[condomhacker]

Present few evidence - not widespread enough, "okay there were a few irregularities"

Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop

unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air.

> burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard

If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will.

> It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.

You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.

[harryh]

It's not a Gish Gallop because you've presented "a large number of evidence". It's a Gish Gallop because you've presented a large number of claims (you called out 4 specifically) each of which has extremely thin evidence and, in fact, when someone takes the time to investigate it, it's fairly easily debunked.

I already did #2.

For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election

For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c...

For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions:

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...