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]

I no longer think of him as a proven rapist, but rather a convicted sexual abuser.

Technically he's not that either, since "convicted" is generally used to describe someone found guilty in a criminal case.

This was a civil trial. So you should think of him as someone found liable for sexual abuse.

[historia]

In such a world, you never have to defeat anyone on policy. You just have to convince them that your opponent is unpopular.

So this is why PREMISE 1 is critical to the argument. If Trump poses a unique threat to American democracy, then he is not a normal candidate for the office of the President, and the normal considerations about policy do not apply.

[Miles]

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.

I think this is implied in PREMISE 2. But if we want to be extra formal about things, we can spell that out:

PREMISE 2b: In order for Trump to lose the Republican nomination, Democrats, Independents, and "never Trump" Republicans will need to support his top Republican challenger.

"Extra formal" is where validity shines; however, your argument still remains invalid because in a valid three premise argument no term ("Trump" in this case) can be used in every premise. Sorry.

.

[Miles]

I no longer think of him as a proven rapist, but rather a convicted sexual abuser.

Technically he's not that either, since "convicted" is generally used to describe someone found guilty in a criminal case.

Technically, it can well be considered a conviction because, for one thing, "generally used" doesn't imply an imperative. Although you undoubtedly don't agree with me, in this instance I think "convicted" is quite apt.

This was a civil trial. So you should think of him as someone found liable for sexual abuse.

Whether you think I should or not is immaterial, and stands as nothing more than an opinion, which, while nice I guess, is of little significance. I think of Trump as someone convicted sexual abuse, and am quite content with that thought.


And just as an FYI:

"There are several key differences between criminal cases and civil cases. Criminal cases are related to crimes that affect society and come with larger and more severe punishments. These cases need hard evidence for a conviction, which is decided by a jury, and the defendant has more rights. In comparison, civil offenses are against a specific individual or organization, and less evidence is required for conviction. The punishment is usually a monetary award as decided by a judge, and the defendant has fewer rights."
source


SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL
3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules. Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the official document classification.
source

.

[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?

[historia]

Although you undoubtedly don't agree with me, in this instance I think "convicted" is quite apt.

You can do as you like. It just seemed like you were trying to make your statement more accurate, and so I thought I'd lend you a hand.

And just as an FYI:

"There are several key differences between criminal cases and civil cases. Criminal cases are related to crimes that affect society and come with larger and more severe punishments. These cases need hard evidence for a conviction, which is decided by a jury, and the defendant has more rights. In comparison, civil offenses are against a specific individual or organization, and less evidence is required for conviction. The punishment is usually a monetary award as decided by a judge, and the defendant has fewer rights."
source

This just tells me that authors of blog posts can use loose language.

You'll notice that descriptions of civil cases in more authoritative legal reference websites don't call the outcome a "conviction."

SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL
3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules. Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the official document classification.
source

Now, the Southwest Law Journal is certainly a far more credible and scholarly source, which is no doubt why you chose to highlight that before the quote.

But this quote is simply saying that a conviction from a criminal trial can be admitted as evidence in a subsequent civil case -- which is, after all, the title of article, "Criminal Judgments as Evidence in Civil Cases." This is not saying that the result of a civil case is itself a "conviction," as that is not how that term is normally used.

[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. 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?

.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #40

Trump refusing to accept the outcome of a free and fair election, pressuring state officials to overturn the popular vote, pressuring federal officials to throw out electoral votes, fomenting a mob to attack the Capitol, and now continuing efforts to undermine the credibility of our electoral system are a threat to American democracy itself.

In all of his attacks, has DeSantis criticized Trump for any of this?

If not, I would urge you to think long and hard on what that says about DeSantis.

[Miles]

Although you undoubtedly don't agree with me, in this instance I think "convicted" is quite apt.

You can do as you like. It just seemed like you were trying to make your statement more accurate, and so I thought I'd lend you a hand.

And just as an FYI:

"There are several key differences between criminal cases and civil cases. Criminal cases are related to crimes that affect society and come with larger and more severe punishments. These cases need hard evidence for a conviction, which is decided by a jury, and the defendant has more rights. In comparison, civil offenses are against a specific individual or organization, and less evidence is required for conviction. The punishment is usually a monetary award as decided by a judge, and the defendant has fewer rights."
source

This just tells me that authors of blog posts can use loose language.

You'll notice that descriptions of civil cases in more authoritative legal reference websites don't call the outcome a "conviction."

SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL
3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules. Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the official document classification.
source

But this quote is simply saying that a conviction from a criminal trial can be admitted as evidence in a subsequent civil case -- which is, after all, the title of article, "Criminal Judgments as Evidence in Civil Cases." This is not saying that the result of a civil case is itself a "conviction," as that is not how that term is normally used.

While the journal does indeed concern itself with criminal judgments as evidence in civil cases, ask yourself where, in the statement below, the "judgment of conviction" is to take place . . . . . . Is it in a subsequent civil action, Or in a subsequent criminal action.

3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules. Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the
official document classification.'

.

[historia]

SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL
3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules. Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the official document classification.
source

. . .

But this quote is simply saying that a conviction from a criminal trial can be admitted as evidence in a subsequent civil case -- which is, after all, the title of article, "Criminal Judgments as Evidence in Civil Cases." This is not saying that the result of a civil case is itself a "conviction," as that is not how that term is normally used.

While the journal does indeed concern itself with criminal judgments as evidence in civil cases

Right, and this is important to keep in mind when reading the quote you provided, since that is precisely what Davis is talking about there too.

ask yourself where, in the statement below, the "judgment of conviction" is to take place . . . . . . Is it in a subsequent civil action, Or in a subsequent criminal action.

Neither. It took place in a prior criminal case, which is why it can then be admitted as evidence in a subsequent civil action.

You seem to be misreading the quote as if he is talking about admitting into evidence a judgment from a subsequent case, but that's nonsensical. You can't admit into evidence a judgement from a case that has yet to occur.