1/ The entirety of your argument is rooted in logically fallacious and asymmetrical ad hominem attacks on the source provided by @CarlyAtch
Claim 1a:
Amber is partisan = illegitimate.
Claim 1b:
OSSBA is nonpartisan = legitimate.
Only data from OSSBA can be trusted.
Claim 1a:
Amber is partisan = illegitimate.
Claim 1b:
OSSBA is nonpartisan = legitimate.
Only data from OSSBA can be trusted.
https://twitter.com/kendallybrown/status/1492529701990117379
2/ But for your argument to be legitimate both claims must be true, and C2 is not only objectively false, it is so obviously false that it would take a superhuman effort to extend enough good faith to view claim as anything there than intentional manipulation and deception. 
3/If you dismiss the data provided by Amber under the premise that it is partisan, according to the transitive property, you must equitably apply that same assessment to OSSBA.
Therefore, your claim that OSSBA is a more valid source than Amber is illogical, thus invalid.
Therefore, your claim that OSSBA is a more valid source than Amber is illogical, thus invalid.
4/In turn, if we correctly apply the same partisanship test to OSSBA that you applied to Amber, we could logically dismiss OSSBA’s data as skewed to fit a conclusion, especially because it wasn’t a national study, because OSSBA has partisan motivation to screw larger in state #s
5/ This is all not to mention the most glaring point that defeats your argument: you are citing ancient data from 2015, which anyone of any repute would rightfully dismiss. Why?
6/ Because in order for your argument to hold, it requires that we accept the absurd premise that nothing has happened that could change the minds of the public since 2015. This means we would have to accept that Covid had no affect at all on the public view of education…
7/ Not only is that premise completely ridiculous on a common sense level, it has even been debunked by real non-partisan or even outwardly leftist sources like this one from Harvard:
gse.harvard.edu/news/19/08/edn…
gse.harvard.edu/news/19/08/edn…
8/ The above Harvard study was done in 2019, well before Covid and the influx of CRT into the conversation and shows that even Democrats were divided on the issue well before the upheaval of education since 2020, completely invalidating not just your argument but OSSBAs data.
9/ Now that I have completely dismantled your ridiculous, false arguments, I hope next time you will think twice before engaging me using nothing more than lies & manipulation based in rhetorically illogical ad hominem attacks. I’m no Twitter troll.
Sincerely, Dr. UnWokable 😉
Sincerely, Dr. UnWokable 😉
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
