Was the 2020 Election Stolen? Or, How NOT to Make a Political Argument

My goal is to be a good thinker and to be able to make good arguments to support my beliefs. Every day I try to learn more about how to be a good thinker. On October 17, 2022 I saw an interview that features a really BAD argument for what someone believes. Let's analyze this terrible argument and see if we can learn how NOT to defend our beliefs.

In this video Dana Bash is interviewing Kari Lake. Dana Bash works for CNN. Kari Lake was a Phoenix news anchor for 22 years and is now running on the Republican ticket for Arizona governor. This clip last for 4 minutes and 15 seconds.

You can see the video here: Click here for the video

At the beginning of the interview Dana says that Kari has claimed the 2020 election was stolen and also says there is no evidence of these claims and that such claims have been debunked. Kari does not deny that she has claimed the 2020 election was stolen and she insists there is PLENTY of evidence. At this point we might expect Kari to present her evidence and persuade us the 2020 election was stolen.

Kari starts her argument by saying that 740,000 votes had no chain of evidence and should not have been counted. Dana asks for evidence of this but Kari does not have the evidence with her. She says she will send the evidence to Dana's staff…. All this happens in the first 30 seconds of the interview.

Now let's pause for a second here because this is an amazing thing for Kari to say. She makes a claim about 740,000 votes that, she says, should not have been counted. Dana asks her to back up this claim with evidence but Kari is unable to back up the claim. Apparently, Kari neglected to identify the source of evidence for her claim BEFORE the interview so she could point us to it IN the interview! Instead, she says that she will have to send the evidence to Dana's staff! That is incredible!

Kari obviously knew she was going to be interviewed on a national TV show. She must have known she would be asked about her claims that the 2020 election was stolen. And yet she came with a claim she could not back up on the spot. That seems like astoundingly incompetent preparation for an interview! One could be excused for wondering if she really FORGOT to bring her evidence or if, perhaps, she doesn't really have any evidence to bring....

On top of that, even if it is true that there are 740,000 votes with no chain of evidence, that would not prove the election was stolen. We would have to know what states these votes were cast in. We would have to know if these votes were Democratic or Republican or a mix of both. We would have to know what Kari means by "no chain of evidence." Is that her opinion or does she have some objective evidence of wrongdoing? Was there any evidence the votes were tampered with? Were any of these claims litigated in court and, if so, what was the result? Kari does not tell us anything except the claim that there are 740,000 votes that should not have been counted without backing that claim up in any way.

As I said, all this happens in the first 30 seconds. For the rest of the interview, another 3 minutes and 45 seconds Kari never even once tries to prove that the 2020 election was stolen, she just keeps trying to change the subject.

First, from 30 to 40 seconds, she says the media does not want to cover evidence that the election was stolen. This is laughably absurd since she is saying this on a media show where she was just asked to present her evidence so the media could cover it, and then failed to present her evidence. It is pretty disingenuous to sit in a media interview where you are asked to present evidence they can cover, fail to present any evidence for them to cover, and then accuse of them of not wanting to cover the evidence. So, that was kind of head-spinning.

After that from about 0:40 to 2:10 in the interview Kari shifts to the claim that people don't trust our elections. This may or may not be true but notice that Kari is now not even trying to defend her claim that the 2020 election was stolen, she has changed the subject to "people don't trust our elections" which is not at all the same as the claim that "the 2020 election was stolen." She talks about the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2016 election, the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, which are all interesting subjects, but none of those subjects have anything to do with whether or not the 2020 election was stolen.

Near the 2:10 mark Kari tries to change the subject yet again by claiming that she has a 1st Amendment right to question the government and that the media is cancelling people who question the government about the 2020 election. The 1st Amendment claim is one that nobody has denied as far as I know. Within very broad limits everybody in the United States has a right to say whatever they want. We agree on that. The second claim, that the media cancels people who question the 2020 election, is absurd given that she is LITERALLY making this claim during an interview about the 2020 election on a national TV show and has just been given an opportunity to present her evidence and has failed to do so.

From 2:10 to 3:40 Dana played clips of three leading officials from the Trump Administration, including the Attorney-General Bill Barr, all saying there was no evidence the 2020 election was stolen. Kari never addressed these statements at all but, instead, tried to change the subject again. This time she wants to talk about Maricopa County in 2022. Fascinating subject I'm sure, but doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the 2020 election was stolen.

At the end Kari says all she wants is "honesty, integrity, and transparency in our elections." But if that was all she wanted then everyone would agree with her and there would be no controversy. There is controversy because she has claimed the 2020 election was stolen. BUT, when she is on an interview on a national TV show and asked to present evidence the 2020 election was stolen she somehow... forgot to bring the evidence with her. And then she spends the next 3 minutes and 45 seconds trying to change the subject to anything in the world EXCEPT the 2020 election. If Kari, who spent 22 years as a news anchor, and is now running for governor of Arizona CANNOT make a case that the 2020 election was stolen when given an opportunity to do so, why should anyone believe the 2020 election was stolen?

I try to be a good thinker. As far as I can see in this interview Kari did not present any evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. In fact, she spent most of the interview trying to run away from questions about the 2020 election being stolen. Unless someone can do a better job than Kari did here, we should NOT believe that the 2020 election was stolen.

Right?

Finally, can we learn from this trainwreck of a presentation how NOT to make a political argument on national TV? How could we do better than Kari did in a situation like this? Here are some tips:

• First: bring your evidence! Don't say there is PLENTY evidence and then be unable to provide it when asked. Looks bad!
• Second: Don't keep trying to change the subject. If you want to prove something then PROVE it! You can't prove something by continually jumping to other subjects. Looks bad!
• Third: Don't say obviously false things. For example, don't say nobody wants to see evidence when the interviewer JUST asked you to share your evidence. Looks bad!

[Note: I have not yet read the books I link to in this post but I am looking forward to reading all of them. Someday! They all look like important books about recent history. If you read them before I do please leave a comment and tell me about them. If you click on any of these links and then buy these books, or almost anything else at Amazon, Anything Smart will earn a commission. Thanks for your support!]

**********

If you want to support Anything Smart, please click on the book links in this post and make a purchase. If you buy any of these books through this blog, Anything Smart will earn a commission. Thanks for visiting my blog, and thanks for your support!

***

Copyright © 2022 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #11: Bocardo

The 11^th valid syllogism to study is called Bocardo. In symbols Bocardo looks like this:
Some M's are not P's
All M's are S's
Therefore, some S's are not P's

In words a Bocardo argument could come out like this:

Some people who act on their grievances against the government are not heroes
All people who act on their grievances against the government are protesters
Therefore, some protesters are not heroes.

Is that second line true? How do we define "protester?" That could be a weak point in this syllogism.

Here is another example:

Some people who break very minor laws are not deserving of jail time
All people who break even very minor laws are criminals
Therefore, some some criminals are not deserving of jail time.

Notice I changed the wording of the M term very slightly between lines 1 and 2. If I changed the meaning of the M terms in those two lines I have damaged this syllogism. I think the meaning is the same and the syllogism is good.

Notice that this syllogism is essentially making a distinction between different kinds of criminals – those who deserve jail and those who don't. A lot of thinking is just doing this – making distinctions. One of the clearest warning signs of a poor thinker is the inability to make distinctions. For poor thinkers everything gets a label and everything with the same label is the same. If you meet someone who thinks every Democrat and every Republican, every rich person and every poor person, every illegal alien and every terrorist, every person on welfare and every Syrian refugee is the same as everyone else in their group and deserves the same treatment – you're probably dealing with a poor thinker.

One caution, sometimes we use expressions like "All politicians seek power for themselves" as an emphatic way of saying "MOST politicians seek power for themselves." If they mean "most" ask them to say "most." If they mean all, you might be dealing with a poor thinker so start looking for counter-examples to disprove their statement.

Only use "all," as we do in syllogisms, when the subject is carefully limited and defined so that "all" is the right word to use and no counter-examples will shoot down the argument we are trying to make.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

I have not read this book but it looks great! Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

How to Think #10: Baroco

The 10^th valid syllogism is called Baroco and in symbols it looks like this:

1. All P's are M's

2. Some S's are not M's

3. Therefore, some S's are not P's

In words a Baroco argument might come out like this:

1. All philosophers are intelligent

2. Some philosophy professors are not intelligent

3. Therefore, some philosophy professors are not philosophers

Any valid syllogism with true premises and correctly defined terms has a true conclusion and is important for that very reason. My favorite syllogisms, though, have a little sting in the tail. They put ideas together in a surprising way, in a way we might not have noticed without the syllogism's help.

All good people are honest

Some police officers are not honest

Therefore, some police officers are not good people

All immoral acts are unnecessary

Some violent acts are not unnecessary

Therefore, some violent acts are not immoral acts

On this last one we could have very long debates about what "unnecessary" means. :-)

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

I believe this is classic work by a genius but I have not read it. Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

How to Think #9: Dimatis

Our ninth valid syllogism is named Dimatis and looks like this in symbols:
1. Some P's are M's
2. All M's are S's
3. Therefore, some S's are P's

You might notice this is identical to Disamis except that the terms in the first premise – the major premise – are reversed.

After we finish an introductory look at each of the valid syllogisms we'll talk about some important logical theory and then we'll go through the syllogisms again grouping them into "families" and also identifying the specific types of questions or truth each syllogism is especially suited to answer or illuminate.

In words a Dimatis syllogism could look like this:

1. Some buildings are works of art
2. All works of art should be preserved
3. Therefore, some of the things that should be preserved are buildings

Here is how – believe it or not - a Dimatis might pop up in casual conversation:

The person you are with says "I never waste my time with popular novels."

So you say, [Line 1] "Surely you must agree that SOME popular novels have deep philosophical insights."
They say, with a superior chuckle, "Well! There are so many of them, propagating like weeds! I suppose SOME of them must have deep philosophical insights."
So you say, [Line 2] "I suppose you would agree that anything containing deep philosophical insights is worth some of your time?"
They say, a little hesitantly, "Well... I suppose... perhaps... ok."
And then you conclude - with a casual air - as if it is the most obvious thing in the world, "It would seem then, that IF some popular novels have deep philosophical insights, and IF anything containing deep philosophical insights is worth some of your time, THEN [Conclusion] some of the things that are worth some of your time are popular novels."

And there they are, poor soul - entangled in the tentacles of a Dimatis syllogism, without ever having known that such a thing existed.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

This looks like a great book on thinking but I haven't read it yet. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

How to Think #8: Disamis

Now for our eighth valid syllogism. This one is called Disamis and in symbols it looks like this:

1. Some M's are P's

2. All M's are S's

3. Therefore, some S's are P's

If this one looks familiar there is a very good reason. It is exactly the same as Datisi except we have changed the first word of the first line from "All" to "Some" and the first word of the second line from "Some" to "All." The conclusion remains the same.

In words Disamis might come out like this:

1. Some police officers are criminals

2. All police officers get special treatment from prosecutors

3. Therefore, some people who get special treatment from prosecutors are criminals

Remember, syllogisms are intended to be true without doubt - if they are properly set up. Properly set up means: you use a valid syllogism, the premises are true, and the terms used in the syllogism have the same definition throughout.

So if you are making a syllogistic argument yourself make sure you set it up right. If your opponent makes a syllogistic argument and you disagree with the conclusion here is your line of attack: 1) check to see if the syllogism used is one of the valid forms, 2) check to see if the premises are true, 3) verify that the meanings of the terms used do not change from one line to the next.

If you find a mistake you may be able to refute your opponent's argument. If you can't find a mistake maybe you have found a new truth and will have to change your beliefs to accommodate it.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

This looks like a great book on thinking but I haven't read it yet. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

How to Think #7: Datisi

Here is our seventh valid syllogism which is named Datisi. In symbols it looks like this:
1. All M's are P's
2. Some M's are S's
3. Therefore, Some S's are P's

If this looks familiar there is a good reason for that. Datisi is exactly the same as Darii except the terms in the second premise are reversed.

Using words to construct a Datisi syllogism we might come up with this:

1. All medical doctors are well-educated
2. Some medical doctors are incompetent
3. Therefore, Some incompetent people are well-educated

Or this:

1. All medical treatments are beneficial
2. Some medical treatments are painful
3. Therefore, Some painful things are beneficial

For this last syllogism we might argue that the first premise is not as true as we would like it to be and I would certainly argue that the second premise – even though, in my experience, it seems to be true now - means we need to work harder to develop better, and less painful, treatments.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

This looks like a good book. If you get to it before I do please send a review I can publish here.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

How to Think #6: Darii

For our sixth valid syllogism we look at Darii. In symbols Darii looks like this:
1. All M's are P's
2. Some S's are M's
3. Some S's are P's

If we substitute words for symbols we could come up with something like this:

1. All people who are cruel to children are evil
2. Some teachers are cruel to children
3. Therefore, some teachers are evil

Good syllogisms might lead to surprising results that make us stop and think about what we really do and do not believe. How about this example of Darii:

1. All intelligent people are worth listening to
2. Some terrorists are intelligent people
3. Therefore, some terrorists are worth listening to


Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

This book looks great. If you get to it before I do please send a review I can publish here.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Becoming Objective +

This post is about how to think more objectively. I also recommend some books that can help us sharpen our thinking. I hope you will buy them and enjoy them!

Some problems we will never solve. But the best chance for solving problems will come when we use rational and objective thinking. If we don't do this, we doom ourselves to almost certain failure. We should all work to improve our ability to think rationally and objectively.

One place where we often see irrational and subjective thinking is in political discussion and debate. This is one reason political arguments are endless and never persuade anyone. If one, or both, of the people arguing is not really THINKING then how can ANY argument be expected to persuade?

Politics effects our lives in such important ways it seems that good thinking would be a high priority here. Sadly, it seems that many people approach political discussions more concerned with defending their preconceived opinions than in thinking clearly, reaching logical conclusions, and solving problems.

There are many other areas in life where rational and objective thinking is vital. Engineering, Medicine, Military Command, Business Management, and many others all require professionals to set aside their opinions or desires and base their decisions on evidence: on verifiable facts and valid arguments.

Sometimes professionals fail to do this and bridges collapse, or patients die, or battles are lost, or companies go bankrupt because of it. In spite of these failures people in most of these areas seem to do a better job of upholding standards of rationality and objectivity than people involved in political debate do.

The article "How To Be Objective When You're Emotionally Invested" gives some useful tips for improving objectivity in a business environment. Maybe some of these tips could be applied to improving our objectivity in other areas.

The two tips I would add for improving rationality and objectivity are:

• Verify facts
• Analyze arguments

We should not waste much time in disputes about facts: we should simply verify them. If two or three independent sources confirm that a particular claim is factual then accept it and move on. If you still don't want to accept it, think very hard about WHY you don't want to accept it. What evidence do you have that these other sources don't? Realize that a very heavy burden of proof now rests on you to explain how these other sources are wrong about this fact while you are right.

If you refuse to accept facts that are confirmed and reconfirmed by independent sources then realize that most people are not going to take you seriously. And they shouldn't.

In the same way, if your opponent refuses to accept facts that are confirmed and reconfirmed by independent sources, and cannot explain how those sources are wrong, than you should simply stop arguing with that opponent. A person who refuses to accept facts cannot be reasoned with and you will find much better uses of your time elsewhere.

Similarly, we should not waste much time in disputes about arguments: we should simply analyze them. What is the conclusion? What are the premises? Do the premises actually lead to the conclusion? Is this is a commonly used argument form? If so, what is it's name? Is a fallacy committed? If so, what is it's name?

An intelligent discussion is NOT two people trading opinions or insults, it is two people carefully analyzing arguments to see which hold up to scrutiny and which do not. If your opponent doesn't know what a premise is, or what a fallacy is, stop arguing with that person and find a better use for your time.

So, is there actually an objective way to determine if someone is being objective? There is. If people are just hurling insults or stating opinions then they are NOT being objective. If people are verifying facts and analyzing arguments then they ARE being objective.

It is the second group of people we should all strive to emulate, even in political debates.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

If you want to become a better thinker AND support Anything Smart please click on links like the ones below and buy books! Anything Smart will earn a commission. Thanks!