You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive.
To address it properly we must start with whether anything above zero is "acceptable" (in the sense of a level that would accord with the realities of increased food insecurity in a war zone, not morally).
If it is, then a level needs to be set, and if the level is met then I would expect the parties in question to argue about it, if only because of the propaganda value, let alone the truth of the claim.
The claims about mistakes in the data, or presentation of the data, are here[1], I am unable to tell if they are right or not, but that is not the point of this conversation. The point is, whether their should be stages at all, and if so, should the results of reports be scrutinised?
> You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive.
They're disputing whether the actual rate is 12% or 16%. So if I can make my argument without any numbers inside that range, of course I will do so.
Why is that less persuasive?
You could say that I'm giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Sure, let's say it's 12%. That's still bad.
> whether their should be stages at all
Sure, there are many levels of hunger issues.
> should the results of reports be scrutinised?
In general yes. But in this particular case we can be confident it's at least the number Israel is giving, plus or minus some fraction of a percent, so that's what I based my argument on.
You chose a number lower than either of the parties involved, one of them an agency tasked with deciding the numbers. Clearly, that is for convenience and hence, not persuasive.
I gave Israel the benefit of the doubt, plus extra. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a common way to make arguments more persuasive by avoiding nitpicks.
So it's convenient for that specific reason. Why do you act like convenience is ipso facto bad?
How does it make my argument less persuasive?
I will point out that picking a number below both of them only works when I'm arguing that even my number is still too high. If I was arguing that something is sufficiently low, my "still sufficiently low" number would have to be above both of their numbers.
Let me make an analogy: Two people are arguing about whether a crashed car would take $3000 or $4000 to repair. I come in and point out that any number above $2500 would mean it's totaled, so the car is totaled and that's the important part. $2500 is not the exact threshold, but I'm confident that the exact threshold is less than or equal to $2500.
By introducing the convenient number of $2500, have I ruined the persuasiveness of my argument? If so, how? Please explain beyond just accusing it of being convenient.
If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit, and the party claiming $3000 dollars were a subject matter expect - which you are not - then I would say that picking $2500 is convenient to your attempt to attack the first party, which makes your argument less persuasive.
A point so basic that only the person with the bias could fail to see it. Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down. YMMV, obviously.
> If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit
If that's what I was fighting, I would agree with you.
But it's not. By avoiding the word famine and loudly announcing that I am doing so, I am explicitly not picking that fight.
I'm accepting the expertise of both parties, and making an argument that doesn't disagree with the claims of either party.
Israel says it's not famine, I say that's not good enough. Simple.
> Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down.
Again, every argument that gives the benefit of the doubt would fall under "convenient". Including many arguments you have no problem with. If you took the car example as a completely standalone argument, unchanged from how I originally stated it (so there would be nobody claiming "$4000 should be the limit"), would you have any problems with it?
To address it properly we must start with whether anything above zero is "acceptable" (in the sense of a level that would accord with the realities of increased food insecurity in a war zone, not morally).
If it is, then a level needs to be set, and if the level is met then I would expect the parties in question to argue about it, if only because of the propaganda value, let alone the truth of the claim.
The claims about mistakes in the data, or presentation of the data, are here[1], I am unable to tell if they are right or not, but that is not the point of this conversation. The point is, whether their should be stages at all, and if so, should the results of reports be scrutinised?
I would say yes to both.
[1] https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...