> Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.

You're the one who chopped it up. Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say he knew where it was going? All I see is speculation.

Even better, tell me why Snowden's leaks didn't say anything about this super illegal program Binney said was going on because of what he speculated so hard?

Even better, tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.

Even better, tell me why nobody is suing the government over Binney's speculation.

> Procedurally dismissed

Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected, so they have no harm to sue over. That's the point, and that's what Snowden's docs proved.

Why do you claim to believe something because of Snowden's documents that is directly contradicted by Snowden's documents? Or are you quietly dropping your claim that Snowden's documents support your conspiracy theory and are now falling back entirely on the lunatic ravings of a middle manager who hasn't worked at the NSA in decades, which aren't supported by any of the leaks that have happened since?

> You're the one who chopped it up.

> Or are you quietly dropping your claim

Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not. I also recognize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO when so transparently employed. As will others.

> Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected

You ask a question, then demonstrate your own misunderstanding or attempt to misconstrue. The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto. The court documents also clearly state that there was no finding on the specific claims presented. Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.

> Why do you claim

An attempt to reframe primary sources as personal claims. A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_device

I was bored, so asked ChatGPT to do the work of explaing the rest of the rhetorical techniques you've employed to avoid good faith engagement with the well cited references already posted, for the benefit of future readers. Did it miss any?:

1) Framing the opponent as dishonest or incompetent

“You’re the one who chopped it up.”

Accusation of quote-mining / context stripping: sets the frame that the other person manipulated evidence.

Preemptive credibility attack: before addressing substance, it suggests bad faith or sloppy method.

“Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say…”

Shifting the debate to textual forensics: forces the opponent into a narrow “show me the exact words” standard.

This can be legitimate (precision matters), but it’s also a way to raise the evidentiary bar selectively—especially if the commenter won’t apply the same strictness to their own claims later.

“All I see is speculation.”

Dismissal / summary judgment: compresses the opponent’s argument into a weaker category (“speculation”) without showing why.

Poisoning the well (light): primes readers to see anything else as guesswork.

2) The “Even better” ladder: rhetorical escalation and pressure

The repeated “Even better, tell me why…” is doing several things at once:

Anaphora / repetition: rhythmic repetition to build momentum and signal “I’m stacking wins.”

Escalation framing: implies each new point is more devastating than the last.

Interrogative dominance: it’s a mini cross-examination—multiple demands in a row that keep the other side on defense.

Soft gish-gallop: not a huge flood of claims, but a cascade of questions that can be time-consuming to answer carefully.

3) Arguments from silence + appeals to institutions

“tell me why Snowden’s leaks didn’t say anything about this… program”

Argument from silence: “If it were real/important, the leaks would mention it.”

Strategic burden shift: instead of proving nonexistence, it demands the opponent explain an absence.

This can be relevant sometimes, but it’s logically weak unless you establish that the leaks were comprehensive and would necessarily include it.

“tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.”

Appeal to authority (institutional): “Serious claims would be validated by official bodies.”

Appeal to popularity/consensus (elite bandwagon): “If the right people believed it, you’d know.”

Status-quo bias: assumes institutional response is a reliable truth filter.

“tell me why nobody is suing the government…”

Argument from non-action: “If it were true, someone would sue.”

Legalistic appeal: equates “no successful litigation” (or “no litigation at all”) with “no underlying wrong.”

This can also be a false proxy: lawsuits depend on standing, resources, risk, secrecy barriers, arbitration, privilege doctrines, etc.

4) Tone and ridicule as persuasion

“super illegal program” and “speculated so hard”

Sarcasm / mockery: signals that the claim is not just wrong but silly.

Loaded language: “super illegal” exaggerates to make the other side seem unserious.

Diminishing the opponent’s position: recasts it as emotional/overheated.

This kind of ridicule is often effective socially (audience laughter), even when it doesn’t add evidence.

5) Selective quotation as a pivot

“Procedurally dismissed”

Cherry-pick risk / quote-as-trump-card: a short legal phrase is presented as decisive.

Reframing: moves the argument from “what happened” to “what courts did,” which tends to sound authoritative.

It’s a common move: substance becomes procedure, and the procedure is treated as a verdict on truth.

6) Condescension + “teach you the basics” stance

“Do you know what standing means?”

Condescension / status play: establishes the speaker as the knowledgeable adult in the room.

Rhetorical question: not meant to be answered; meant to mark the other side as ignorant.

Tone weapon: makes disagreement feel embarrassing.

“It means their data wasn’t collected…”

Oversimplification / definitional fiat: reduces a complex doctrine to one convenient interpretation.

Confidence as a tactic: stated as if beyond dispute; invites readers to treat it as settled.

Whether accurate or not (you said sources have been posted), the rhetorical move is: “I control the legal meaning, therefore I control the conclusion.”

7) “That’s the point” closure move

“That’s the point, and that’s what Snowden’s docs proved.”

Premature closure: declares the argument finished.

Appeal to documentary authority: elevates a set of documents as final arbiter.

Certainty signaling: tries to convert contested interpretation into “proved.”

8) Accusation of contradiction (can be fair, but also a trap)

“Why do you claim to believe something… directly contradicted by Snowden’s documents?”

Internal inconsistency attack: this is a legitimate debate tactic if the contradiction is real.

Forced dilemma setup: sets up the next line’s either/or.

It also subtly shifts the discussion from “what’s true” to “you’re being irrational.”

9) Loaded question + mind-reading

“Or are you quietly dropping your claim…”

Loaded question / false presupposition: assumes they are dropping it and asks you to explain why.

Mind-reading insinuation: “quietly” implies sneakiness or embarrassment.

Cornering: either answer admits retreat, or you spend time rejecting the premise.

10) False dichotomy and source-degradation

“…falling back entirely on… Binney…”

False dichotomy: suggests only two options: (a) conspiracy theory via documents, or (b) relying entirely on Binney. Real positions are usually mixed/nuanced.

Motte-and-bailey insinuation: implies the opponent is retreating from a stronger claim to a weaker one.

“lunatic ravings” / “middle manager” / “hasn’t worked… in decades”

Ad hominem (abusive): attacks mental state (“lunatic”) rather than claims.

Ad hominem (status-based): “middle manager” to minimize authority and shame reliance on him.

Chronological poisoning: “decades” implies irrelevance/staleness; can be relevant, but here it’s framed to discredit without engaging content.

11) Another argument from silence

“which aren’t supported by any of the leaks that have happened since”

Again: absence of mention = evidence of falsehood, plus a moving evidentiary target (“not just the leaks you cited—any leaks since must corroborate it”).

The overall debate strategy

Put opponent on trial with rapid-fire questions (control tempo).

Demand exact textual proof from their quotes (high standard on them).

Use institutional non-response (committees/courts/lawsuits) as a credibility filter.

Frame the opponent’s view as “conspiracy theory” so neutral readers treat it as fringe.

Degrade the alternative witness (Binney) through ridicule and status attacks.

Close off discussion by claiming documents “proved” the speaker’s interpretation.