Alarm Bells Are Ringing At DNC

[Subduction Zone]

You are confused. Here again is the definition from Wikipedia:

The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡælʌp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at expense of quality of said arguments.

You asked me my reasons for why I voted for Trump. My answer was a list of reasons not a list of arguments. They are all necessarily true because they are the real reasons why I voted of Trump. They are not arguments to try to persuade you of anything.

If you asked me why I bought a certain car and I gave you 5 reasons, would you say that is a Gish gallop? Of course not, those are my reasons for buying a certain car whether you think they are valid or not, they are not an argument as to why you should buy the car.


Telling people what they should or should not do is a bad debate tactic as well.

Show me where I refused to discuss these one at a time?

Just about every one of your examples fit the "no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments" qualifier. It was a Gish Gallop, by your own definition.

And do you know why your car example fails? Different claims have different burdens of proof. If I told you I just adopted a dog from the pound you would likely believe me. If I said that I had a Large purple dragon in my garage you would demand much more evidence. Your Trump claim requires more evidence than your car claim would.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Just about every one of your examples fit the "no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments" qualifier. It was a Gish Gallop, by your own definition.

As I pointed out in my last post that my list are not arguments but my reasons for voting for Trump.

And do you know why your car example fails? Different claims have different burdens of proof. If I told you I just adopted a dog from the pound you would likely believe me. If I said that I had a Large purple dragon in my garage you would demand much more evidence. Your Trump claim requires more evidence than your car claim would.

What claim? The only claim I made is that those were the reasons I voted for Trump. This is what you are not understanding. If you don't believe those were my reasons for voting for Trump then ok, I have no good evidence that they were other than my say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I pointed out in my last post that my list are not arguments but my reasons for voting for Trump.

What claim? The only claim I made is that those were the reasons I voted for Trump. This is what you are not understanding. If you don't believe those were my reasons for voting for Trump then ok, I have no good evidence that they were other than my say so.

There is no real difference between reasons and arguments as you are using the term. Like it or not your list was a Gish Gallop.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no real difference between reasons and arguments as you are using the term. Like it or not your list was a Gish Gallop.

I explained why it was not a Gish Gallop several times and all you do is just claim it was not without engaging my reasoning. Things are not true just because you say they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I explained why it was not a Gish Gallop several times and all you do is just claim it was not without engaging my reasoning. Things are not true just because you say they are.

And I refuted that claim. You may not understand the refutation. You are trying to play word games by saying "reasons" instead of "arguments" That does not work.

By the way, my post ended with the claim that those using Gish Gallops never want to discuss their claims one at a time. The only reasonable way to deal with them. That is because they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. It was almost as if I could see the future

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And I refuted that claim. You may not understand the refutation. You are trying to play word games by saying "reasons" instead of "arguments" That does not work.

You refuted my claim that those are my reasons for voting for Trump? How is that even possible? You are confusing my claim that those are my reasons for voting for Trump with a claim that they are good reasons for you to vote for Trump that I never made.

By the way, my post ended with the claim that those using Gish Gallops never want to discuss their claims one at a time. The only reasonable way to deal with them. That is because they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. It was almost as if I could see the future

Again, show me where I refused to discuss them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You refuted my claim that those are my reasons for voting for Trump? How is that even possible? You are confusing my claim that those are my reasons for voting for Trump with a claim that they are good reasons for you to vote for Trump that I never made.

Again, show me where I refused to discuss them.

And now you forgot my original claim. It was that Trump voters seem to have no valid reasons for voting for him. Sorry, that meant that your reasons were in effect arguments.

If you just admit that you had no valid reasons to vote for him I will drop this.

 

[KW]

What role did TX GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression play in this? Somehow I think it's not Texans calling for more GOP.

The district is 85% hispanic. Hispanic Americans are abandoning the Democrat party in droves.

 

[tytlyf]

Hispanic Americans are abandoning the Democrat party in droves.

That's your opinion. Facts say something else.

Hispanic Americans' Party ID: Updated Analysis
Have Latinos Really Moved Toward The Republican Party?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And now you forgot my original claim. It was that Trump voters seem to have no valid reasons for voting for him. Sorry, that meant that your reasons were in effect arguments.

No, this was your question to me:

Can you explain why you voted for Trump twice?

So I did this. You did not ask me to justify my reasoning. Your issue is that you think you asked me something and you never did. Go back and look at the conversation. This is why your Gish Gallop claim is false.

If you just admit that you had no valid reasons to vote for him I will drop this.

No, if you admit you never asked me to justify my reasons and that I did not Gish Gallop you, then we can discuss them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, this was your question to me:

So I did this. You did not ask me to justify my reasoning. Your issue is that you think you asked me something and you never did. Go back and look at the conversation. This is why your Gish Gallop claim is false.

No, if you admit you never asked me to justify my reasons and that I did not Gish Gallop you, then we can discuss them.

Asking a person why he voted for someone is asking a person to justify their beliefs. Do you need everything spelled out to you?

And yes, by your own definition what you did was a Gish Gallop.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Asking a person why he voted for someone is asking a person to justify their beliefs. Do you need everything spelled out to you?

No they are not the same. If I asked you why you bought a Ford and you said because the moon is blue. You answered my question even though the reason seems inaccurate.

And yes, by your own definition what you did was a Gish Gallop.

I spelled out why it is not and you just assert why it is. I am not convinced by your assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they are not the same. If I asked you why you bought a Ford and you said because the moon is blue. You answered my question even though the reason seems inaccurate.

I spelled out why it is not and you just assert why it is. I am not convinced by your assertions.

Nope, now you are just in denial mode. But once again you are using the classic defense of a Gish Gallop, refusing to properly discuss the claims after an offer is made.

I think that we are done here.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Nope, now you are just in denial mode. But once again you are using the classic defense of a Gish Gallop, refusing to properly discuss the claims after an offer is made.

Again, please show me where I refused to talk about them.

I think that we are done here.

That is up to you, I cannot make you continue any conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, please show me where I refused to talk about them.

That is up to you, I cannot make you continue any conversation.

Why do you play this game? I offered to discuss them properly in my first response to the Gish Gallop and then at least two more times. Please pay attention.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why do you play this game? I offered to discuss them properly in my first response to the Gish Gallop and then at least two more times. Please pay attention.

No games. Please tell me where I refused to discuss anything with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No games. Please tell me where I refused to discuss anything with you.

In every post since post 83 of mine where the challenge was first issued. And the challenge was repeated several times after that. Did you ever agree to discuss the claims properly? I must have missed that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In every post since post 83 of mine where the challenge was first issued. And the challenge was repeated several times after that. Did you ever agree to discuss the claims properly? I must have missed that.

So not engaging your posts yet is refusing to engage them? That is faulty logic. The fact is you accused me of dishonesty in debate. I disagree. That is where the discussion went. Admit is was not a Gish Gallop and we can move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So not engaging your posts yet is refusing to engage them? That is faulty logic. The fact is you accused me of dishonesty in debate. I disagree. That is where the discussion went. Admit is was not a Gish Gallop and we can move on.

That is not going to happen. It was a Gish Gallop. That fact is not an accusation of dishonesty because you appear to genuinely believe that it is not a Gish Gallop.

And yes, not entering into a conversation about claims that you made that need serious substantiation after being asked multiple times IS refusing to engage.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And yes, not entering into a conversation about claims that you made that need serious substantiation after being asked multiple times IS refusing to engage.

This is faulty logic.

How about this. You pick one of the items you want to talk about and we can discuss that. FYI, I won't be around until Monday though.