Setting the stage attack (logic)

Setting the stage attack is a logical argument technique for exposing contradictory behaviour in individuals. As the name implies, you set the stage for closing the trap preventing them from either making up further lies or excuses.

Usage
Being patient is the key to perform a setting the stage attack, as you may have to wait until the right information surfaces or right opportunity occurs before presenting the setting the stage attack.

Individuals may have to avoid the urge to point out a glaring flaw or contradiction or the urge to take a potshot so the individual isn't alerted to a possible contradiction or flaw and thus doesn't have the opportunity to counteract it.

Collecting evidence for a setting the stage attack involves a sub-referencing attack to gather the necessary evidence to make your case, allowing the ego of the target to talk, especially in story-telling mode to allow more information and contradictions to surface, verification attack so they cannot go back on information, confirmation to further back-up information and generally build up a case necessary to counter all possible contradictions and escape routes.

Engaging the target will generally involve casual questioning, usually in the form of a bi-logic trap, allowing them to make their false claims and statements (allowing them to think they have the upperhand, arrogance causes oversight) thinking you're unaware, before making a seemingly baseless accusation (in a setting the stage attack you don't present the evidence with the accusation, just the accusation itself).

Naturally, the target will dismiss the accusation as baseless and attempt to guile the audience into believing you have no evidence (this then 'sets the stage' for you to prove them wrong, hence setting the stage attack). You then allow them long enough to make up their new lie, and then present the evidence to refute their claim and their lies (having anticipated they would attempt to contradict your statement assuming you had no evidence) along with all the contradictions to their previous statements and lies. Which then closes the trap on them. Regardless of whether or not they approve, half of an argument is PR and it'll appeal to the audience.

Example
For example, say Charlie is known to be lying about the colour of Quack the duck, a setting the stage attack would follow as:

Charlie: Quack the duck is blue.

Individual: Charlie, is that the colour of Quack the duck?

Charlie: Yes. Why do you ask?

Individual: Because I believe you are lying to us about Quack the duck's true colour!

Charlie: That's absurd! You have no evidence for this claim, I have my photograph of Quack the duck right here! And you're clearly attacking me with this absurd, baseless argument.

Individual: Well, are you sure you're not lying?

Charlie: Yes!

Individual: I have proof from Edward the police officer that Quack the duck is, in-fact brown, including this timestamped photograph, and two individuals have mentioned you doctored that photograph, of which I have the original, undoctored photograph of which shows Quack the duck is not blue, and these two posts where you mentioned different colours for Quack the duck! So contrary to your claims, you are in-fact lying to us about not having lied about Quack the duck's colour!

How it works
Setting the stage attack plays on the psychology of the human mind. Most humans won't anticipate you to do a lot of in-depth research on their arguments or to wait for the right moment, so they will assume you're merely being opportunistic and will only go on face value.

By avoiding pointing out the flaws of the target, they won't anticipate the attack and thus won't know to close up the flaws to prevent the attack. It also forms a greater disparity in the minds of the audience, because the target has more flaws they haven't addressed, when you point out so many, they will seem more flawed than if you pointed it out progressively over time (a type of desensitisation).

Finally, by asking your questions casually or mildly, you put the target at ease (it will come off to everyone as you being unsure) which will cause them to exert their arrogance thinking they have the upperhand. Psychopaths and sociopaths have little concept of modesty and thus will take advantage of the opportunity to be seen in a superior light (psychopaths are largely short-term thinkers when it comes to greed).

By being presented with an accusation that on first appearance seems to have no evidence (a type of strawman argument), and being led to believe this is the main element of consistency (warning: your audience will think the same, not having access to the same information you do), they will naturally be inclined to believe a basic and obvious lie is sufficient to undermine your accusation, unaware you have the evidence sitting on stand-by to counteract their claim.

However, once being allowed to sit confident in their lie, you can then proceed to destroy their argument with the information in reserve, which will of course seem no doubt impressive to your audience given the disparity in the number of flawed arguments the target has presented and the amount of information, research and refutement you have done.

Do not expect supporters to side with you, as they may have vested interests, will enter denial and often refuse to look at your evidence, opting to use ad hominem attacks and aggression in general, either to scare you off or to attack you and to deter further exposure.