An Underused Way To Uncover Bogus Claims

I would like to see a conservative politician who insists that right-wing positions don't favor the wealthy asked what would change if they purposely set out to do so. Nothing, would be the correct answer, unless they wanted to declare that moving even further in the direction of their stated positions would be required.

I think this type of general question doesn't get pursued enough. When someone tries to claim that whatever they are advocating for does not line up with an opposing claim refuting it, ask how their position would be different if they set out to do what their opponents fear. If the answer is "nothing," then the position has been shown to be invalid--either incorrect or a lie.

Another example is contained within the first three verses of Revelation.

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

This book, written nearly 2,000 years ago, contains the claim right up front that the things described within will be happening "soon" because the "time is near." For those who don't skip over or ignore this verse, they somehow claim that it doesn't mean the predictions would happen at any particular time; "soon" and "near" can mean what they mean when otherwise used.  But, using the above questioning idea, if this passage had been written with the intent that "soon" and "near" were to be accepted as they are used everywhere else, how would it  have been written differently? The answer is that it would require no changes, meaning that the claim that it means something else is bogus. (This passage can only mean that time ran out on Christianity a long time ago.)