• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

You're arguing that Gorsuch was wrong because he was outnumbered. It's what you said. And that is a fallacy - Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Numbers. That's a fact.
You should revisit your understanding of it. If he would have been right the decision would have been according to his position. By your logic, expert testimony would also be a fallacy since it is appeal to authority.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

I read your comments regarding Gorsuch siding with "corporations over the little guy" as you preferring outcomes that favored the little guy despite what the law may actually be. If that's a wrong reading then my apologies.

On you believing him evil - I making that statement because you made it personal by calling him a "douche bag," which I read as saying - he's siding with the corporation, not because he actually believes his interpretation is correct but because he wants to **** the little guy.

Believe it or not I don't agree with his interpretation. I think he was splitting hairs too finely. But that doesn't mean I think he's a douche or an asshole. I save those for the corporation.
Fair enough, the douche bag comment was over the top, but it felt good.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

You should revisit your understanding of it. If he would have been right the decision would have been according to his position. By your logic, expert testimony would also be a fallacy since it is appeal to authority.

This is piffle.

You argued that he was wrong because he was outnumbered.

Own your fallacy.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

This is piffle.

You argued that he was wrong because he was outnumbered.

Own your fallacy.
No, my argument was that he was and is wrong. Proof is that he was also outnumbered.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

No, my argument was that he was and is wrong. Proof is that he was also outnumbered.

:roll:

No. You said being outnumbered is what makes him wrong.

But it clearly does. He was alone in his opinion while the majority said the opposite. That makes him wrong.

Bored now. Bye.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

:roll:

No. You said being outnumbered is what makes him wrong.



Bored now. Bye.
Facts bore you? How typical.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Facts bore you? How typical.

Seems like your consistency in never owning your own words bored him.
 
Back
Top Bottom