Comment by simondotau

You are playing semantic games by using the language of possibilities to infer probabilities. "Could have easily been faked" establishes possibility, not probability, and "raises the chances significantly" is an assertion without supporting evidence. These linguistic motte-and-bailey tricks are pure debate bro.

You also construct your own straw man with "Are you trying to argue that the CEO doesn't influence his company?" The insults ("dense", "cognitive dissonance") and silly demands for agreement ("Please tell me yes") are playing to an audience which has already left the chat.

Perhaps instead of trying to find the words to make yourself feel good when pressing 'reply', find words that have some hope of actually changing the other person's mind, by taking into account their own priors.