PART 1: HOW TO FACT-CHECK LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO LOSE AN ARGUMENT

A follower sent me an email last week asking if I could share the fact-checking technique I actually use every time I write. So here it is.

It's called adversarial fact-checking. I didn't invent it — most serious fact-checkers use it. But it rarely gets talked about publicly, and almost nobody teaches it on social media.

Here's the idea: instead of looking for proof that a claim is true, you deliberately try to prove it wrong. You treat the claim like a defendant in a courtroom. You cross-examine it. You poke holes in it. You look for the evidence that would destroy it.

If the claim survives that? Then maybe it deserves your belief.

If it doesn't? Then you just saved yourself from spreading misinformation.

THE WAY MOST PEOPLE FACT-CHECK (AND WHY IT FAILS)

Most people do the opposite. They do confirmatory fact-checking — they see a claim, they google it, and they stop the moment they find one source that agrees with it. That's not checking. That's shopping for validation.

Confirmatory fact-checking feels productive. You searched for it. You found a link. It said the same thing. So it must be true, right?

But all you really did was find someone else who believes the same thing you do. You never tested the claim. You never stressed it. You never asked the one question that matters.

Adversarial fact-checking flips the process. You ask: what would prove this wrong?

That one question changes everything.

HOW TO DO IT (ACTUAL STEPS)

Let's say you see a claim on Facebook. Here's how you adversarially fact-check it:

1. State the claim clearly. Strip it down to the core assertion. No emotional language, no framing. Just the claim.

2. Ask: what evidence would make this false? This is the key move. You're not asking "is this true?" — you're asking "what would disprove this?"

3. Go looking for that evidence. Search specifically for counterevidence. Not confirmation. Use fact-checking sites like Verafiles, Rappler, Tsek.ph, or even international ones like Politifact and Snopes.

4. Check the primary sources. If a claim cites a law, read the law. If it cites a court case, find the ruling. If it quotes a person, find the full quote in context. Secondary sources interpret — primary sources reveal.

5. Evaluate what survives. If the claim holds up after you've tried your best to kill it, it's probably solid. If it crumbles under even basic scrutiny, you know what to do.

EXAMPLE 1: "THERE ARE NO PROVEN CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DURING MARTIAL LAW"

You've probably seen this claim floating around for years. Let's adversarially fact-check it.

What would prove this false? Court rulings, documented evidence, government records.

So you search. And you find: a 1995 Hawaii court ruling where a jury found Marcos responsible for the torture, murder, and disappearance of Filipinos. You find Republic Act 10368, signed into law, which officially recognizes victims of summary execution, torture, and enforced disappearance under the Marcos regime. You find that 11,103 victims were deemed eligible for reparations by the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board.

The claim didn't survive five minutes of adversarial fact-checking.

EXAMPLE 2: "THE MARCOS ERA WAS THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMY"

This one circulates hard on TikTok and YouTube. Lots of vlogs with dramatic music and old footage of Manila skylines. Feels convincing if you don't check.

So let's check. What would prove this false? Actual economic data from the period.

You search. And you find: under Marcos, foreign debt increased fifty-fold — from $599 million in 1965 to $28.3 billion by 1986. The peso's value against the dollar collapsed from 3.91 to 19.03. Prices of goods quadrupled between 1975 and 1986. In 1982, the Philippines became the first Asian country to face serious difficulty repaying its debts. By 1983, the central bank recorded $18 billion in foreign debt, and the country entered its worst post-war recession.

Golden age? The numbers say otherwise. That claim collapses under its own weight the moment you look at the actual data instead of the vlogs.

EXAMPLE 3: "THE TALLANO GOLD EXPLAINS THE MARCOS FAMILY'S WEALTH"

This one is wild. The story goes that before the Spanish colonizers arrived, a family called the Tagean Tallano ruled the Philippines and owned a massive trove of gold. Ferdinand Marcos supposedly received 192,000 metric tons of gold as payment for legal services to this family.

What would disprove this? Math, for starters. And official records.

So you check. The total amount of gold ever mined in all of human history is roughly 200,000 metric tons. The Tallano story claims one family owned nearly all of it. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas released a statement confirming it has no record of any Tallano gold in its vaults. No legitimate historical document supports the existence of the Tagean Tallano family as described. Even Bongbong Marcos himself said in a 2022 interview that he has never seen a single gold bar "in his entire life."

The claim didn't need five minutes. It needed five seconds.

THE HARD PART

The hardest claims to adversarially fact-check are the ones you want to be true.

That's the whole point. Confirmation bias is strongest when we're emotionally invested. Adversarial fact-checking asks you to be your own opposing counsel. To argue against yourself. And if your belief survives that honest interrogation, it comes out stronger.

If it doesn't — at least now you know.

Try it the next time you're about to hit share. One question: what would prove this wrong?

Pakikisama is real. Nobody wants to be the person who corrects the group chat. Spreading false information doesn’t help anyone. It turns pakikisama into negligence.

Be the person who checks before they share. Your timeline will thank you.