Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to “bread” in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren’t satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?
I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you’d find more success in just saying something like “this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don’t you think?”, or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.
I wanted to apply maximum pressure, because they already said everything I needed to prove my point