If any of these arguments on its own is not sufficient to establish your case, then maybe present a few of them. Also, like I said, considering that some of the same people who call Ben Shapiro 'controlled opposition' say the same about literally everyone, including Tucker, it does not require a genius to not take seriously the boy crying wolf.
Which is why I criticized the arguments - they didn't establish the claim of the Daily Wire being 'controlled opposition' or any sweeping 'focus on Israel'.
If any of these arguments on its own is not sufficient to establish your case, then maybe present a few of them. Also, like I said, considering that some of the same people who call Ben Shapiro 'controlled opposition' say the same about literally everyone, including Tucker, it does not require a genius to not take seriously the boy crying wolf.
That's literally what SoctaticMethod1 did
Which is why I criticized the arguments - they didn't establish the claim of the Daily Wire being 'controlled opposition' or any sweeping 'focus on Israel'.
See my first response
Makes no sense. You try to suggest that if you do make a comment about three different things, then your case becomes immune to counterargument.
No, you actually have to demonstrate that the counterarguments are 'excuses' and therefore not valid.