What's with the disclaimer? Just post it. It's not my feelings that you are trying to protect.
- You made the claim that Trump could still win the election, but you never provided evidence of how this is possible, mathematically or otherwise. When specifically going down the route of widespread voter fraud, you never provided evidence of widespread voter fraud.
- You made the claim I lied about making a mundane edit to my point. Whether or not I made the edit, you never provided evidence of a lie.
- You made the claim that I said lying and pedophilia were comparable in how bad they were, but you never provided evidence.
- You made the claim that there was another option with regard to you misunderstanding the burden of proof or being disingenuous when discussing the burden of proof, but you never provided another option. For context, you said Amanda had a burden of proof, when in fact she was calling you out for not providing evidence for other claims you made. When I described how you had the burden of proof, you continued to insist you did not. Since this followed my explanation of burden of proof, you either didn't understand burden of proof, or you were being disingenuous. There are no other options that you have demonstrated.
Lol. I don't see how it is possible, but it's lost on you.
Be specific please. I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't see how what is possible?
If there is widespread voter fraud, then there is evidence. If there is zero evidence, then there is no widespread voter fraud. You want to have your cake an eat it too. This is a situation where nuance is important. Previously, you have made claims that are more aligned with reality, ie: "Trump hasn't presented evidence"--even though it wasn't considered substantial evidence, it still is evidence, but I'll let you have that. What I dispute about what you do is that you is make a statement that accounts for all of reality and possibility, essentially stating that it cannot exist.
It is possible for there to be widespread voter fraud without there being evidence of widespread voter fraud, but the time to believe there was widespread voter fraud is when there's evidence of widespread voter fraud. I didn't once make the argument that there was definitely no widespread voter fraud (not that I don't believe this), and I never once said there absolutely couldn't be evidence of widespread voter fraud. I've only ever said there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and that's correct.
You would embarrass yourself less if you took the time to read my posts. You would also waste less time, because you're arguing against a version of me who doesn't exist.
Disagree. Stating that there is zero evidence is, by extension, saying that there is no widespread voter fraud.
That's not how logic works. I can say there's zero evidence of extraterrestrial aliens, for example, but that's not necessarily an argument that they don't exist, and I wouldn't make that argument.
I need at least one hypothetical example where this can be true so that I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not backpedaling.
First, it doesn't matter, since I didn't argue anything other than "there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud," which means I didn't make the argument that absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence (not that I'm saying I don't agree with that).
As for an example when absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, take the claim that I keep a pet alligator in my basement. If you come over to my basement and see no alligator, no pool, no cage, no alligator food, no blood stains, etc., then you have absence of evidence that functions as evidence of absence. The same could be said for the claim that I own a cat in my house. If you come over to my house and see no cat, no litter box, no cat food, no cat toys, no cat hair, etc., this is an example of absence of evidence equaling evidence of absence.
