Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Fun little exercise, if you're all with me. If not, oh well. Alternating candidates, I'd like to see an issue that supposedly might favor one candidate and your response, as a skeptic, to show that it probably just doesn't wash. Feel free to include Nader, Badnarik, or anyone else, but ideally I'd like to see alternating opinions, so someone doesn't dump on Bush for 10 straight posts or something. One issue/skeptical response at a time, please, but to help illustrate what I'm after, I'll choose two easy issues to start. Feel free to elongate or trim your response to any length you feel appropriate (I'll keep mine very short). Also, feel free to be as partisan as you wish, but please be prepared to defend yourself (civily, of course 
)
1. Bush's "You're either for us, or you're against us." Skeptical response: Duh. False dilemma/false dichotomy/ignoring the middle. Fails scrutiny.
2. Kerry's alleged Cambodia trip. Skeptical response: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, he's failed scrutiny.
edited for clarity
)1. Bush's "You're either for us, or you're against us." Skeptical response: Duh. False dilemma/false dichotomy/ignoring the middle. Fails scrutiny.
2. Kerry's alleged Cambodia trip. Skeptical response: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, he's failed scrutiny.
edited for clarity
