Winter Patriot Community Blog

Below is a short 2 min video from RT. It shows RT's White House correspondent, Gayane Chichakyan, and Associated Press' Matt Lee questioning the current spokeswoman for the White House, Elizabeth Trudeau. What you will see is two reasonable people appealing to the reason of a third person who is incapable of being reasonable. Even if she is not a psychopath, she represents the White House Administration which is demonstrably psychopathic. So appealing to reason is a lost cause.

If you are playing a game of tennis and your opponent hits the ball out of court, the point is not up for discussion; it is either 'in' or 'out' by virtue of the facts. It is not an occasion for determining the facts via consensus agreement. The spokeswoman hit the ball out of the court and Chichakyan and Lee questioned the spokeswoman in an attempt to get her to agree with them on the facts. Mistake!

They should not have been asking questions at all but rather declaring the proposed assertion that Russia had bombed a Syrian hospital as unsubstantiated and therefore invalid; of no credibility and declared that the end of the discussion.

How could they have done that?

It is a universally accepted maxim in debate, logic or rhetoric that if someone makes an assertion, then the 'onus of proof' is upon them. If there is no proof provided, or evidence at least, then the assertion has no substance or credibility and therefore can and should be dismissed.

One of the reasons this is so is because your opponent can make up imaginary scenarios all day long and they gain some credibility in the eyes of the audience provided they can make it look like there is some truth on both sides. This is achieved by continuing the dispute which necessarily needs the co-operation of the other side. The trick is to get your audience to defend the opposite view so the person making the assertion is relieved of defending their case. In this way, the deceivers reverse the onus of proof.

Credibility is gained by the deceivers because the vast majority of people believe (falsely) that, in a dispute, the 'truth' lies somewhere in between the two arguments. This is very often not the case and when one of the disputing parties is a psychopath, it is almost always not the case; the truth is entirely on one side.

So by asking questions and even providing evidence of the contrary, as Chichakyan did, she and Lee unwittingly gave the White House some credibility. They provided the other side of the argument so now we have a contest. Matt Lee did hit on the essential flaw in the spokeswoman's assertion (no evidence provided) but phrased it as a question instead of as a statement. This allowed the 'contest' to continue when it should have been declared, "No contest!" Or, "Game over. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ball boys"!

He asked, "Isn't it incumbent upon you to come up with some . . . even a location . . . ?"
He should have declared instead, "You are making a very serious assertion. The burden of proof is incumbent upon you. Without any evidence from you, your assertion must be dismissed because it has no substance". End of discussion.

Of course, in practise, when dealing with psychopaths or their mouthpieces, you can expect them to keep repeating their baseless assertion. In that case, the correct strategy is to keep repeating that their claim is without supporting evidence and therefore is without substance and unworthy of further consideration because the onus of proof is upon them.

Matt Lee made another tactical mistake in that he asked two questions at once. The mouthpiece answered the easier one and gave him a victory but in doing so dodged the more dangerous bullet; the question regarding the onus of proof. Again, it should have been in the form of a self-evident statement rather than a question. The question allows the 'contest' to continue, whereas a statement declares, "no contest".

When talking to or corresponding with a hostile opponent, always only ask one question at a time and repeat it till it is answered. This is called 'playing broken record'. That way, if the question is repeatedly not answered, it is far more obvious and far more damning.

View on YouTube