Hallmarks of Debating a Conspiracy Theorist


So, a recent string of rather horribly mind number conversations have prompted me to break down what you should expect to see when debating with a conspiracy theorist. These should help you to figure out exactly the type of person your speaking with, and avoid using big words accordingly.

1. Oh ya! But this YouTube video/blog says that the president really is a lizard person!

I think this one is self explanatory. They ALWAYS have a blog, documentary, or YouTube video. These always involve opinion. There are great blogs out there (like this one) that do cite evidence. These rarely do.

2. I’m just asking questions!

They’re always just asking questions. The problem is that they already have a conclusion. They’re pulling creationist tactics. They’re trying to instill doubt in the story of what actually happened, then they use that doubt to say “See! That PROVES I’m right.” No, no that doesn’t prove anything. It only proves that you don’t believe what actually happened. To prove a conspiracy, you need evidence of one.

3. That evidence is good! It must be part of the conspiracy!

They will typically incorporate any contrary evidence into the conspiracy. This causes an even larger problem. It makes the conspiracy grow so big so as to be unwieldy. The more you bring into the conspiracy, the more people need to be involved, the more intricate it has to be, the less likely a conspiracy exists. Actually, this gets even better. In a conversation I had recently, the person took a correction of the facts I had given her that morning, and incorporated it into her conspiracy theory when she was arguing with someone else!

4. Ignoring a request for evidence.

This is by far the most common thing you’ll run into. They make an assertion. You ask for evidence. They ignore your request and make a completely different assertion.

5. Sheeple

Anytime someone uses this word in debate, they’re pretty much an idiot. You can comfortably ignore them, as they will add nothing of value to your life.

So, this is the quick and dirty version, but it should give you a good idea of what to expect when debating the insane.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.


5 thoughts on “Hallmarks of Debating a Conspiracy Theorist

  1. You should definitely read Jon Ronson’s “Them.” It is an excellent, and hilarious look into the world of conspiracy theorists.

      • Yes, their approach kinda backwards and their conclusion will remain the same after they compile evidence.
        You inspired me to write a post about it. I am a horrible writer and I do not engage in these type of writings, although I find it very entertaining and hilarious. I do remain skeptical of the term conspiracy theory and the government as well as conspiracy theorists, not mention religion ideology.

Unleash your input

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s