Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?

[Augustus]

No he didn't. He cited a study that was done which had piqued his interest in starting a dialog about the subject, but he remained pretty neutral on it. He even ended his OP with yet another question which he so cunningly hid in front of a question mark. He's so darn sneaky!

No, he adopted the stance of 'unless proved otherwise, then this should be seen as true'.

Based on the paucity of evidence in the OP, this is not neutral.

A neutral approach would be "a Democrat chose a few issues to make Republicans look bad. Is there any reason to believe he is justified in doing so?"

 

[Nous]

You haven't actually provided any evidence to support it yet.

The evidence that Mellman cited supports all of my claims about it.

The quoted article has far too narrow a focus to make such a claim.

Prove it.

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.​

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

 

[Nous]

No, he adopted the stance of 'unless proved otherwise, then this should be seen as true'.

Quote it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Based on the paucity of evidence in the OP, this is not neutral.

Paucity of evidence? Are you suggesting that the article he referred does not exist? He's trying to engender discussion one way or another. Don't feel you have to post if you don't like the discussion. I thought it was a wonderful troll.

 

[Augustus]

The evidence that Mellman cited supports all of my claims about it.

It doesn't support your reply to Skwim.

Prove it.

As I said, it doesn't have any information about Democrats to make such a comparison.

Quote it.

"That seems to be what the evidence shows. No one is presenting any evidence to the contrary."

The evidence doesn't 'seem to show' that. It is too narrow to generalise.



So instead of playing some silly back and forth game, what conclusions do you think the quoted article supports?

If you think there is insufficient evidence to answer the question "Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?" one way or the other then we can leave it at that.

 

[Nous]

It doesn't support your reply to Skwim.

Quote the "evidence to the contrary" that someone had presented.

As I said, it doesn't have any information about Democrats to make such a comparison.

Mellman cites evidence on Democrats' responses to the same question for which he cites Republicans' responses.

The evidence doesn't 'seem to show' that. It is too narrow to generalise.

Prove it.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that it is your claims that are unsupported by any evidence.

 

[Augustus]

Paucity of evidence? Are you suggesting that the article he referred does not exist? He's trying to engender discussion one way or another. Don't feel you have to post if you don't like the discussion. I thought it was a wonderful troll.

I'm suggesting it is functionally useless in answering the title question.

Do you believe it is sufficient to draw a conclusion on the title question?

If not then we agree.

Excellent.

 

[Nous]

I'm suggesting it is functionally useless in answering the title question.

So you simply cannot answer the question asked in the OP. I wonder then why you are posting.

BTW, did you see Sunstone's post?

 

[Augustus]

Quote the "evidence to the contrary" that someone had presented.

Mellman cites evidence on Democrats' responses to the same question for which he cites Republicans' responses.

Prove it.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that it is your claims that are unsupported by any evidence.

So instead of playing some silly back and forth game, what conclusions do you think the quoted article supports?

If you think there is insufficient evidence to answer the question "Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?" one way or the other then we can leave it at that.

 

[Nous]

So, Augustus, you are giving up on trying to present any evidence to subustantiate your claims?

 

[Augustus]

So you simply cannot answer the question asked in the OP. I wonder then why you are posting.

I have answered it.

Until there is evidence to believe otherwise then I will assume that both sides are equally guilty as I believe this reflects our basic cognition.

As a species we are predisposed to being "sheeple" and there is mountains of evidence to support this which you can find yourself if you are interested.

BTW, did you see Sunstone's post?

Yes.

 

[Nous]

I have answered it.

Until there is evidence to believe otherwise then I will assume that both sides are equally guilty as I believe this reflects our basic cognition.

The evidence cited by Mellman showed that Democrats did not change their views and values in the way or to the degree that Republicans did.

Yes.

Which is further evidence of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, is it not?

 

[Augustus]

The evidence cited by Mellman showed that Democrats did not change their views and values in the way or to the degree that Republicans did.

"Back in 2015, nearly a third of Republicans said they wouldn’t support him if he were the GOP nominee. It’s hard to argue he’s become objectively more appealing since then, but he has become the leader of the party, and partisans followed him. "

A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national pollof likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders -- 55 percent -- plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...f-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton


The conventions did move some Sanders voters to Clinton. In national pollstaken right before the conventions, Clinton was winning around half of Sanders supporters when Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were included as an option — 57 percent (per CNN and Marist) and 44 percent (per YouGov).1Now, Clinton is at 69 percent (CNN), 65 percent (Marist) and 49 percent (YouGov).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...pporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm suggesting it is functionally useless in answering the title question.

Yet you keep posting answers. How's that working for you?

Do you believe it is sufficient to draw a conclusion on the title question?

Sufficient? Inevitable is more like it. That's the point @Nous was trying to make.

 

[Acim]

So you do not claim that you have proven your claims that "his claims are erroneously worded, and/or unsubstantiated." Right?

In much the same way his claims are substantiated, mine are as well. Because I say so.

The thread has proceeded for 8 pages already.

Assume, arguendo, that the figures Mellman cites are correct. Do you have any other argument that his conclusions are wrong.

(BTW, pardon me for suggesting that you would have any argument--I remember your attempt to state a syllogism.)

Other than his numbers being only actually/technically representative of around .02% of all Republicans, nope.

 

[Augustus]

Yet you keep posting answers. How's that working for you?

In terms of a meaningful dialogue, not very well.

Sufficient? Inevitable is more like it.

What does that even mean?

From the evidence the answer to the question is "inevitable"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

From the evidence the answer to the question is "inevitable"?

No, it's inevitable the average reader will arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion will be different for each of us, both in direction and intensity, but we'll be drawing our own conclusions.

 

[Augustus]

No, it's inevitable the average reader will arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion will be different for each of us, both in direction and intensity, but we'll be drawing our own conclusions.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw though is that there is insufficient evidence in the article to answer the question.

Any other conclusion based on the article alone would just be wrong.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The only reasonable conclusion

I can't remember anyone accusing you of being 'reasonable'.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't remember anyone accusing you of being 'reasonable'.

I did.