Democrats for DeSantis

[historia]

Consider this argument:

• PREMISE 1: Donald Trump poses a unique threat to American democracy.
• PREMISE 2: One of the major ways to avert that threat is for Trump to lose the Republican nomination for president.
• PREMISE 3: Ron DeSantis has the best chance to defeat Trump in the Republican primary.
• CONCLUSION: Democrats, Independents, and "never Trump" Republicans should support DeSantis in the Republican primary.

Question for debate:

Do you agree with the above argument?

If not, which premises (or assumptions underlying them) do you think are wrong?

[historia]

your argument still remains invalid because in a valid three premise argument no term ("Trump" in this case) can be used in every premise.

Where did you get that idea?

Boy, that I recall from a logic class I had quite some years ago.

Seems then we have no good reason to accept this objection. "No term can be used in every premise" is not a thing.

But even more vexing is why you get to slip in a modal verb to expresses a recommendation such as "should" into your conclusion? Where the heck did that come from?

I think this too is simply an assumption underlying PREMISE 1, which we can express as:

PREMISE 1b: Americans should take every opportunity to avert threats to American democracy.

[Miles]

your argument still remains invalid because in a valid three premise argument no term ("Trump" in this case) can be used in every premise.

Where did you get that idea?

Boy, that I recall from a logic class I had quite some years ago.

Seems then we have no good reason to accept this objection. "No term can be used in every premise" is not a thing.

But even more vexing is why you get to slip in a modal verb to expresses a recommendation such as "should" into your conclusion? Where the heck did that come from?

I think this too is simply an assumption underlying PREMISE 1, which we can express as:

PREMISE 1b: Americans should take every opportunity to avert threats to American democracy.

Sorry, but midstream you already fell off the horse you were attempting to change from. This simply ain't the way formal logic works.

.

[Purple Knight]

Do you agree with the above argument?

Well, yes. It's perfectly valid.

Actually, it isn't valid at all. For one thing, every term in a conclusion must appear in at least one of the premises. The term "Democrats, Independents, and "never Trump" Republicans" doesn't appear in any premise.

.

If you reduce the argument to a perfect categorical one, with nothing implied and everything stated explicitly, I imagine it would read something like this:

1. Trump is the worst outcome. (Distilled from, "Trump poses a unique threat to American democracy.")
2. It is better to eliminate the possibility of the worst outcome, than pursue the best outcome. (Implied premise.)
_____
3. Therefore, it is better to spend your vote helping to prevent the worst outcome, than pursuing the best outcome.
4. Attempting to defeat Trump in the Republican Primary has a better chance to prevent the worst outcome than letting Trump win the nomination, at which point the American People may choose him.
_____
5. It is better to attempt to defeat Trump in the Primary.

[historia]

Sorry, but midstream you already fell off the horse you were attempting to change from.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

This simply ain't the way formal logic works.

You seem a bit hung up on the formal structure of the argument in the OP, as if it were a syllogism or something. The OP is an inductive argument, so your focus on it being "invalid" is rather misplaced.

[Diogenes]

We have a lot of great people in the Dem Party and we should improve our messaging, not play dangerous political games.

What "danger" comes from helping DeSantis defeat Trump in the Republican primary?

If the polls that show Desantis fares a better chance against Biden than other candidates are accurate then Desantis presents a greater "danger" for Democrats. https://nypost.com/2023/06/18/desantis- ... -foe-poll/

My impression is that Trump is seen as an increasingly unpalatable candidate as well as a horrible person, so he's the perfect opponent for Biden, from the DEMS point of view. The GOP has been hijacked by a swath of right wing extremists and religious zealots (most of whom wouldn't recognize Jesus if they prayed with him) that are blind to the fact Trump is a lifelong criminal and inveterate liar who, by his own statements against a dozen or more of the key people he appointed, chooses "HORRIBLE, STUPID, OVERRATED" people to work in government.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bret-ba ... 32610.html

If the GOP does not get its act together and completely reject Trump and Trumpism, there will be no reasonable alternative to the Democratic Party. The DEMS should WELCOME another Trump run, especially if he is convicted for any of the numerous felonies he's charged with.

[Miles]

This simply ain't the way formal logic works.

You seem a bit hung up on the formal structure of the argument in the OP, as if it were a syllogism or something. The OP is an inductive argument, so your focus on it being "invalid" is rather misplaced.

You are aware, are you not, that in an inductive argument the conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of its premises: So if your argument is indeed inductive, wherein your conclusion can well be false, why should anyone bother with it?

As for your "as if it were a syllogism or something" the structure

• PREMISE 1:
• PREMISE 2:
• PREMISE 3:
• CONCLUSION:

is exactly that of a syllogism. Not that an inductive argument can't borrow from deductive logic, but it's highly unusual; it's almost as if you're trying to pass it off as a syllogism. Hmmm.




.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #55

If the GOP does not get its act together and completely reject Trump and Trumpism, there will be no reasonable alternative to the Democratic Party. The DEMS should WELCOME another Trump run, especially if he is convicted for any of the numerous felonies he's charged with.

The danger is that a variety of voter-disenfranchisement tactics on the state level could end up giving elections to the GOP no matter who they run.

The two-party system is intrinsically dysfunctional.

[historia]

You are aware, are you not, that in an inductive argument the conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of its premises

Of course.

So if your argument is indeed inductive, wherein your conclusion can well be false, why should anyone bother with it?

The vast, vast majority of arguments on this website are inductive in their form. Participants here tend to "bother" with them to determine whether they are strong or weak, and thus likely true or not.

As for your "as if it were a syllogism or something" the structure . . . is exactly that of a syllogism.

Inductive arguments can also be laid out this way, so this is not unique to syllogisms. The structure is simply there to provide a reference aid.

[The Barbarian]

It's kind of a race. Can the republicans implement enough Gerrymandering, voter suppression, fake elector plans, etc. to overcome their continuing drop in voter acceptance?

Polling data shows Republican party affiliation is down as independents leaning toward the Democratic party surge
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-n ... 1617812129

[The Barbarian]

The vast, vast majority of arguments on this website are inductive in their form. Participants here tend to "bother" with them to determine whether they are strong or weak, and thus likely true or not.

Science is entirely inductive, and hardly anything works as well as science.

BTW, there are inductive proofs...
https://www.themathdoctors.org/inductiv ... -examples/