On balance, generalizations about political ideologies are true

Thanks Roy.1. Political Generalizations Are A Form Of Weak Inductive ReasoningGeneralizations are a form of induction, of which there are two types of - strong and weak induction. Strong induction is able to draw valid conclusions more often, while weak induction typically results in a hasty generalization, which is a logical fallacy [1]. The key to this debate is figuring out whether or not generalizing political ideologies provides the necessary evidence to warrant a valid conclusion. But ultimately, drawing an inductive conclusion pertaining to political ideologies is going to be a weak form of induction due to the way that such ideologies are so intermixed, fragmented, and personalized.For example, I can assume that my friend, whom identifies as Conservative, is opposed to the legalization of Marijuana, but that would be a weak form of induction, in part, because of the thousands of other issues he might claim as Conservative to. My friend may actually support Marijuana legalization, while being more worried about abortion and US fiscal policy, so probability is working against me. And that's just one of myriad problems; due to the sheer number of political issues present, along with how they're so often extremely pluralized, any political generalization would inevitably classify as a form of weak induction when attempting to arrive at a specific and accurate conclusion.2. Political Ideology Lacks The Black And White Framework Necessary For Strong InductionAnother problem is that political issues are often shaded in too much grey. For instance, some Conservatives may support food stamps IF there's a limit on how much junk food a recipient can buy, or some Liberals might support offshore drilling IF certain regulatory concerns are taken into account, etc, etc. This becomes especially problematic when trying to make accurate generalizations. Most political issues are too nuanced for the common black and white framework, and thus, such generalizations become too inaccurate to be valid. On the other hand, whether or not a dog has four legs and chases cats is a simpler question. There is much less room for "maybe" to be involved, and because the question has much fewer variables with stronger probability backing it up, such an example can be classified as strong inductive reasoning. Political issues, however, include thousands of variables with much weaker probability, which varies with each issue, so they are more in line with weak inductive reasoning.To illustrate, Liberal and Conservative, or as Roy cited, Libertarian, are all terms that have numerous variants attached to them simply because the broad definitions are incapable of accurately telling the whole story:a) http://en.wikipedia.org...\b) http://en.wikipedia.org...c) http://en.wikipedia.org...3. Political Generalizations Serve Little Practical BenefitAs Roy contended to himself, definitions are important, but that's only true if they have a sufficient degree of accuracy and detail. I can refer to Roy as a white male, human being, or living organism. However, like broad political generalizations, such definitions are of little use in regular dialogue. The only way we would be able to infer that Roy is likely human is because he is doing a debate, and similarly, the only way a person's specific political standings can be inferred is to figure out the details. Broad labels such as Conservative and Liberal simply gloss over too much to be sufficiently accurate.: : : Refutations : : :1. We Generalize To Better Understand The WorldRoy points out that all definitions make up some form of a generalization, but in the context of most political generalizations, the terms aren't specified to be of much use. In the case of House Republicans voting for a piece of legislation, there are only two available groups to speak of, and the vote has only two possible outcomes. This has a degree of specificity to be a useful definition. However, other political generalizations don't have such details available, such as the accusation that Liberals or Conservatives are intolerant. To qualify as intolerant, MANY particular attributes must first be demonstrated, and on top of that, the terms Liberal and Conservative are too vague to effectively point out who exactly is being referred to. Unless specific details are provided, the generalization inevitably becomes a weak form of induction, which is not valid, nor useful.Also, Roy's example is actually quite specific, in that "House of Representative Republicans" were having a vote. Most other political generalizations are not afforded such specificity.2. Forming Generalities Is Fundamental To IntelligenceAgain, Roy sort of says the same thing here, except he talks about how generalities are based on patterns, which are fundamental to human intelligence, communication, etc. Roy also mentions false generalities, scientific theories, and the like. I don't think anyone would argue that accurate generalities should be discarded, nor accurate scientific theories, but when it comes to inaccurate generalities and theories, I also doubt anyone would argue that we should hold on to those. As stated before, political ideologies are very pluralized and personalized, and as Roy cited himself, the term 'Libertarian' has 7 different variations, which in and of itself, demonstrates that broad political generalities are hardly accurate. So, for people whom label themselves Libertarian, I couldn't even determine whether or not they support private property, which lends little insight into the wholes of their political perspectives.And, when a political generality can't lend insight into a person's personality, such as their capacity for tolerance, nor their economic or social views, such as the differences in Libertarian views related to property and cultural egalitarianism, then I can't really gather much accurate info, can I?3. Generalizing Is The GoalActually, understanding the truth is the goal, and that can't be done without accurate generalizations. If I want to specify that House Republicans cast a vote, or that dogs have 4 legs and chase cats, that's fine because it would be specific enough to be in line with strong induction, which is valid. However, if I try to paint a particular ideology with a broad brush, I'm going to run into issues due to the way that people personalize their political stances, which intermixes these ideological views to the point that one could hardly qualify under any broad identification, such as Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian.Thanks again to Roy.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...