Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.
That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.
I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.
You haven’t provided any reason why the situations aren’t comparable. If you introduce more parties, it doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.
Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.
Of course it does.
That’s called an analogy.
No it doesn’t.
Not when it isn’t analogous to the situation presented. Which yours is not.
Prove it.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.
You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.