Hey, would someone be willing to help me out? I've got a friend on Facebook that's trying to debate the Kavanaugh thing. I need some links to sources here if anyone has them.

What are the points?

"Which of the following words would you use to describe Christine ford in Thursday's hearing"

so it's hilarious that a lot of people answered no to the good shit XD

What are they attempting to demonstrate?

"so the friend you're likely talking about here is Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was at the party with her. Keyser has said that she does not remember the specific party, primarily because she did not know of the assault happening at the time. it wasn't an important event to her. BUT she has said that she DOES BELIEVE Dr. Ford and has since said that she will cooperate with an fbi investigation.
now, regarding the fbi investigation. an fbi investigation would prove the allegations' falsehood far better than the supposed "holes" in Ford's story (which, like I said, aren't there). if kavanaugh hasn't done anything, an fbi investigation would literally be one of the best ways to prove his innocence. and if Ford is lying, an fbi investigation would open her up to getting a false statement's felony. seems like a really weird thing to ask for if she's lying, and seems like a really weird thing to not ask for if kavanaugh is telling the truth."

^That's his double post

Like it's 2006

Tell him that's not the point though, quote the fact that the FBI doesn't do anything a senate judiciary hearing can't do

The fact of the matter is that an FBI hearing is simply stalling

He doesn't believe it's stalling. I'd feel safer attacking the position that Dr. Ford doesn't have holes in her story.

Because I feel like that's more defensible.

The hole in her story is that there's no story

She claim to not like flying but flies more in year than 50% of americans

and what buckshot just said

I was at X place at Y time with Z people and then A person pushed me into a room with B people and kavanaugh happened to be one of them

^ her story

All persons do not remember incident (and swore on affidavits)

except her

Another thing you can do is the equilivancy test, ask them how they'd treat it if someone accused them of murder 30 something odd years ago and demanded they be put in jail

no evidence

everyone they claim as a witness denies it

and all they have is a bunch of people saying they 'believe' them

do you think it'll hold up in court?

Kavanaugh has a god damn diary for christs sake

This situation as it is is purely hearsay. What that means is that an investigation can’t produce any additional evidence besides verbal testimonies. It is literally Brett’s word against hers.

not true

like i just said, he has a diary

if it can be proved legit

he has an alibi

Well, memories from what, 35 years ago, in a traumatic event aren't very credible. Memories are susceptible to distortion, fading, corruption. Even in therapy sessions when patients are asked to recall events, their imaginations can add things that weren't actually there. Studies also show that trauma can cause people to embellish stories, and add details that didn't happen.

AND the fact that it's a woman makes it even less believable to me personally. They tend to exaggerate shit because they're fundamentally weak and rely on guile, emotion, and the good nature of morons that are very ready to believe her

its actually 4 against one

He's bought into the line "It's just a job interview."
The hard part is, he, like an asshole responded to 3 different comments in multiple parts. So, now I have to juggle all my arguments instead of responding all at once.
I'm almost thinking about just dropping the argument.

And he waited a full 24 hours to respond. And I know he went and did exactly what I'm doing now.

@RoadtoDawn actually i have a different reason for a woman, they tend to be more flowy, so when going to the therapist the therapist could easily ask questions to influence her memories

@Mongo Jongo here's a solid article on how false memories are created: http://staff.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

whereas a man would probably think more critically of the question

If you told me i had waffles for breakfast 2 months ago i'd wonder if i really did

not assume you are correct

^

What I mean is that an investigation can’t provide any additional information than what we already have.

^