If they’re already going to believe the wrong things for the wrong reasons, why not present the right things for the wrong reasons? Those who need the right reasons to change their mind are beyond the scope of this approach.

This is outreach to the gullible for harm reduction when they might otherwise filter themselves into a dangerous pipeline. This isn’t using debate skills to deceive, it’s using them to counter those who do use their debate should to deceive. Even if the content may possibly be wrong, by presenting it in contrast to preceding content it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.