Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.
Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.
If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?
On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.
Minimization.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.
Red herring.
All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.
Minimization.
This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.
The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)
The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
strawman
Instead of just “strawman, therefore you’re wrong” and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.
This isn’t a courtroom debate. This isn’t a debate you “win” or “lose”. This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.
The audience I wish to reach doesn’t need their hand held as a child
Strawman, saying that this is about “leading people like they’re children” not “clear and effective communication as equals”
B. What I’m talking about is proactively sharing your views, both to save time on questioning and to fill gaps that others would have never thought to ask about. Please, tell me why this isn’t a needed part of discussion.
No.
Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.
Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.
If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?
On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.
All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.
Thank you for the opportunity to teach.
Minimization.
Red herring.
Minimization.
This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.
Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There’s no point in investing further.
unsupported
strawman
The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)
Instead of just “strawman, therefore you’re wrong” and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.
This isn’t a courtroom debate. This isn’t a debate you “win” or “lose”. This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.
The audience I wish to reach doesn’t need their hand held as a child.
A. I hate to do this, but
Strawman, saying that this is about “leading people like they’re children” not “clear and effective communication as equals”
B. What I’m talking about is proactively sharing your views, both to save time on questioning and to fill gaps that others would have never thought to ask about. Please, tell me why this isn’t a needed part of discussion.
Who do you think you’re actually reaching?