• 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!

Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

AdamT said:
It wasn't an analogy, for starters. It was the logical extension of Maggie's argument -- that we should do "as much as possible to prevent unauthorized voting".

The fact is that every study I've ever seen on this topic says that, of the little fraud that actually occurs in our federal elections, almost all of it occurs as a result of malfeasance by poll workers or abuse of absentee ballots. So why aren't Republicans focusing on those problems? Does anyone have a theory?
Click to expand...

quite simply doesnt change the fact it was a logical fallacy on epic proportions
 
Kal'Stang said:
There is no proof that voter ID laws suppress anyone. Just a bunch of speculation. You're making the same arguements they made when they started making people register to vote. Yet there is no proof that it suppressed any voters.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is bull****. There are many studies that have looked at voter participation before and after voter ID laws were passed and in fact they do show reduced voter participation after the laws passed in most cases. The effect can be reduced or eliminated by providing free IDs and with the help of voter education campaigns, but those seem to be short-term effects.
 
beerftw said:
quite simply doesnt change the fact it was a logical fallacy on epic proportions
Click to expand...

No, it was not. If you disagree, please explain the fallacy that you see.

The fact is that any teenager can get a fake photo ID. You can even buy them online. If, as some falsely claim, voter impersonation is a real problem, then voter ID laws are not a poor solution. If you REALLY want to ensure that the person voting is who he says he is, you really need to do a DNA test. I suppose it would be cheaper, though, to do fingerprints or retinal scans. Are the small government conservatives in favor of the government requiring every citizen to submit to a finger print test or retinal scan? Why do Republicans oppose a national ID if they are so concerned about this issue?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Sorry, but that is bull****. There are many studies that have looked at voter participation before and after voter ID laws were passed and in fact they do show reduced voter participation after the laws passed in most cases. The effect can be reduced or eliminated by providing free IDs and with the help of voter education campaigns, but those seem to be short-term effects.
Click to expand...

Provide them then. I have yet to see any link that you have posted that wasn't based on speculation or false premises.
 
AdamT said:
More absurd comments: If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?
Click to expand...

I just added a much-needed colon, Adam. I know you won't mind.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
And like muciti, you've really developed an unhealthy obsession with me. Why don't the two of you go start a thread in the basement where I can properly address your debating style?
Click to expand...
Tell ya what I'll do instead AdamT. Maybe later tonight or tomorrow I will spend oh, it might take 5 minutes or so, I'll go back through the thread for you. Since you need a lot of help. I'll do you the favor of copying and linking you up to what everybody else at DP can see too. The stuff you have posted in the thread. I'll collect all the stuff you have dodged, some of it not for the first time and not just in this thread, and I'll post all of that stuff, the stuff about the topic, the stuff you asked other posters to supply you with, and I'll even post your "replies".

Should be very illustrative to see how you react to what has collected in the catch basin where youlather rinse repeat adamT.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Tell ya what I'll do instead AdamT. Maybe later tonight or tomorrow I will spend oh, it might take 5 minutes or so, I'll go back through the thread for you. Since you need a lot of help. I'll do you the favor of copying and linking you up to what everybody else at DP can see too. The stuff you have posted in the thread. I'll collect all the stuff you have dodged, some of it not for the first time and not just in this thread, and I'll post all of that stuff, the stuff about the topic, the stuff you asked other posters to supply you with, and I'll even post your "replies".

Should be very illustrative to see how you react to what has collected in catch basin where you
Click to expand...

Yeah, you do that, Jr. I'll hold my breath. :lol:

In the meantime I think I'll start that basement thread.
 
AdamT said:
No, it was not. If you disagree, please explain the fallacy that you see.
Click to expand...

i think you might need to read the definition of the various terms of logical fallacies.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, you do that, Jr. I'll hold my breath. :lol:

In the meantime I think I'll start that basement thread.
Click to expand...
Well goody for you. Have fun with that, don't forget to play something by the Divinyls as you set about your work.
 
beerftw said:
i think you might need to read the definition of the various terms of logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

I think you need to explain what you're trying to argue instead of asking me to make your argument for you.
 
Gie said:
Well goody for you. Have fun with that, don't forget to play something by the Divinyls as you set about your work.
Click to expand...

Done. Why don't you come join me and bring your little record player.
 
AdamT said:
I think you need to explain what you're trying to argue instead of asking me to make your argument for you.
Click to expand...

well since you want to know and cant compile your own research,you used a strawman.

you used an out of context argument not related to the argument at hand to refute the argument at hand.



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
 
beerftw said:
well since you want to know and cant compile your own research,you used a strawman.

you used an out of context argument not related to the argument at hand to refute the argument at hand.



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
Click to expand...

No, the example I used was not a straw man argument. I did not falsely claim that Maggie said what she said. I was responding directly to her assertion. FAIL.

You'd have been closer to the mark if you went with argumentum ad absurdum, but that would not be accurate either.
 
AdamT said:
No, the example I used was not a straw man argument. I did not falsely claim that Maggie said what she said. I was responding directly to her assertion. FAIL.

You'd have been closer to the mark if you went with argumentum ad absurdum, but that would not be accurate either.
Click to expand...

a strawman is misrepresenting ones belief by creating a distorted view or false dillema to attemp to challenge or refute a claim or argument,when you presented the use of dna being similar to id cards,you created an out of context false argument to refute the argument at hand,rather than simply refuting that argument.
 
beerftw said:
a strawman is misrepresenting ones belief by creating a distorted view or false dillema to attemp to challenge or refute a claim or argument,when you presented the use of dna being similar to id cards,you created an out of context false argument to refute the argument at hand,rather than simply refuting that argument.
Click to expand...

I did not misrepresent or distort Maggie's belief. In fact I quoted her belief word-for-word. If she thinks that she misspoke I'm sure she's capable of saying so.

I wasn't saying that DNA was similar to ID cards. I was saying that, if, as Maggie said, states should do "as much as possible" to prevent fraud, then a DNA test would be the best solution.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I did not misrepresent or distort Maggie's belief. In fact I quoted her belief word-for-word. If she thinks that she misspoke I'm sure she's capable of saying so.
Click to expand...

your exact words=More absurd comments. If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?

clearly you did create a false dillema
 
beerftw said:
your exact words=More absurd comments. If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?

clearly you did create a false dillema
Click to expand...

Holy ****, I did not. You don't know what the words you are using mean.
 
AdamT said:
Holy ****, I did not. You don't know what the words you are using mean.
Click to expand...

quite literally i think you dont know what words you are using.if you like i can go back and point out every single logical fallacy you have used,but i prefer to stick with the major one,which yet you deny,do you even know the various definitions of strawman?or are you just arguing because you believe you cant be wrong.
 
beerftw said:
quite literally i think you dont know what words you are using.if you like i can go back and point out every single logical fallacy you have used,but i prefer to stick with the major one,which yet you deny,do you even know the various definitions of strawman?or are you just arguing because you believe you cant be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that responding to someone's exact premise is not a strawman argument. In fact it's sort of the definition of a non-strawman argument.
 
AdamT said:
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that responding to someone's exact premise is not a strawman argument. In fact it's sort of the definition of a non-strawman argument.
Click to expand...

you didnt respond to anyone directly,you used a false scenario to respond to a real scenario.
 
beerftw said:
you didnt respond to anyone directly,you used a false scenario to respond to a real scenario.
Click to expand...

Give it up, man -- you seem to be incapable of grasping the concept.
 
AdamT said:
Give it up, man -- you seem to be incapable of grasping the concept.
Click to expand...

no so,as you have failed to realise your own fault,even by merriam webster dictionary standards its still a strawman.
 
This is just too sad. Cut your loses. Not only is it CLEARLY not a strawman -- it isn't any kind of fallacy. In fact it's a truism.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
This is just too sad. Cut your loses. Not only is it CLEARLY not a strawman -- it isn't any kind of fallacy. In fact it's a truism.
Click to expand...

an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention

straight from merriam webster definition of truism.

clearly you just keep failing by comparing your statement with things so far off by definition to avoid the closest and most accurate definition,strawman.

the denial is strong with you.
 
It is a truism that DNA is a more reliable identifier than photo ID. It follows that if states should do whatever they can to protect the integrity of elections (Maggie's premise) then they should use DNA rather than IDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom