politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It is well understood no third party candidates or independent candidates have any chance at winning the presidential election. Choosing a candidate who has no chance of winning is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes. The only real options are Republicans or Democrats for presidential elections.
This is not an ad hominem because I am pointing out the logical contradiction in their statement. Rather than directing my arguments at them, I am refuting their central point in their statement.
edit: Adding this to respond to your edit.
Again, here is my refutation of their central point:
If you want to refute my central point in your argument, then direct your argument at this paragraph.
Incorrect. It's unlikely, but "we can't know that for sure." Republicans were, at one point, "the third party." You can't keep going back to "what we likely know is true" because we've already established that "what is likely true" only matters when it helps your point, and ignored when it hurts it.
I tend to agree here. Except when it comes to who you support for POTUS. If you're voting for a candidate, literally the thing that most shows your support for a candidate, you can't say they don't support the candidate they are literally voting for. Well, you can say it, but we've already established that you will say bat-shit crazy things in a desperate attempt to not be wrong.
No, it's absolutely an ad hominem. Like the most pure form of it. You are questioning their motives instead of what they are literally saying. It's a textbook case of it. Do you mind if I point some students to this in the future as a perfect example of the ad hominem?
Your central point is that they are supporting Trump. That paragraph of desperate nonsense that kind of loosely resembles logic is your argument for that point. But make no mistake about it, your central point is that they are Trump supporters. Something they explicitly have said is untrue, and the only refutation you have against what they have expressly said is an unsupported accusation that they are lying, which is an ad hominem. You're argument falls apart because it relies on an unsupported attack on their character for it to be true, and you pointed out early how bad arguments that rely on ad hominems are. Of course, you were wrong at the time that my argument hinged on an ad hominem, I was just insulting someone who kind of deserves it, but you were right that if your argument relies on it, like yours does, that it's pretty clear how "unconvincing" your argument is.
Neither a third party candidate nor an independent candidate has ever won the presidential election in this country. That's not a statistical anomaly. We live in a two party system.
For the purposes of counting votes, voting third party or independent for a presidential election is the same as not voting.
No, I refuted their central point in that statement by establishing the logical contradiction there in. I think the most obvious reason for them to say a meaningless statement like that is to save face. This supposition about their motive for doing such a thing is not the refutation of their central point.
This is at least in the right ball park. Again, I think they are pro-trump in the sense that they are supporting him in the presidential election. I think it's a reasonable assumption that most of these people voted Biden in 2020 and do not identify as MAGA hat wearing Republicans.
Anyway, I think you have the idea now. Refuting an argument's central point makes for arguments that are far more persuading.
The republican party didn't even form until 1845. For a while it was the Whigs and the Democrats. We've had at least 5 different parties win the POTUS. I'm not saying this is astonishing, but the claim that a third party has never won is laughably wrong. I even explicitly noted it to you and you weren't smart enough to go look it up on your own.
Incorrect. The votes still count. When it comes to the electoral system, it's effectively the same on the outcome.
However, when it comes to showing who you support, clearly who you actually support (especially if we are talking by giving them your vote) it's not even remotely the same.
And this is the central part of what we are arguing here - something you keep insisting we stick to. .. of course only when it suits your point, going off on ridiculous logical tangents is "persusive" when it helps you make your point. lol - so trying to argue that you don't actually support the person you are voting for, but some other person, is just plain bat-shit crazy reality denialism.
No, you refuted nothing. You just called them liars with zero evidence. Your accusation is based solely on the fact that it contradicts the conclusion you've already come to. You don't care about reality, you care about trying to convince people you are right.
But are you just going to drop the fact that you used the ad hominem to refute their claim?
Actually, you know what? You're lying right now and you actually agree with me, because no one would be stupid enough to hold your position. That was easy. lol I like this style of debate.
Political parties have come and gone. But there were only two main parties at any given time. Characterizing new parties as third parties when they only had one political party as opposition is disingenuous.
The votes count, but since they are towards a candidate with no chance of winning, it is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes for the main two political parties, Republicans and Democrats.
In a two party system, support for a third party is measured in the votes it detracts from the candidates from the two main parties. For example, the Green Party took votes from Al Gore in Florida and cost him the 2000 presidential election.
I have already copy and pasted my argument once. Pretending my argument doesn't exist won't help your argument.
I pointed out that their meaningless statement was false and therefore that they were lying, for the sake of clarity. Your argument has unsuccessfully attempted to misrepresent this clarifying statement as my argument. Not because it was my argument, but because my argument saying they were lying sounds like it was making an ad hominem statement as the basis of my argument when it was not.
My argument's position is that they are supporting Trump, by not voting for Biden. Their statement that they are not supporting Trump, is false. Therefore it is a lie. But the fact that they are lying is simply the conclusion I reached by following my arguments logic. It is not how I arrived at that conclusion.
I think you have convinced yourself with your arguments. But the goal of debating someone is to convince others. I know my arguments. I know your argument is misrepresenting them. Your argument is not going to fool me. I can see your arguments misrepresentation clearly and write down exactly what it's doing. Anyone else can do the same. If you want to convince people, argue against what was said and not what you've decided was said. Or keep doing what you're doing, but it won't convince anyone.