Ok first off since English is not something you are particularly skilled out lets start with the definition of "might"

Might: —used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past <the president might do nothing without the board's consent> (Webster)

Now, lets get the definitions of probability for this context

Probability: : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree (Webster)
Also: Probability is a measure of the expectation that an event will occur or a statement is true. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (will not occur) and 1 (will occur). (Wiki entry - math related)


-------------

Now then.


{P} I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
------
(C) I might win the lottery

Is technically valid, not invalid. You might win the lottery with that ticket. Your odds of doing so, are actually pretty easily calculable. In fact (might) in this case, if we are talking about winning the grand prize of Ohio Powerball is 1 in 175,223,510


That you suddenly started using (abusing, but will get to that later) reductio ad absurdum (saying it is absurd so say you might win at those odds) argument in the context of this thread is just an example of a moving goalpost. You are attacking my usage of the word "might" - which I initially and continue to find silly. That you have the temerity and amount of intellectual dishonesty required to do this, then insult the other party because they point out its absurdity is somewhat impressive though.

Also - if this is not valid... then show an example where you might win the lottery. The idea that there is a winner amongst people who have tickets and only those who have tickets, however having a ticket does not give you a chance to win is itself an absurd fallacy if we accept the premise that the odds given to us by the lottery commission are valid.

Your definition of absurdity for "might" is arbitrary, and semantics based here. You move the goalpost by changing the implied format of the language. Like I said before, you do not get to do this arbitrarily. If I felt like it, I could attack your semantics as well easily enough - I generally have enough respect for people, even during a trolling, to refrain from doing so because I consider it lowbrow.



Now, you say "Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong."

Then you go on to make an example" (P) I heard strange noise in the basement
----
(C) It might be second coming of Christ"


So you are saying that since the probability is extremely low that it is the second coming of Christ, the argument is invalid. In this case you would be correct. So what you are asserting in the context of this argument is that the probability of election tampering altering the outcome was so low, that despite evidence that it is possible - and lack of ability to prove that it was not, holding that belief would still make you delusional.

What you do not seem to comprehend, is that *I get that* - despite all your absurd insults that assert the contrary.

What you seem to lack here, is understanding of how, once again, like every other time you get that very unjustified high-and-mighty attitude - you are wrong, misusing and abusing concepts.

So... lets get to it - the list of the fallacies you have invoked by trying to inject your lottery analogy into this thread.

1) Arguing from personal incredulity: You do not hold the subjective probability of election tampering as being very high, so therefore it must not be very high (this is really the basis for your whole assertion, hence why I laughed when you brought it up and laugh harder now that you insult me for not buying into your subjective view of tampering probability)

2) False continuum : Since election skeptics and delusional people both hold views you subjective view as having a very low probability - there is no difference between election skeptics and delusional people

3) False analogy(1): You make a comparison between election tampering and lottery odds, with no evidence that they are similar. All you have in regards to election odds is your own sense of personal incredulity. Therefore just because the lottery example might fall into reductio ad absurdum under formal rules , you have no ability to demonstrate this applies to the election.

4) False dichotomy: you have all your premises and conclusions in your arguments and examples as being either 1 or 0 (that is, either true or false) This is a false dichotomy because probabilities can also be any figure between 0 and 1.

5) Genetic fallacy: Assuming the premise that previous elections were unadulterated, therefore the likelihood that current elections are also unadulterated just because they are "elections". When in reality the way the elections are conducted has changed drastically - since what we are really questioning is the validity of a presidential election run with a high volume of electronic voting machines, the number is much smaller and several results have been questioned. This is only tangentially related to your Lottery assertion - but still I establish this fallacy to reinforce your arguing from personal incredulity - denying you the ability to implicitly obtain a Base Rate for tampered elections.

6) Straw man: Taking my rejection of your Lottery argument, and holding it up as if I was arguing against the rules of formality you were ad hoc applying - instead of objecting to its applicability to the election argument. your "You can't prove that it might happen based on simple possibility of it happening, because it might happen or it might not happen." only holds to certain specific circumstances based on accepted format rules, and the vernaculur thereof. In that context the rule is, as you said in later posts , in place to prevent people from adding "might" to an absurd proposition. The argument in that case (where might was inappropriately used) would still fall to reductio ad absurdum (properly applied)- so its presence as a rule serves mainly as a preventative measure against obvious time-wasting.

That we were not having a discussion under, and that I was not using the term "might" in that context was axiomatic. As I said right before you fell into that path, and as Brutal also mentioned in his post, albeit indirectly - we are not going to agree on the subjective probability of tampered election.

Optimization is impossible in this context, and I seriously doubt we could ever agree on a particular heuristic approach. This is the reason I did not feel the need to travel this path. You try to say that I "do not understand even though you put it oh so simply".... what you do not get, is that I... and Brutal for that matter if I inferred his post correctly both saw this exact scenario unfolding a long long time ago now.



----------

I told you before when you started down this path that if you really wanted to assert your Lottery argument (in regards to the election argument, which is how anyone but a fucktard who was over eager to find excuses to insult people would have taken it - not as a quibble over the rules of some schools of formal logic/debate ) that I could think think of 5 fallacies off the cuff that doing so would invoke.

So are you finally going to admit that all you were doing by introducing your Lottery argument was re-stating your original, failed premise that people who hold a different subjective view of the election are delusional?

Or are you going to continue with yet more insults and word games?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)