Actually, I've decided that it doesn't matter what I come up with. You will never be satisfied. You've made up your mind, and nothing I bring that is contrary to your view will ever be good enough.
I don't need to bang my head against a brick wall. It will serve no purpose other than to give me a headache.
It does matter what you come up with. The
quality of your evidence matters. The
relevance of your evidence matters. The
credibility of your evidence matters. It's not ping pong. It's not just a matter of "Find something that
seems to contradict her evidence and smash the ball back!" Believe it or not, I
can be convinced. I am
often convinced. I change my mind about various subjects
all the time in the light of new evidence.
What I
can't be convinced by is anecdotes and conjecture. In order to know whether the Voter ID laws are necessary, we need to know the answer to two
factual questions: 1. Is the problem of live voter fraud significant enough to distort the results of an election, and 2. Will the distorting effect of disenfranchising voters without ID be greater or less than the distorting effect of live voter impersonation fraud.
Since these are questions of
fact, you can opine until you're blue in the face and I will never, ever be convinced. If you show me one scrap of evidence that contradicts the study that found only ten documented cases in twelve years, or the other study that found five million Americans have been disenfranchised, you can potentially change my mind.
"Screw poor people" is one way to approach the issue (I'm looking at you, Revoltingest
). If that's your position, then of course there's no point debating the subject.