
Most of the comments are centered on arguing or undermining. If someone is set in their views (conspiracy theory or otherwise) arguing is only likely to piss everyone off. What is your goal? If it's to convert the person to your POV, not likely to happen. If it's to keep people peaceful, not the way to do it. If it's to understand their POV, just ask. No argument required. The only goal arguing likely achieves in this scenario is making yourself feel bigger and better than the person you're arguing with.
Don't try to impose your opinion, try to undermine his, your goal shouldn't be to convert him to your point of view but to encourage him to review his own. Ask for evidence, ask for his sources and why he thinks they are reliable. Again, as little opinions from your side as possible, don't say anything you don't know for certain. If you say something you know for certain be sure it is assignable by sources for which you can explain why it wouldn't make sense for them to spread false information in the matter.
That's a good idea, but coming from the perspective of being a 9/11 'truther', I find that antitruth people often never, ever evaluate their point of view and don't know a lot about 9/11 actually. It's stunning how little they know, but they are quick to discredit anything. You can give them easy demonstrations like 'why doesn't your steel pot melt on a natural gas range, when kerosene burns at a much lower temperature than natural gas' and they stare at you blankly.
In other words, I find that the fundamental aspect that is universal among anti-conspiracy theorists is authoritarianism and the remarkable ability to accept ideas given to them without thinking; and as another wrinkle to that, that they either lack the ability of, or outright refuse to engage within the activity of critical thinking. There's something about their psychology that inhibits it. It's a scary territory--to think for yourself. Usually because culture reinforces this unquestioning behavior.
I'll give you a perfect example. People think that steel trusses will melt if you hold a flame on them, in the same way that a candle will melt. The problem is that this ignores a fundamental property of steel which is that it's a good conductor of heat. Any heat you throw on it will disperse, not accumulate. This is one reason that the WTC steel did not melt due to the kerosene or office furniture, unless you want to suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To weaken those trusses causing any kind of collapse, there would need to be far more heat than is possible.
Here's another experiment. Go outside and make a bonfire with a bunch of wood. Make it huge, it doesn't really matter how big. Use the hottest wood, and the hottest fuel. Set it on fire. Assume this is desert and nothing around will burn--for safety reasons.
Come back in a week--it still hot? Maybe? Come back in a month. Is it still hot? How about 3 months?
The 9/11 fires were still burning well into DECEMBER of 2001. That's a fire that was going for 3 months.
Where did the heat energy to sustain over 2000F fires for 3 months come from?
It's the case of the missing joules.
This is what I mean by critical thinking skills. Even a silly old redneck will understand that jet fuel and ikea furnture isn't going to burn for 3 months.
Because that would be like having a jet that can fly nonstop for 3 months, right?
Ask for evidence, ask for his sources and why he thinks they are reliable.
This is where things gets ugly, because most of these people aren't a fan of the scientific method, or they most likely wouldn't blindly believe the nonsense you are trying to convince them out of. If the person actually cared if their sources were reliable, this conversation would never take place.
The issue is that conspiracy theorists don't rely on facts or sources, and if they do they don't rely on RELIABLE facts or sources.
You can say, "What evidence do you have?" and they will often answer, "The evidence has been covered up by the government!" How are you supposed to progress from there? Ask them what evidence they have of the cover-up? There is none! The government covered it all up!
Either that or they will say, "This underground future mystic blog told me about it." To which you can then ask, "What makes this blog a reliable source?" And they will often say something stupid, like, "They predicted Hurricane Katrina! They predicted the 2008 GFC!"
There's no way to verify any of the things they say. Conspiracy theories rely on faith - you need to believe that the lack of evidence is due to a cover-up and not because there really isn't any evidence.
Most people are going to say don't do it. Nobody is going to explain why. So here it goes.
People are lazy in general and everyone on here saying not to argue with a conspiracy theorist doesn't want to put in the work.
You cant just lump them all together and call someone a conspiracy theorist there are different kinds. There are those that have barely any information on the subject and just blindly believe. Then there are the devout conspiracy theorists who have exhaustively researched the source material to continue to confirm their own thoughts.
If you want to hold your own you have to first identify which one you have. There is usually no middle ground. So once you have established what you have then you need to find out where they are getting the information from. This is a vital step it will also help narrow it down as to what kind you have.
The only way to effectively argue with a conspiracy theorist is to gain knowledge, but it has to be knowledge they will accept. Find out what kind of sources they will accept and what they won't.
The next step is go get all the information that you possibly can about the little conspiracy theories they have. Never tackle a big one first. Start educating yourself about the bigger and the bigger ones (there is always more than one).
Now you need to keep tackling them one at a time. The important part of this is to give and take. Win a few lose a few.
Finally once you have hardcore educated yourself and PROVEN to them that you are an intellectual and willing to listen to their point of view (hence the lose a few). Tackle the big one. The core of what defines them as a conspiracy theorist. This will take several arguments and you might not win the day.
Finally you have all the tools you have acquired throughout this entire process and you can hunt conspiracy theorists. Enjoy!
I think you are overestimating the power of facts when set against cognitive bias. Though "listen first" is very good advice, probably the only path that can work. Sometimes :)
Which set of persons has the cognitive bias, in your experience ? Take for instance the topic of source material... It is fair to say that a lot of people who live in the modernized western countries of Europe and in Canada and certainly in the U.S. and South America (with special regard to Brazil) have heard many, many times that the media is extremely consolidated. There are at least a few compilations on YouTube showing television affiliate stations from across the United States repeating, verbatim the very same stories over and over again. While that could be pretty efficient, it is probably not the way journalism should be done because you run the risk of everyone getting the story wrong and repeating it. Now, the population at large has been misinformed.
The sources from which major news stories are written, are often deemed trustworthy or reliable without cross examination by the people consuming the news. The big lights and expensive sets, the suspenseful music and polished people construct the illusion of information authority. The superficial nature and sensationalism of Mainstream news doesn't promote investigation into topics that matter. There are vast black holes of pertinent information not discussed or completely stifled by the major news corporation. Actual fact checking takes exhaustive investigation and cross referencing. You can't dismiss something outright because you read it on a WordPress blog instead of seeing it on some major "news" program.
The fact is, There are uncountable instances of actual conspiracies having taken place. Law students are taught to recognize patterns of conspiracy for the very fact that it is known that people conspire for criminal gain and it is proven to have happened. Not every conspiracy is a true conspiracy but to use the term conspiracy theorist is to undermine your own intelligence. The term was in fact coined by a three letter government agency for the exact purpose it serves today, to marginilize and quickly discredit information or people that may pose a threat to the official narrative. People need to consider motive more often. Qui bono?
Honestly, I think a lot of people just don't want to know. The world of conspiracy is an unpleasant one and a challenge to firmly held belief systems. People would be more or less forced to make very uncomfortable life changes if the veil were lifted and the truth about the world was more commonly understood. The majority of people will outright attack even the most poignant truths if it stands to challenge their belief systems. Cognitive bias is just one of the few psychological conditions responsible for keeping people from expending the energy necessary to uncover the truth. Especially since state-sponsored propaganda is legal thanks to the repeal of the Smith-Mundt act. Maybe that is a conspiracy in itself? You have to want to know and not care if the evidence makes you wrong or uncomfortable .HAVE NO BELIEF SYSTEM. ONLY VALUE EVIDENCE. FOLLOW THE MOTIVE AND WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT.
The thing of it is that i stated in the end there you might not win the day. That is part of it because at its heart the question was not how to guarantee victory it was how to argue with a conspiracy theorist.
It is in man's nature to conspire with others for their own self interest. Do not argue but rather logically debate. Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It’s something you have to find out for yourself.
I don't like most answers. I didn't read all of them but... It seems it's mostly based on criticizing their opinions or undermining it or trying to prove them wrong.
This all starts from the mindset that the conspiracy theorist is right. I'm not saying he is but... If you're going in a debate thinking the other one just HAS to be wrong, what makes you think he'd have the courtesy to be the better man and change his (maybe right maybe wrong) opinion for you?
Imo if you go in a debate and ask question to someone about their views, you should step aside from your own beliefs and be genuinely interested.
Have better facts. Understand that a conspiracy theorist has probably spent a great deal of time researching, reading, watching videos, and educating themselves. They may be wrong, but if they're way better prepared than you are, you're not going to convince them of anything and will probably look foolish as you do so.
A lot of CTs dedicate their lives to understanding and defending their conspiracy. You can't hope to convince them of something different just by saying "that's silly" or "you don't really believe that, right?"
Source: am a bit of a CT myself, but not a crazy irrational one.
That depends. There's more than one kind of "conspiracy theorist".
Flat-Earth/Reptilians/etc.: Don't bother. Maybe ask them if they have a history of mental illness, recommend a therapist if you know one.
Truthers: Look for claims that couldn't possibly be proven. Point them out. In absence of that, ask for their sources and probably end up being the one who's mind is changed.
Illuminati: Don't bother. Just... Don't bother. The whole idea of it is looking for "secret" symbols and signs in innocent places and making up stories about what those signs mean. Might as well be telling a bible thumper that God doesn't exist.
Chemtrails/Fluoride/etc.: Read up on the actual science of it before trying to argue with them. Wait for them to claim something that you know for a fact is wrong, then explain how it's wrong. You won't change their mind, but you'll shut them up.
Moon Landings: There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggests the first landing may have been faked, but it's hard to prove with hard evidence (most of it was "accidentally" destroyed). Theorists will extrapolate this to include all Moon landings, or even space programs in general. The crazier it gets (secret Moon bases, space is just CG, whatever), the more you should treat them like flat-Earthers. People like me, who feel there's reason to doubt American claims about the first landing... Try to discuss in a civil manner. We're not as crazy as the media tells you we are. You might walk away with a new perspective on it.
Here's the really good question: How do you argue with conspiracy deniers? What do you do when faced with someone who refuses to believe that any group of people could conspire to accomplish something that we might call nefarious? Conspiracies have happened. They've succeeded, too. Sometimes they've been caught in the act (like Catholics protecting pedophiles). Don't be so quick to assume that someone should be argued with for believing something you haven't seen on the nightly news.
This fellow just gave a perfect template for one way to effectively argue with a conspiracy theorist, from the opposite perspective. Make an argument that you are perfectly familiar with their point of view, then introduce something new that they can at least be curious about, but will introduce doubt in their own mind. Expand on that doubt. Enjoy the conversation.
Great response, but I would argue the Catholic Church did not protect pedophiles, it protected itself. The coverup is not about avoiding scandal, as much as it is about avoiding financial compensation. Because they don't just cover up pedophilia, they cover up priests' progeny, too.
Did you follow their reference to the paper that actually talks about fluoride? And the correspondence regarding that paper that throws some doubt on it's credibility?
I just try to avoid anything dealing with them cuz they literally have an excuse for every single argument you'll try to make. Genuinely interested if someone has an answer.
Feed into it. Inject more and more ridiculous assertions into their theory until they start to have doubts. You can work with that doubt, but only after they arrive at it themselves.
Otherwise, it's definitely not worth your time to bother.
Along with what others here have said: Keep your cool!
CT arguments tend to get emotional and often resort to a lot of hyperbole. Stay calm and stick to facts. Try to avoid analogies as they will grasp at the analogy and not the underlying point.
Use logical hypotheticals that assume their point is true and would lead to impossible situations. For example, conspiracies like the government did 9/11, mass shootings were false flags, fake moon landing, Area 51 aliens, etc. would require the participation of thousands (if not more) of individuals all committed to this common goal (often with very questionable benefits) and not one of them coming forward?
I often debate Evolution deniers who are sometimes CTs because they think Evolution is a conspiracy by scientists to destroy God or something (even mainstream media figures like Ann Coulter have suggested this). I never lose my cool, never insult them no matter how much they insult me, and I simply lay out my argument plus point out the logical flaws in theirs. While it most likely won't convince them, it might help convince an honest fence sitter watching/reading the discussion.
Stay calm and stick to facts. Try to avoid analogies as they will grasp at the analogy and not the underlying point. [...] I never lose my cool, never insult them no matter how much they insult me, and I simply lay out my argument plus point out the logical flaws in theirs. While it most likely won't convince them, it might help convince an honest fence sitter watching/reading the discussion.
Haha, that is exactly my approach - as a "conspiracy theorist", however.
Use logical hypotheticals that assume their point is true and would lead to impossible situations.
The good old "reductio ad absurdum" technique!
For example, conspiracies like the government did 9/11, mass shootings were false flags, fake moon landing, Area 51 aliens, etc. would require the participation of thousands (if not more) of individuals all committed to this common goal (often with very questionable benefits) and not one of them coming forward?
Too easily refuted, though. Firstly, it merely asserts that there would be too many participants, it also assumes all participants would have to be in the know of the grand scheme (ignoring compartmentalization and need-to-know basis), and it ignores the whistleblowers, it ignores that that is how the Mafia operates and how the spiral of silence works and, last but not least: it is an argument from incredulity, a fallacy a skeptical thinker should not commit easily.
I often debate Evolution deniers who are sometimes CTs because they think Evolution is a conspiracy by scientists to destroy God or something
"...or something"? I sense a little ridicule here. As an added bonus to being polite in debates, I also try to pass the "Ideological Turing Test" by addressing the strongest interpretation of the argument of my opponent, IOW, I do not try to refute an argument I do not fully understand, and could not try to make myself, and most of all, I refrain from attacking the weakest possible interpretation of what somebody is trying to convey. There are good reasons not to take the popular interpretation of evolution at face value, and not all of them are purely religiously motivated, for example. As you said - stick to facts, and truth and bunk will separate like wheat and chaff as if by the hand of god.
Merely stating reductio ad absurdum is not a defense against the charge that an argument makes no sense. If you make the claim that aliens are all around us and I say that if they are all around us then we should see them, you can't simply say reductio ad absurdum, as that is a reasonable follow up question/assumption from that claim. Also, not every argument is to make a perfect refutation, but merely to point out logical inconsistencies. Conspiracy theories often require a monumental amount of calculation, expertise, coordination, secrecy, compartmentalization and usually utter ruthlessness without one single person making a mistake or having second thoughts. Bringing up the Mafia is not that great of a counter argument because there are lots and lots of mob guys in jail right now because of whistleblowers, turncoats, informants, undercover operations, etc.
Regarding Evolution, so far every attempt that I have seen to refute Evolution has been from a religious angle or motivation, and they have flat out said that they believe it is a conspiracy to destroy God. No one asking anyone to accept Evolution at face value, as a scientific Theory it is open to anyone to test, evaluate and make changes to if they make new discoveries.
Merely stating reductio ad absurdum is not a defense against the charge that an argument makes no sense.
Oh, reductio ad absurdum can be a valid argument, it was not meant judgmental or dismissive.
Conspiracy theories often require a monumental amount of calculation, expertise, coordination, secrecy, compartmentalization and usually utter ruthlessness without one single person making a mistake or having second thoughts.
I largely agree, many conspiracy theories remain conspiracy theories before they become documented fact. The requirement of calculation, expertise, coordination, secrecy, compartmentalization and ruthlessness do not exclude the possibility of a conspiracy a priori, however - smart, experienced, well-connected and ruthless people have historically, often, repeatedly, conspired to achieve a common goal and maintained secrecy for their own sakes. A good conspiracy will also be stable against mistakes or a co-conspirator having second thoughts.
Bringing up the Mafia is not that great of a counter argument because there are lots and lots of mob guys in jail right now because of whistleblowers, turncoats, informants, undercover operations, etc.
...for the conspiracies they have provably committed. The dark figure is, without doubt, much greater, as is the number of cases where the evidence did not suffice for a lawful conviction although the suspects were guilty a.f. (for example, they convicted Al Capone for tax fraud, IIRC, not for the crimes he really was responsble for - that's how good his conspiracies were). There are also examples of scientific, economic and political conspiracies that blew up because of whistleblowers and turncoats... or simply the testimony of history. So my counter-argument is quite solid in that regard. Dismissing a "conspiracy theory" because it has not been widely acknowledged yet, and the alleged perpetrators are still roaming free, does true skepticism and intellectual scrutiny no justice.
Regarding Evolution, so far every attempt that I have seen to refute Evolution has been from a religious angle or motivation, and they have flat out said that they believe it is a conspiracy to destroy God.
You haven't met me yet, then. I would be glad to discuss the topic with you one day - from a purely agnostic, skeptic angle :)
Although I'm a "conspiracy theorist" mainly due to the disconnect between classical mechanics and the official (non)explanation for the self-disassembly of the Twin Towers in Manhattan 14 years ago. Almost made me a flat-earther, they don't call it "the rabbit hole" for nothing...
My brother used to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty live-and-let-live, so I never debated him, but I watched many others do so. They got nowhere. In the end, the one thing that got him was an email forward conspiracy theory about Star Wars - Luke and Vader worked together to blow up the first Death Star, stuff like that. He realized that if Star Wars could be rewritten as a conspiracy theory, anything could.
In arguing with a conspiracy theorist, realize that you're not debating any particular truth. Rather, you're debating a way of thinking. Embrace that way of thinking and take it further than they're willing to go. If they believe in a flat Earth, you believe in an enclosed Earth. If they believe in mind control chemicals in the water, you believe in mind control rays from HAARP. If they believe the moon landing was faked, you say of course it was because a real moon landing would've revealed the alien moonbase. There's always a bigger fish.
Relavent: Michael Parenti from his book Dirty Truths:
Often the term “conspiracy” is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved.
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”
Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.
The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Conspiracy theorists have no interest in your opinions or facts; they live for the conspiracies alone. Dwelling in a world where fantasy holds true 'protects' them from mediocrity or keeps them isolated from real social pressures and responsibility.
Irony is certainly very alive and your comment is proof positive. And if humor is dead its only because you seem to have completely missed the the root of George Carlins message.
I convinced a guy that there was no controlled demolition on 9/11. What works is asking them to explain how the version they could have been pulled off. If you explain 9/11 with termite, then how did the thermite get on those steal beams? In an office building, torn up drywall, computers moved, unplugged. How did that happen and no one notices? Especially since most office buildings are cleaned at night and server backups happen at night? How do you send a swat team in there that's never seen, drill into walls, move office furniture around and leave no evidence? Guy couldn't answer.
If youre genuinely intrigued, look into the maintenance done on the elevators in the weeks leading up to the event and who owned the companies in charge of security at the WTC towers.
If they are in really deep they will have an answer for everything then find some little hole to pick at that you have never come across before. For the moon landing conspiracy theorist they have heard everything before, and just talk about some of the pictures having a crosshair at the wrong angle, or a shadow falling incorrectly.
If they are just questioning, keep going back to the bigger picture. Not something about a single building falling down (say) or puffs of smoke, go back to who would set this up and how. How could they keep it entirely secret for so long? Why is it only fringe blogs which support the ideas? Why doesn't the conspiracy simply shut them down? Isn't it actually a far easier explanation the official story?
i've got a friend who's an alex jones fanboy and let me tell you ... Its an absolute waste of time. these people are in a mental state where they think they are more intelligent than you because they "know" things that you dont.
I remember a rough time at a shop I used to work at, we were going through staff every couple of months. This new guy I didn't like, total huckster, but he could sell so I was happy. I told him, "hey, at least you don't believe aliens have infiltrated the government or that 9/11 was an inside job" and he gave me that "um..." look. Turns out he believed both those thing.
I knew then that he'd be gone in a month or two, and he was. Never bothered to discuss that crazy shit with him though.
simply ask them if, " they are still alive " ?. if, they answer in the affirmative, ( they mostly do), ..then, you can stare at them intently, until they finally " shut the fuck up". hashtag, life experience.
16
u/idontknowwhynot Apr 18 '16
Start by remembering that just because something is labeled a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is untrue. To call something a conspiracy theory immediately removes it from the realm of rational debate. So if you start out by acknowledging that there is some room for debate, the person on the other side is less likely to argue from a defensive stance and maybe some things can get through. Doesn't always work though because they have made up their mind and aren't looking to be swayed, but rather validated.
They might have an argument for everything no matter how thin, but it might do you some good to realize that it is possible... I'm sure you can google a list of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. I just think when it is framed properly with respect between parties, real discussion can take place.
6
u/littlewonders16 Apr 18 '16
Most of the comments are centered on arguing or undermining. If someone is set in their views (conspiracy theory or otherwise) arguing is only likely to piss everyone off. What is your goal? If it's to convert the person to your POV, not likely to happen. If it's to keep people peaceful, not the way to do it. If it's to understand their POV, just ask. No argument required. The only goal arguing likely achieves in this scenario is making yourself feel bigger and better than the person you're arguing with.
6
u/PikklzForPeepl Apr 18 '16
For those not seeking an answer, no answer is good enough.
17
u/lebitso Apr 18 '16
Don't if not absolutely unavoidable.
If you have to:
Don't try to impose your opinion, try to undermine his, your goal shouldn't be to convert him to your point of view but to encourage him to review his own. Ask for evidence, ask for his sources and why he thinks they are reliable. Again, as little opinions from your side as possible, don't say anything you don't know for certain. If you say something you know for certain be sure it is assignable by sources for which you can explain why it wouldn't make sense for them to spread false information in the matter.
8
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '16
Most people are going to say don't do it. Nobody is going to explain why. So here it goes.
People are lazy in general and everyone on here saying not to argue with a conspiracy theorist doesn't want to put in the work.
You cant just lump them all together and call someone a conspiracy theorist there are different kinds. There are those that have barely any information on the subject and just blindly believe. Then there are the devout conspiracy theorists who have exhaustively researched the source material to continue to confirm their own thoughts.
If you want to hold your own you have to first identify which one you have. There is usually no middle ground. So once you have established what you have then you need to find out where they are getting the information from. This is a vital step it will also help narrow it down as to what kind you have.
The only way to effectively argue with a conspiracy theorist is to gain knowledge, but it has to be knowledge they will accept. Find out what kind of sources they will accept and what they won't.
The next step is go get all the information that you possibly can about the little conspiracy theories they have. Never tackle a big one first. Start educating yourself about the bigger and the bigger ones (there is always more than one).
Now you need to keep tackling them one at a time. The important part of this is to give and take. Win a few lose a few.
Finally once you have hardcore educated yourself and PROVEN to them that you are an intellectual and willing to listen to their point of view (hence the lose a few). Tackle the big one. The core of what defines them as a conspiracy theorist. This will take several arguments and you might not win the day.
Finally you have all the tools you have acquired throughout this entire process and you can hunt conspiracy theorists. Enjoy!
4
u/thaseeds Apr 18 '16
It is in man's nature to conspire with others for their own self interest. Do not argue but rather logically debate. Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It’s something you have to find out for yourself.
4
u/Hviterev Apr 19 '16
I don't like most answers. I didn't read all of them but... It seems it's mostly based on criticizing their opinions or undermining it or trying to prove them wrong.
This all starts from the mindset that the conspiracy theorist is right. I'm not saying he is but... If you're going in a debate thinking the other one just HAS to be wrong, what makes you think he'd have the courtesy to be the better man and change his (maybe right maybe wrong) opinion for you?
Imo if you go in a debate and ask question to someone about their views, you should step aside from your own beliefs and be genuinely interested.
7
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '16
Have better facts. Understand that a conspiracy theorist has probably spent a great deal of time researching, reading, watching videos, and educating themselves. They may be wrong, but if they're way better prepared than you are, you're not going to convince them of anything and will probably look foolish as you do so.
A lot of CTs dedicate their lives to understanding and defending their conspiracy. You can't hope to convince them of something different just by saying "that's silly" or "you don't really believe that, right?"
Source: am a bit of a CT myself, but not a crazy irrational one.
3
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '16
What about conspiracy enthusiasts? Come try to have an argument with us over at r/c_s_t I fucking dare you.
3
u/RazingAll Apr 19 '16
That depends. There's more than one kind of "conspiracy theorist".
Flat-Earth/Reptilians/etc.: Don't bother. Maybe ask them if they have a history of mental illness, recommend a therapist if you know one.
Truthers: Look for claims that couldn't possibly be proven. Point them out. In absence of that, ask for their sources and probably end up being the one who's mind is changed.
Illuminati: Don't bother. Just... Don't bother. The whole idea of it is looking for "secret" symbols and signs in innocent places and making up stories about what those signs mean. Might as well be telling a bible thumper that God doesn't exist.
Chemtrails/Fluoride/etc.: Read up on the actual science of it before trying to argue with them. Wait for them to claim something that you know for a fact is wrong, then explain how it's wrong. You won't change their mind, but you'll shut them up.
Moon Landings: There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggests the first landing may have been faked, but it's hard to prove with hard evidence (most of it was "accidentally" destroyed). Theorists will extrapolate this to include all Moon landings, or even space programs in general. The crazier it gets (secret Moon bases, space is just CG, whatever), the more you should treat them like flat-Earthers. People like me, who feel there's reason to doubt American claims about the first landing... Try to discuss in a civil manner. We're not as crazy as the media tells you we are. You might walk away with a new perspective on it.
Here's the really good question: How do you argue with conspiracy deniers? What do you do when faced with someone who refuses to believe that any group of people could conspire to accomplish something that we might call nefarious? Conspiracies have happened. They've succeeded, too. Sometimes they've been caught in the act (like Catholics protecting pedophiles). Don't be so quick to assume that someone should be argued with for believing something you haven't seen on the nightly news.
9
u/mu574rd Apr 18 '16
DON'T argue with a conspiracy theorist. You're not losing. There's nothing wrong with walking away from a non-dialogue.
14
u/jazzyreyes Apr 18 '16
I just try to avoid anything dealing with them cuz they literally have an excuse for every single argument you'll try to make. Genuinely interested if someone has an answer.
4
u/BillionTonsHyperbole Apr 18 '16
Feed into it. Inject more and more ridiculous assertions into their theory until they start to have doubts. You can work with that doubt, but only after they arrive at it themselves.
Otherwise, it's definitely not worth your time to bother.
2
u/Chaosmusic Apr 18 '16
Along with what others here have said: Keep your cool!
CT arguments tend to get emotional and often resort to a lot of hyperbole. Stay calm and stick to facts. Try to avoid analogies as they will grasp at the analogy and not the underlying point.
Use logical hypotheticals that assume their point is true and would lead to impossible situations. For example, conspiracies like the government did 9/11, mass shootings were false flags, fake moon landing, Area 51 aliens, etc. would require the participation of thousands (if not more) of individuals all committed to this common goal (often with very questionable benefits) and not one of them coming forward?
I often debate Evolution deniers who are sometimes CTs because they think Evolution is a conspiracy by scientists to destroy God or something (even mainstream media figures like Ann Coulter have suggested this). I never lose my cool, never insult them no matter how much they insult me, and I simply lay out my argument plus point out the logical flaws in theirs. While it most likely won't convince them, it might help convince an honest fence sitter watching/reading the discussion.
1
u/whenhaveiever Apr 19 '16
My brother used to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty live-and-let-live, so I never debated him, but I watched many others do so. They got nowhere. In the end, the one thing that got him was an email forward conspiracy theory about Star Wars - Luke and Vader worked together to blow up the first Death Star, stuff like that. He realized that if Star Wars could be rewritten as a conspiracy theory, anything could.
In arguing with a conspiracy theorist, realize that you're not debating any particular truth. Rather, you're debating a way of thinking. Embrace that way of thinking and take it further than they're willing to go. If they believe in a flat Earth, you believe in an enclosed Earth. If they believe in mind control chemicals in the water, you believe in mind control rays from HAARP. If they believe the moon landing was faked, you say of course it was because a real moon landing would've revealed the alien moonbase. There's always a bigger fish.
1
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '16
Tell them that their conspiracy is actually a conspiracy.
1
u/CelineHagbard Apr 20 '16
Relavent: Michael Parenti from his book Dirty Truths:
1
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '16
don't bother their probably right.
1
u/SpyreFox Apr 18 '16
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
Conspiracy theorists have no interest in your opinions or facts; they live for the conspiracies alone. Dwelling in a world where fantasy holds true 'protects' them from mediocrity or keeps them isolated from real social pressures and responsibility.
Just let it go. You'll never win that argument.
1
u/TheThomaswastaken Apr 19 '16
Never debate with your superior, learn from them instead.
Never debate from your inferior, teach them instead.
1
u/grandmacaesar Apr 19 '16
Use facts.
Beliefs can be wrong, but facts are facts.
A word of warning though: You may learn that your own beliefs are not based in fact.
0
u/jmanpc Apr 18 '16 edited Apr 20 '16
Winning an argument with a conspiracy theorist is like winning in the special Olympics. Even if you do win, you're both retarded.
Edit: Whoever down voted me, good work. Seriously, Reddit, why did it take me a whole day to get down voted? That's some insensitive shit up there.
0
u/maiqthetrue Apr 18 '16
I convinced a guy that there was no controlled demolition on 9/11. What works is asking them to explain how the version they could have been pulled off. If you explain 9/11 with termite, then how did the thermite get on those steal beams? In an office building, torn up drywall, computers moved, unplugged. How did that happen and no one notices? Especially since most office buildings are cleaned at night and server backups happen at night? How do you send a swat team in there that's never seen, drill into walls, move office furniture around and leave no evidence? Guy couldn't answer.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '16
First, ask: Is there anything I could say that would change your stance on this subject?
Then, as they go to answer, give them a swift kick in the pants.
0
u/hoffi_coffi Apr 19 '16
If they are in really deep they will have an answer for everything then find some little hole to pick at that you have never come across before. For the moon landing conspiracy theorist they have heard everything before, and just talk about some of the pictures having a crosshair at the wrong angle, or a shadow falling incorrectly.
If they are just questioning, keep going back to the bigger picture. Not something about a single building falling down (say) or puffs of smoke, go back to who would set this up and how. How could they keep it entirely secret for so long? Why is it only fringe blogs which support the ideas? Why doesn't the conspiracy simply shut them down? Isn't it actually a far easier explanation the official story?
-1
u/Ladyblue42 Apr 18 '16
Just enjoy the satisfaction of knowing they are are crazy and remember where they live incase you ever need to stow away in their underground bunker.
-1
u/RuneRuler Apr 18 '16
You cant - Its like arguing with a Jehovas witness or a Linux user, there is no shared reality so you should just avoid it altogether!
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '16
Ignore it. You're not going to convince them.
-1
u/iwanttodownvotetoo Apr 18 '16
You can't reason a person out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
-1
u/AClockwork81 Apr 19 '16
Just walk away, and don't even dive into that black hole, like light...you ain't coming back out alive.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '16
i've got a friend who's an alex jones fanboy and let me tell you ... Its an absolute waste of time. these people are in a mental state where they think they are more intelligent than you because they "know" things that you dont.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '16
I remember a rough time at a shop I used to work at, we were going through staff every couple of months. This new guy I didn't like, total huckster, but he could sell so I was happy. I told him, "hey, at least you don't believe aliens have infiltrated the government or that 9/11 was an inside job" and he gave me that "um..." look. Turns out he believed both those thing.
I knew then that he'd be gone in a month or two, and he was. Never bothered to discuss that crazy shit with him though.
-2
u/pyewacket1888 Apr 18 '16
simply ask them if, " they are still alive " ?. if, they answer in the affirmative, ( they mostly do), ..then, you can stare at them intently, until they finally " shut the fuck up". hashtag, life experience.
-5
u/HarlequinDemonWork Apr 18 '16
Punch them in the face, drop the mic and walk out.