The Undefeatable Argument
Why bother fighting your opponents, when you can make them defeat themselves.
I was fortunate enough to be a part of the feared Rangataua Seven’s team, coached by Sevens geniuses — Matua Parkinson and Ruki Tipuna. A fascinating concept taught to the players was the repetition of undefendable attack sequences. These were a series of moves that forced the defence to react correctly but still led to line breaks. A team would find it impossible to defend if done correctly with precision and flair because they are doing what is considered correct on defence. To develop such patterns, Matua would spend time analysing what a defence must do to respond correctly to specific movements.
In essence, if you make a mistake on defence, you lose; if you don’t make a mistake on defence, you still lose.

Assign the above Seven’s Defence Analysis to argument and debate. In theory, you can create an undefeatable argument by analysing the opposition’s argument for the presence of contradictory fallacies. You could bypass all the details by simply deconstructing the opposing argument. One such argument is the case for unlicenced medicine mandates, more precisely, the idea that forced or even coerced medicine has a sound basis in science, reason, and logic.
Before this article, I wrote two articles addressing one super boring and misleading article that addressed the claims Voices for Freedom are making. Both pieces had to be long because they dealt with finer details, something people don’t have time for today. We drench the battleground of opinion surrounding unlicensed medicines in science interpretation, opinions, and purposeful misrepresentation. Most of the time, you don’t base whose side you choose to join on right or wrong, but on which narrative is repeated the most to you.
For most people, your personal biases and lack of effort decide what side of the argument you join. I am in a fortunate position concerning this argument. I have been on both sides of the aisle throughout my lifetime. Because of this, I understand both arguments very well. So well, I can now see the undefeatable argument because the tyrannical pro-vaxxer loads their narrative with contradictory fallacies.

Before we start the argument, we first have to clarify the teams’ actual classifications. Voices for Freedom are not an anti-vax group; defining them as such is helpful in the case of a public health tyrant, but it is a misrepresentation. Our government and their subsequent media parrots represent them this way to delegitimise any argument they have right from the outset. It’s easy to convince those — who don’t think; that an anti-vaxxer is anti-science, but if you classify VFF correctly, you’ll find that the opposite is true. To classify VFF correctly, you have to analyse their argument; you do that adequately by assuming they might know something you don’t. VFF promotes caution when it comes to trusting complex human-made substances with unanswered questions.
They are promoting scientific uncertainty, and there is nothing more scientific than uncertainty.

The moment Jacinda Ardern admitted that the issue was not anti-vaxxers but instead vaccine hesitancy; was the moment she torched the legitimacy of the government’s position on vaccination. There are, in fact, four factions in the vaccine opinion world. There are “certain of safety pro-vaxxers” who control the mainstream narrative, people who hypothetically avoid certain viruses through controlled immune therapy, those who would rather trust their immune system, and those who are anti-vax. The first faction is a growing minority that tyrannises the other three, and the latter is a tiny minority heavily suppressed by the other three factions. The two in the middle have coexisted just fine for roughly 142 years! Recently, one radical faction has decided that their perspective should be considered self-evident and that all others should cede to their certainty.
This faction of radical pro-vaccine ideologues cannot claim that science supports their view because certainty in the presence of study flaws is anti-science. VFF can be confident in their hesitancy towards the efficacy and safety of controlled-immune-therapy and still be pro-science. However, you cannot be sure of vaccine efficacy and safety and expect to keep that pro-science stance. VFF has the undefeatable argument because the presence of uncertainty is scientific, but absolutism is not. Jacinda Ardern has just helped confirm that her government promotes an anti-science narrative by promoting absolutism. To accept that vaccine hesitancy is a better classification for her opposition is evidence that VFF is more pro-science than the government. This radical faction will continue to promote certainty in the efficacy and safety of this unlicensed medicine. Thereby demonstrating coercion and fraud-induced consent toward would-be patients. It should be apparent to everybody who thinks; that this fundamentalist behaviour is a trend away from Liberty and Science toward tyranny and anti-science.