Destroying a crazy conspiracy theorist....

[Tyshalle]

So I've got a guy I'm dealing with on Facebook who is a serious conspiracy theorist. 9/11 truther, that the government is going to force VeriChip tracking device implants on everyone, North American Union, et cetera. He claims that he's just trying to "open a dialogue" and "get people talking and thinking and sharing ideas," but whenever I disagree with him and semi-politely tell him that he's showing signs of being a conspiracy theorist he kind of pulls out the Logical Fallacy playbook and hits me with with every one on the big list.

Then on top of this, 90% of the "evidence" he supplies for his ideas are youtube videos from CNN and FOX News, or interviews with Ron Paul, or wikipedia entries. The other 10% consists of posting documents from .gov websites that mention things like "project echelon" and other nonsense.

In other words, the dude is a total fucking quack. The problem I'm having is that I'm the only skeptic arguing with him. Everyone else seems to agree with him, which he uses as more evidence that this is "not a conspiracy, it's current events." More bullshit, in other words.

I've mostly given up even bothering to talk to him because at this point any thing that I say to point out the enormous flaws in his argument he retorts with lines like: "I'm afraid if I keep showing you how wrong you are you'll just break down and cry." But I figure this is probably the right place to come for hobbyist destroyers of retarded people, and maybe I can get some advice on how to thoroughly destroy him.

Thoughts?

[Darth Wong]

So I've got a guy I'm dealing with on Facebook who is a serious conspiracy theorist. 9/11 truther, that the government is going to force VeriChip tracking device implants on everyone, North American Union, et cetera. He claims that he's just trying to "open a dialogue" and "get people talking and thinking and sharing ideas," but whenever I disagree with him and semi-politely tell him that he's showing signs of being a conspiracy theorist he kind of pulls out the Logical Fallacy playbook and hits me with with every one on the big list.

Then on top of this, 90% of the "evidence" he supplies for his ideas are youtube videos from CNN and FOX News, or interviews with Ron Paul, or wikipedia entries. The other 10% consists of posting documents from .gov websites that mention things like "project echelon" and other nonsense.

In other words, the dude is a total fucking quack. The problem I'm having is that I'm the only skeptic arguing with him. Everyone else seems to agree with him, which he uses as more evidence that this is "not a conspiracy, it's current events." More bullshit, in other words.

I've mostly given up even bothering to talk to him because at this point any thing that I say to point out the enormous flaws in his argument he retorts with lines like: "I'm afraid if I keep showing you how wrong you are you'll just break down and cry." But I figure this is probably the right place to come for hobbyist destroyers of retarded people, and maybe I can get some advice on how to thoroughly destroy him.

Thoughts?

Hmm. Nobody ever answered this, eh? Well, I would just say that it's often best to simply point out what someone is doing. If he tries to enrage you with needling comments like the example you gave, you should point that out instead of letting it bother you, and you should point out that he is obviously grandstanding instead of answering points.

Also, when he does horrible things like posting links to Youtube videos, rather than merely point out that it's wrong to do this, you should also point out how one would CORRECTLY justify a claim, and then challenge him to do that instead. Otherwise, casual viewers might be fooled into thinking that you're just being evasive, especially if he is rhetorically skilled.

I've found that you can usually get a significant fraction of an audience on-side as long as you keep the focus on his weaknesses instead of letting him control the direction of the conversation. Unless, of course, that entire audience is ideologically "pure" already (for example, trying to debate a creationist in front of a Bible thumper crowd; it's a waste of time).