In nearly every swing state at this point, Biden is outperforming Obama and Clinton

Nothing you say changes the fact that you were unable to debate evidence in the science forum.

 

Projection.

 

Bulverism Fallacy.

You wanted me to debate religious theories (such as the Big Bang Theory), while I was instead interested in science rather than discussing my religious beliefs... It was within the SCIENCE forum, after all...

 

He always finds himself lost in thought; it's unfamiliar territory.

 

People wanted you to debate evidence.
To reiterate;nothing you say changes the fact that you were unable to debate evidence in the science forum.

 

You're doing it again.

 

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. That is what RELIGION does. I have already explained the specifics of this numerous times.

Argument by Repetition Fallacy.
continuation of prior Bulverism Fallacy.
Word Redefinition Fallacy. (religion <-> science)

No valid argumentation presented.

 

Projection.

 

@gfm7175 literally just said "Science does not make use of supporting evidence."

The **** is wrong with this guy.

 

It doesn't. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence, NOT supporting evidence. Religion makes use of supporting evidence. I explain it in detail here:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-rise-of-anti-science.349804/page-17#post-1071369965

 

@gfm7175 made an moronic argument multiple times apparently. Shocking.

 

Not a valid counterargument.

Care to try again?

 

I've read it, your interpretation is drivel.
Evidence can either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis; it is expected to be empirical and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.
You don't get to re-write the scientific method.

 

Lather, rinse,repeat.

 

Shockingly stupid.

 

@gfm7175 says that science only relies upon conflicting evidence and not supportive evidence. That statement is both inherently moronic and logically fallacious.

Evidence that fails to disprove a theory means that a theory is slightly more likely to be correct and thus, by definition, it is supportive evidence.

But I am finished with even tangentially engaging with the utter drivel from him and I encourage others like @Cosmo to just place him on ignore and let him scream into the void.

Back to the topic of this thread, here are the latest RCP averages for the battleground states with roughly 90 days to go.

 

No, it is firmly based in logic, of which you are not well versed in. That does not make it "drivel".

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. My "drivel" post explains why this is. There is no such thing as a "scientific theory"; there is just a theory. A theory is merely an explanatory argument. This is defined by logic, again, of which you are not well versed in.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one re-writing science (into religion). You fail to grasp the logical framework behind science (and religion).

 

Precisely correct. I have detailed exactly why that is.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. No valid counterargument presented.
Fallacy Fallacy. Redefinition of Logic Fallacy.

Evidence that fails to "disprove" (falsify is the word that you are looking for) a theory means that the theory STILL STANDS (it is continuing to survive null hypothesis testing)... it is STILL SCIENCE... until it gets falsified by CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. No supporting evidence is involved here.

Failing to "disprove" (falsify) a theory does not somehow make it "more likely to be correct". You continue to fail Logic 101...

Sure you are...

Utterly meaningless polls dismissed on sight. Polls do not follow the rules of statistical mathematics, and are thus summarily dismissed.

Polls are nothing more than a propaganda arm for liberals. It didn't work in 2016 and it won't work in 2020...

 

@gfm7175 wants to be reminded that the polls were accurate in 2016 to within 1.1 points of the final outcome and they were accurate in 2018 to within 0.3 of the final outcome.