CDZ False Premises in Debate Questions

[jwoodie]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

 

[mamooth]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

You mean the well-proven implication.

If I ask a question about the earth, flat earthers will tell me how questions assuming the round earth are loaded. The fact that someone doesn't understand the science doesn't mean the science is wrong.

The question is badly phrased. It sounds like it's asking whether someone believes climate science exists, as opposed to whether they believe the results of that science.

The second is also just clumsy phrasing, as it seems to be getting at whether you'd accept the results of independent states.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, and I could only guess that he was referring to the media's accounting.

 

[jwoodie]

You mean the well-proven implication.

Unlike you, I mean exactly what I say. If you have a question about it, feel free to ask.

 

[ClaireH]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Excellent points and observations. The biased format was a mixed bag indeed, but what caught my attention was stated right before the debate on stage, by Joe Biden to Trump. Biden's greeting, "How ya doing man?" is never the way to speak to a country's president and this was an intentional comment meant to fire up Trump at the get-go. It's significant when US citizens feel they can address the president so informally, but I suspect it was intentional. Our country has come to yet another crossroad in 2020, and the next election in 2024 will be equally as important. I look for a valid 3rd party presidential nominee to win in 2024, regardless of which current candidate wins in 2020. It will be a candidate that the average American can be proud to have as a world leader. The current two major parties have too much of their rhetoric in the gutter. Only the middle of the road is the usable surface of course This will be the way forward and the way to "save" our fine country.

 

[bloodhogs]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

 

[San Souci]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

You mean the well-proven implication.

If I ask a question about the earth, flat earthers will tell me how questions assuming the round earth are loaded. The fact that someone doesn't understand the science doesn't mean the science is wrong.

The question is badly phrased. It sounds like it's asking whether someone believes climate science exists, as opposed to whether they believe the results of that science.

The second is also just clumsy phrasing, as it seems to be getting at whether you'd accept the results of independent states.

There is no such thing. Clean air and water? Sure. Good things. But trying to SCARE people with fairy tales is NOT right.

 

[ClaireH]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

You're right that the Dems and Reps will do everything possible (minus many disgruntled moderates on both sides) to make sure they don't lose any ground (votes) with a valid 3rd party candidate possibility. One problem is the history of having so many small 3rd parties (used to be over 200 but is now around 100 or so) dilutes any validity. The way it could play out, however, is that a well-known candidate (wealthy and/or access to the required wealth to run) who is not a partisan hack nor has ever held office, runs on a 3rd party ticket. It still matters to many Americans to vote for a "likeable" character, so this individual will be a well-known and well-liked celebrity (media types have of course implied a few-Cuban, Oprah, The Rock, were considering this time around but took a pass) who decides to actually give it a shot. The bigger picture is what matters imo more than who breaks the ice first. That's important as many die-hard partisans will flip out when and if this happens. Once this well-known "celebrity" cuts into the mix with media attention (likely a left-leaning type with financial backers) it will break the mold. The US 2-party system is the result mostly from our one-vote system, instead of plurality voting that would involve a system of true representation of the county. It will and can happen, just not this time around The political pendulum has worked pretty well over the years considering all outcomes. It's time though to switch gears as our system is in the mud, and that's due to corruption, one-upping, and worse from both sides of the aisle. The people will decide

 

[flacaltenn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

You're half right. LOL.. About the independent certification.. Global Warming IS a fact. But its no longer the hair on fire 6 or 8 degC by 2100 that was PROJECTED when the GW circus started.

And the 0.6DegC warming in your lifetime ALONE doesn't tell us what the temperature anomaly is gonna be 2100.. Or whether the models can predict 50 years out or whether melting in Antarctica is due to air temperature or newly found volcanic rifts under the ice shelf.. The 99 OTHER questions about GW are not "settled science"...

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

You mean the well-proven implication.

If I ask a question about the earth, flat earthers will tell me how questions assuming the round earth are loaded. The fact that someone doesn't understand the science doesn't mean the science is wrong.

The question is badly phrased. It sounds like it's asking whether someone believes climate science exists, as opposed to whether they believe the results of that science.

The second is also just clumsy phrasing, as it seems to be getting at whether you'd accept the results of independent states.

I'd sure like to see this magic proof, no one has provided in the decades since the claim was made.

 

[flacaltenn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

I USED to believe that. Spent many years active in the Libertarian party.. LATELY -- I've been actively working on greasing the skids for INDEPENDENTS.. Because it's the 2 old decrepit, inept, useless and corrrupt parties that are STOKING the division.. THey've been in opposition so LONG -- it's the Hatfields and McCoys. They've REDESIGNED the structure of Congress to their OWN purposes. And even a dozen Indies in Congress would BLOW up their fouling of our Federal govt leadership..

All that's happening now is that the 2 tribes are staking out RIDICULOUS positions at the extremes of every issue and doing NOTHING to problem solve or think like INDIVIDUAL LEADERS.. Which is the inherent design of our government..

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Those are "litmus test positions".. Meaning they EXPECT a yes/no answer.. Nothing nuanced or complicated as they inherently are.

And there were MANY of those tossed out by Chris Wallace.. Another one was "what is your message to the Proud Boys"??.. When 96.5% of America -- and I believe Trump included -- had no real idea who the Proud Boys are.. That's why he bobbled the answer on that one.. The false premise on THAT ONE obviously was that Proud Boys is a deep White Supremacist organization.. And that's not clear at all..

Trump didn't know of them.. Thus the strange answer.. Kinda like the "Aleppo moment" that Gary Johnson had at 5AM on Morning Joe in 2016 when he asked "what is Aleppo"?? Gary ADMITTED he did not know -- but when prompted with the context -- gave an OK answer..

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

 

[sartre play]

Try and keep it simple. If we do everything we can to keep our water air and soil clean, we get to live longer & better. While protecting future generations.

 

[2aguy]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Global warming and cooling happened long before man was on the planet........and is now being used by people like you to grab more power.......

 

[2aguy]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Those are "litmus test positions".. Meaning they EXPECT a yes/no answer.. Nothing nuanced or complicated as they inherently are.

And there were MANY of those tossed out by Chris Wallace.. Another one was "what is your message to the Proud Boys"??.. When 96.5% of America -- and I believe Trump included -- had no real idea who the Proud Boys are.. That's why he bobbled the answer on that one.. The false premise on THAT ONE obviously was that Proud Boys is a deep White Supremacist organization.. And that's not clear at all..

Trump didn't know of them.. Thus the strange answer.. Kinda like the "Aleppo moment" that Gary Johnson had at 5AM on Morning Joe in 2016 when he asked "what is Aleppo"?? Gary ADMITTED he did not know -- but when prompted with the context -- gave an OK answer..

The leader of the Proud Boys is a Black guy............

 

[2aguy]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

If the high priests of the religion of man made global warming believed what they are pushing, they wouldn't be buying oceanfront mansions......and they would embrace nuclear energy. They simply want to make cheap, reliable energy scarce, so that they have more power and control over the masses........

 

[Leo123]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.