It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

  • davidagain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’m not going to engage with your gish gallop.

    I don’t know what you mean by gish

    Then look up gish gallop.

    • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Hahahahha. That’s rich. I have presented you with a grand total of 4 polls; all intimately relevant to the discussion at hand. That’s too much for you to handle?

        • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?

          E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?

          • davidagain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            …gish gallop…

            …too much for you to handle?..

            At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.

            Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream.

            No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?