Comment by extraextra
> I have no idea what this meansObviously if someone provides an argument in a debate, the assumption is that they want to persuade the audience. My question was, what's the point to even bring up an argument (the old data) if you are ready to just fold like that by saying you didn't actually believe the argument is relevant?
> I never denied the data
Direct denial, no. You were just ignoring the last 2 Dem administrations (Obama 2 and Biden) and focusing exclusively on Obama's 1st term, from almost 18 years ago.
> I denied that the data is proof of a specific policy
If consistent results are not proof of a policy, then I don't know what is - see POSIWID [1]. Dems have proven a strong velocity towards unrestrained immigration. Obama 2 and Biden's administrations are the most recent Dem administrations, very strong evidence in my opinion. If you don't accept those obvious facts as proof, in my opinion you've proven invincible ignorance [2].
> Just like the historic rise in murders during Trump's first term is not proof that he had a policy of wanting as many murders as possible.
POSIWID applies when we can observe consistent results. You point out 1 year of elevated crimes or a global one-off like COVID say "that's proof of a policy, just like 8 years of high illegal immigration".
By the way, regarding the crime rate, a second reason why it's a bad argument is that during Biden's first 2 years in office the U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate was even higher than the "historic rise" of 2021. Average U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate was overall worse during Bidens years.
> I can't go back 15 years in your own provided dataset, but you readily pull an example from 30 years ago
It was not an example against your argument, it was actually in favor of what you said, "Dem policy changes". I was agreeing with you, I was saying yes, that's what happened.
> You haven't discussed one policy
I said "I'm discussing the different results of immigration policies", where "different results of immigration policies" is the direct object of the sentence and "results" is the head noun. I believe you misunderstood my sentence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincible_and_invincible_ignora...