You will never win an argument against a chemtard

I know that I am wasting my time. It's just a fact that you will never win an argument against a chemtard. They will come up with the most preposterous, unscientific and even effortless banter in order to prove chemtrails are not a hoax. However, to call it time-wasting is perhaps the wrong expression. It actually is quiet funny to attempt to burst their bubble. Mainly because their excuses are incredibly retarded and funny at the same time, but also due to their ability to counter your arguments with useless banter. If you like winning arguments without winning the discussion itself, you will really like having discussions with these people. It is actually a skill to pull the most ridiculous reasons for phenomena out of your arse. For that I have to give them some credit.

An example of a comment from someone who is really eager to explain his position:

mmakshak

+Kyong Chinpao This is actually a good response!  I don't agree with the premise that hearing weird things(science fiction would be a good example.  Some of it actually came true.) interferes with learning.  In fact, weird things might cause someone to really investigate things.  It may pique their interest.  I would suggest that "scientists" observe things a little more, and the chemtrailers might lead them to that.  What if the increase in con/chemtrails is due to the earth tilting on its axis, making our atmosphere change in some way, and not due to more air traffic(an automatic assumption by the way)?

"what if"
You know he will pull something out of his arse.

"more air traffic(...)assumption"

Hmm, yeah. Probably more than an assumption.

"earth tilting on its axis, making our atmosphere change in some way"

And meteorology explained in a short phrase by a chemtard.

weird things(science fiction would be a good example...)

Yeah... Such a typical irrational statement. Not realising more science fiction turned out to be untrue.

Chemtard update:

mmakshak

+Kyong Chinpao I have looked up some contrail sites due to people against the belief of chemtrails pointing them out to me.  Is that learning?  I did find out there are many more qualified people talking about this stuff, than I could ever hope to be.  I know you like to bash the people who disagree with you.  I would suggest that anyone trying to improve things in any way, is, at least, doing something(whether you agree with what they are doing or not). 

 

He knows I like to bash people who disagree. Who doesn't? I mean, I would evaluate their position but if I am right, then of course I'd like to bash people. At least I am actually evaluating their position. That is more than we can expect from them. If they would, they wouldn't be here. Oh yeah, he also admitted that members of the contrail site where much more qualified than he is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyong Chinpao

 

+mmakshak "I have looked up some contrail sites due to people against the belief of chemtrails pointing them out to me.  Is that learning?  I did find out there are many more qualified people talking about this stuff, than I could ever hope to be."

On those sites you've found people that are more qualified to talk about these themes. If you do not have the merit to understand the explanations posted there, then what makes you go around promoting awareness of a hoax?

Let me keep it short by using an analogy:
If you have to fix an engine problem of your car and have no idea of its mechanics, do you think you should: 1. do it anyway because you think you might make a difference (even though the difference you are making could potentially make things worse); 2. trust people who are educated in the field.

If you do not have the means or the capacity to evaluate a theory, i.e. whether it is plausible or not, then you should trust the scientific consensus (if there is one). You feel the need to defend your position, which means that your ego is suffering under the obvious defeat you are facing. You have said: 1. a lot of people are better educated; 2. you are to lazy to be active in politics.

What do you think you are achieving with this hoax?