At this point, it’s important that the deconstructed argument is a faithful rendition of the original claim. You don’t want to construct a straw man that is a weakened version of the original claim, making it easier to debunk. Instead, you want to build a “steel man” version of the original claim—as strong an argument as possible.
Not that I disagree, but this is why the lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
Don’t feed the trolls. This is part of the old internet knowledge that was lost.
Engaging bad faith actors does nothing but draw attention. If you have to engage, mock them. Never, ever treat them like they are serous and have a legitimate position that requires a counter argument.
Source looks good :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Inquirer
(so I will read and will come back …)Long & nice read … see also : crankyuncle.com
I missed that the link was on skeptical inquirer. The cranky uncle people are at https://skepticalscience.com/
They are both pretty good, but the skeptical science page was the actual one I was meaning to refer to.
That source is super for climate science. They’ve been my go to for ages and they keep up on the misinformation claims and thoroughly refute them clearly and completely.
