I have long had an interest in history, and always heard these far fetched rumors which are the basis for most of my questions so far as they come up regularly. When I saw this platform I was like great here I have a group of liked minded people who can show how these theories are wrong with short statements of irrefutable facts. Instead it seems here I get attacked for asking them. How do I go about asking this questions without getting attacked by those that think I believe these theories or those who don't like the WORDING when the wording is what I am addressing People on the street will always discuss the oldest CIVILIZATION and make unsupported statements. I am looking for an answer that does not concern itself with Semantics but addressing the misinformation that is so widespread any feedback would be appreciated of to address how can I shoot down the question of what is the oldest Civilization If I can not ask it on this platform?
It appears that you are not familiar with the way Stack Exchange sites work. These sites are not intended to provide a forum for open discussion on topics. Instead, they are designed to provide a straightforward question/answer opportunity. If your questions cover too broad a subject or invites opinion rather than direct answers, then they are going to be voted down and closed.
I know when I first started using Stack Exchange I tended to ask questions that I hoped would encourage discussions, but as I became more familiar with the guidelines and the intentions of the sites, I understood that my questions were not formatted properly. It can be pretty frustrating, but rather than viewing this as a criticism, embrace it as an opportunity to improve.
In addition to things already mentioned by other people, you seem to have unrealistic expectations. It is in the nature of history that there are large uncertainties. There are some events that can be considered a fact: they were confirmed by multiple independent sources so we are mostly sure that they indeed happened. On the other end of the scale are events that might have happened but there is little to no actual evidence that they did (or even indirect evidence suggesting that they didn't). Your questions tend to target the uncertain end of the scale and you expect definitive answers - this isn't going to work.
Say for example, somebody asked "Did Caesar plan to invade America?" The only possible answer to this question is: "very unlikely". But one can of course spin a theory about some Roman ships that sailed for Egypt but accidentally got to the New World (it could have happened, right?), left no evidence of them being there, got back safely and managed to tell Caesar about their discovery. Which prompted Caesar to think about a military campaign, without leaving any written evidence of course. Unlikely? Yes. Possible to disprove? Since we don't have a letter from Caesar stating "I never wanted to invade America and I didn't even know it existed" - probably not.
You can always spin a theory to "prove" any point you like which is why such theories aren't quite well-seen by people with serious interest in history. This explains some of the negative votes you got.
It appears that most of your questions (so far) are too broad/general, Stackexchange isn't really intended for these broad, subjective discussions.
It is preferable to ask questions which are direct and can be answered correctly, rather than gather opinion or generate argument.
While it is possible to find a few exceptions, it's not encouraged, and won't be met with much enthusiasm.