There is a legal principle that if a statement is wrong in part, it is wrong in the whole. That is, logically speaking, a good maxim for single arguments. For example if I say 2+1 = 4, then you can know that my equation of (2+1)x(3+4)=28 was solved incorrectly.

However, this maxim of “wrong in part, wrong in whole” does not apply for separate arguments. If in separate debate I say 3x3=9, you can’t use as proof that 3*3 =/= 9 because I had said 2+1=4. Doing so is called the “genetic fallacy”.

Now, that I have made clear the issue with simple examples, let us expand the topic to conspiracy theories. And there are a lot of them, aren’t there?

Bigfoot and cryptids; Freemasonry; Rothschilds and Jew banking stuff; Holocaust; Alien abductions; Election theft; Hitler escaped to Argentina; Weather control; Covid; Fluoride; Various shades of 9/11 from inside job to controlled demo; moon landing was fake; Flat earth; Kennedy was killed by the CIA; Etc. etc. etc.

If someone on the board thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, but say, NOT a controlled demolition, one should debate 9/11 data with the person. Here is where if you can show someone’s theory is wrong in part, then more likely than not it is wrong in whole.

But what happens if someone agrees with you that 9/11 was a controlled demo, but thinks that the moon landing was not faked? Here, because they are separate topics, using someone’s belief that the moon landing happened has zero weight on if 9/11 was a controlled demo.

In fact, you look like a fucking moron for saying to someone who thinks that aliens abductions occur (when you don’t) that their take on covid as a depopulation scheme is wrong only because of their take on aliens. Whinny soy boy faggots will disregard Joe Rogan saying the sky is blue because it came from Joe Rogan. How about skeptically looking up at the sky after hearing such, or at a minimum, not engaging if you aren’t sure. If you are not well informed on a topic, nothing prevents you from not debating it.

You should take each topic INDIVIDUALLY. I know people who are the “right side” of things on most issues (at least to me) but who think Freemasonry is just a club for guys to get together, with nothing sinister at all. While Freemasonry is evil, I am not going to throw out data the guy presents on covid because he says his uncle is a Freemason and that it just a social club; I take his data on covid and evaluate it as it relates to covid. Likewise I have a friend who thinks that 6 million Jews were gassed and that covid tyranny is a lead up to this happening again. Avoid bullshit purity tests and take the guy’s support fighting covid tyranny and debate the Holocaust separate. Ya dig?

There is, perhaps, one exception to this rule about weighing evidence for each topic separate...if you are making the case that the conspiracies are linked. Then you debate the linkage: is it the FBI, the Deep State, or your own take that Obama is pulling the strings. But that is not what is happening on this board. Instead you get bullshit purity tests. Let me tell you, mon ami, nobody on earth will align with ALL your views unless that person is in the mirror.

So, in sum, debate each topic separately, don’t assume because they disagree with you in X that their opinion is invalid on Y.