, so the main audience for your arguments is actually the rest of any onlooking group — and particularly the 27% who are hesitant about vaccination.
The point of your discussion is to empower the members of the audience with knowledge and arguments.
. Rather than fighting false facts, the better option is to enable people to spot misinformation before it percolates through society and becomes "endemic" as an accepted truth.advocates triggering a mental "immune response" to fake news. To do so we need preemptive exposure to weakened versions of the manipulative strategies used by peddlers of false facts. In so doing we can inoculate against, or "prebunk", the misinformation.
For example, once you realize that some social media users, publications, and other bodies can have hidden agendas and may therefore misrepresent studies and cherry-pick information, you are better placed to assess the facts for yourself. Indeed, theIn my opinion the excellent BBC Radio 4 program "In the midst of a debate it is probably too late to deploy any prebunking tactics. But be careful about launching into a myth-busting monologue.
But if in the course of the conversation some misinformation does get a mention you will need to call it out. Let's imagine you are in the midst of a debate about COVID-19 and someone makes the claim that the
ConversationUS 😲Microstrategy adds $50 million worth of BITCOIN to their $425mil they already bought! 👉ALSO, Paul Tudor Jones thinks BITCOIN price should be much higher and is like jumping into an internet company in 1999 (eg. Amazon!) BITCOIN IS A JUICY PEACH! 🍑
ConversationUS example: media smeared all cheep medical antiviral meds, many used for decades having positive results. The vax, though no Coronavirus vax has ever work with such efficiency, experimentally effects RNA, will be rolled out with tracking tech making huge profit for big pharma