The meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.

Ok so you acknowledge it was well reasoned and you are apologising to op for saying it wasn't. And moving forward you've come to:

So many well reasoned arguments can be created so it is possible for people's minds to cloud.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here but it seems like it's not contributing anything much to the discussion. Perhaps your mind clouded before you wrote it?

edit: did you edit your original post /after/ I replied?

I would say that a compelling argument against the CIA being involved is that they would have done a way better job of covering their tracks if it really was them. Think about it: Professional spooks who know they would probably receive a death sentence for treason if caught planning an assassination attempt on the president.

And think about the number of people involved in an organisation like that who pledged allegiance to serve their country and now have to go along with killing the president. Just so incredibly unlikely. People watch too many cloak and dagger movies.

> like that who pledged allegiance to serve their country

In that scenario, all you need to do is believe that the interests of the country are separate from the interests of a particular president.

Trump is a classic example where some people might have held that view.

> The CIA's docs haven't been declassified and released.

If they were, would you believe them?