ccdfa
Just to be clear—I know it’s said that this is almost a gish gallop statement—but it absolutely is not.
Since we’re just talking about the headline and not the contents of the article, then this is just a statement. It’s not an argument so it can’t be a gish gallop. If we take the implications of the statement as premises and the headline as a conclusion, then this is just one singular argument which also means it cannot be a gish gallop. Any argument will have a number of premises. Where do you begin? At any of the premises. Demonstrating that the premises are false will show the conclusion to be false. By definition a gish gallop is a great number of arguments that overwhelm an opponent. One argument simply cannot be a gish gallop.
What are your numbers supposed to mean? From your article:
Prior to the debate, a New York Times/Siena College poll released Sept. 28 found Midwestern voters prefer Walz to Vance: Walz was viewed favorably by 44% of voters and unfavorably by 41%, while Vance was viewed favorably by 42% of voters and unfavorably by 48%.
So 44% like Walz, 42% like Vance. 41% dislike Walz, 48% dislike Vance. Comparing 42 and 41 is comparing two different things
Quelqu’un a-t-il vu récemment un bon film ou une bonne série qu’il pourrait recommander ? Je préférerais regarder quelque chose en français
Agreed. Someone also made this little graphic to demonstrate how nit-picky it is. The discussion in this thread is also about how we should be critiquing his claims about why egg prices are the way they are.
