The Conspiracy Theory Handbook
One tactic I&#x27;ve found that works (with people I know): From the outset, insist on<p>1. <i>answers</i> and not <i>questions</i>.<p>2. <i>positive evidence</i>, and not hypotheses.<p>For the first, that means that statements like &quot;Don&#x27;t you think it&#x27;s strange...?&quot; statements are not permitted. Generally, conspiracy theorists won&#x27;t provide answers, they will merely provide doubt to demonstrate a gap in your understanding, and then will happily try to fill the gap with a plausible (but usually wrong) theory.<p>It will start with &quot;Don&#x27;t you think it&#x27;s strange&#x2F;unlikely...?&quot; regarding some aspect of the official narrative, and then follow with statements like &quot;The only way it could make sense is if ...&quot;<p>I point out that while he may have a compelling hypothesis, he didn&#x27;t point to any proof of his hypothesis whatsoever. They are <i>much</i> more likely to point out absence of proof in parts of the official narratives, so use this same strategy with them. <i>Positive</i> proof means something actually demonstrated, not inferred.<p>It works really well. Most of them will fail right at step 1: &quot;You&#x27;ve asked a lot of reasonable questions, but have not provided any proof for your theory.&quot;<p>Providing proof is <i>hard</i>. Coming up with ideas is <i>easy</i>.<p>Not sure if it&#x27;ll work with random people though. It may have worked only because I know these people personally.<p>Edit: One more important tactic. Most of them rely on the &quot;If you&#x27;re wrong I must be right!&quot; strategy[0] (or rather, they fall for it). So be very open to accepting that the official narrative is wrong. Say (sincerely) &quot;I can believe the official narrative is problematic or even wrong, but I&#x27;m not sure I see a reason your narrative is correct. It&#x27;s quite possible the true explanation is something else entirely.&quot;<p>[0] See the movie <i>Thank You For Smoking</i> for a good reference to this.