something to keep in mind

[D.o.S.]

Don't know much about

History...

Don't know much

Biology...

Don't know much about

Science book...

Don't know much

French I took...

[Achtane]

[MSUsousaphone]

[bigchiefbc]

::edit::

Nevermind, I really regret it every time I get into politics on this forum.

[snipelfritz]

Guys..........

The programs to help people get IDs are already out there. They help with transportation and even pay the $10 to 20 to get the ID (remember, we're talking just IDs and not driver's licenses). It's really part of my job. I don't have to it often since most people have IDs, but it's quite easy and it gets resolved quickly when they don't. This has also been an issue that's been going on for years. It's not new. It's not just for this election. I'm all about freedom of speech but sometimes I wish politicians could be held accountable for spreading false information the way that they do. One party making people think IDs are gold and hard to come by is just the tip of the ice berg. I'm not saying it's just one party, either. Both of them make sure their followers are ignorant of facts to push their agenda.

Show me your papers, comrade.

If we don't have voter ID laws, we don't need photo ID programs. If we don't have voter fraud, we don't need voter ID laws. We don't have voter fraud. Socrates is mortal.

[01010111]

If we don't have voter ID laws, we don't need photo ID programs. If we don't have voter fraud, we don't need voter ID laws. We don't have voter fraud. Socrates is mortal.

I love deductive arguments sooooo much, and I agree with your overall point. So, everything that follows is a discussion of your deductive logic statement.

Unfortunately, because of the causality implied, just because we don't have voter fraud doesn't mean that, because we don't have voter fraud, that we don't need voter ID laws. While it does provide evidence that we might not need voter ID laws, it doesn't definitely saw that we don't need voter ID laws. A better way to word the argument would be:
If we pass voter ID laws, then we can reduce voter fraud.
But because there is no voter fraud to be reduced, we can't reduce voter fraud.
Therefore, we should not pass voter ID laws.

The line of reasoning you're using is called denying the antecedent and it's an invalid argument and a formal fallacy.

[snipelfritz]

Damn, I want to study logic so bad. Combined with what I've already covered in rhetoric, I'd be unstoppable!


When it comes to debating with people on the internet...

And not so this isn't all argument, that video is still funny.

[01010111]

Deductive logic is awesome and so is that video. I wish old people threatened to haunt people they hate more often.

[hclapp219]

Voter ID laws only address one specific type of fraud: pretending to be someone else when you vote in person. There are ten documented cases of this happening since 2000: http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/. Here's another article on these laws: http://www.propublica.org/article/every ... er-id-laws

Some interesting tidbits:

- According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

- The analysis also found that those who lack valid photo ID tended to be young people, those without college educations, Hispanics and the poor.

- Prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting.

To me, these laws seem like a solution in search of a problem. Oh wait, the problem is the people who aren't going to vote for your guy...

[excane]

Don't know much about

History...

Don't know much

Biology...

Don't know much about

Science book...

Don't know much

French I took...

This made my day