I wish. My "opponent," and I use the term very loosely, seems to have been the sort of man who only comprehends the first third or so of any remark and jumps to questionable conclusions about the remainder. He also seems to have memorized the names of all the logical fallacies at one point, but has no recollection of what they actually mean:
K: I am concerned that certain people on the left are simultaneously saying that all of the WikiLeaks documents are fake, and that Russia hacked them from Podesta illegally... yet few citizens seem to notice the inconsistency in those two positions.
Him (friend of my friend): Trump supporters like you who watch Faux News always blame the left! The documents have not been authenticated. You are cherry picking.
K: ? All I said was that those two positions are incompatible. If Podesta truly was hacked by Russia, then actual documents have been stolen.
Him: How are those positions incompatible? Russia could have made the whole thing up just to throw the election. You and everyone else who watches Faux News all day are just introducing straw men.
K: What??? And who said I watch Fox at all? And if you're right, and Russia did fabricate all the documents, then they were not hacked from Podesta.
Him: No, there was A HACK. It's all over every news site! YOU are clearly not reading the news and are just hopping on the bandwagon here.
K: I'm... speechless.
My friend commented to him then, quite sensibly, and I withdrew in confusion and fear that this man is my fellow citizen and I think it very likely that he will cast a vote come November, assuming that he can figure out how to operate the voting machine.