Or will you continue to shift the goal post and keep the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim, or else it must be true, aka the burden of proof fallacy?
Or will you continue to shift the goal post and keep the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim, or else it must be true, aka the burden of proof fallacy?
Sex offenders should be deported, immigrant or not. That goal post can't move.
So you are now putting the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim that these people were wrongfully arrested by the ICE? You should better delete your initial post before you get torn a second one for defending criminals. Bet that especially the victims of sex crimes love to.
Shifting the burden of proof is not necessarily a fallacious argument when you’re expected to provide a counterclaim.
Shiver me timbers! I’m so scared of a stern talking to via text! So you chose to continue moving the goalpost while providing no proof to support your claim or the one you're defending. Don't you think it's unfair to continue demanding proof while providing none yourself?
Basically all you said is "deport no non-US citizen criminals". And apart from you posting an notice from the ICE which was published during the time of the Biden presidency first, you had offered not a single argument why they should stay in the USA. I disagreed with parts of your opinion.
I'm not sure why you care when the notice was published unless you're implying that Trump supporters are now committing more assault crimes as of this year, which I'd like to see you provide proof of. Or are you expecting me to provide evidence for your claims again?
Of course you can't provide any proof to back the claim of the OP, which was that immigrants have a lower crime rate against women and children than MAGA men, so you demand more proof and shift the goalpost to the idea of deporting sexual assault convicts in general.
Here, have one of these and go back to Twatter where you obvious came from.
I never even implied what you thought I said; you're just making a straw man argument.