Trump’s policies as to civil liberties and freedoms.

The point of the discussion with an acquaintance is whether or not Trump’s policies are lessening civil liberties and freedoms in the US.  My position is yes, the respodent’s is no. Their response was a “Gish Gallop” loaded withn red-herrings and deflections.  I did not take the bait. I made reference to it in my response.  I am trying to keep the discussion focused. Here is their response which seems to be yet another Gish Gallop and more red herrings.  

Their response doesn’t appear to adddress the point at all:  

"So as not to be accused of a Gish Gallop and overwhelm you or by conflating issue upon issue upon issue, let's start with a few policies that, regardless of political leanings, can be addressed with simple yes or no answers.
- Do you agree that protecting girls/women's sports for just biological females is the common sense thing to do?
- Do you agree that our borders should be protected like every other country protects its borders and the immigration the USA very much needs should be conducted according to the law?
- Do you agree that common sense tells us to send back to their home country those who came here illegally and are known to be violent felons?
- Do you agree that we should make sure we are "responsibly" taking care of our own citizens, and especially homeless veterans, before we provide aid to other countries?
- Do you agree that it is in the best interests of everyone to fill "critical" positions based on skills and merit rather than using DEI as the basis to award a position or give a promotion?
- Do you agree that there should be limits on what we should accept as waste, fraud and abuse in USAID and other government programs? If proven beyond any reasonable doubt, what percentage of waste, fraud and abuse should be allowed before a program is cancelled our undergoes a complete restructuring?
Take as many of those as you are comfortable with and see if we can reach common ground, then we can expand the discussion."

Prior to last year's Presidential debates, I had heard one political commentator talk about how Trump frequently uses the Gish gallop, and how it is a difficult fallacy to defend against in a debate setting, particularly with the short windows available for responses. The recommended approach in this case was to pick a point to which you can give the strongest rebuttal, and end with something along the lines of "And that's just one point that my opponent is wrong about." Granted, this isn't the same type of debate, but I think does speak to the importance of taking what opportunities you can to pare down the argument. Your friend, in the last sentence, seems to be giving you permission to do so.

That said, looking at the list of questions, I think some of them have issues, particularly in being phrased as a yes/no question. For instance, the question about DEI suffers from complex question fallacy . There's a presumption built in that DEI and meritocracy are mutually exclusive, but proponents of DEI would argue that opening a position to a wider pool of candidates is actual a more meritocratic system.

The question about foreign aid versus homeless veterans is a false dilemma . The US government has a large enough budget and a wide enough range of responsibilities that there's no reason it can't do both, and no reason to assume that taking money out of one pot will necessarily put it into the other. And, for that matter, ignores the fact that foreign aid is not entirely altruistic, as it's used as a foreign policy and national security tool, in addition to providing economic benefits for the Americans, particularly farmers, who produce the goods that are sent as aid.

The response from your acquaintance exhibits several logical issues that detract from addressing the core topic, which is whether Trump's policies are lessening civil liberties and freedoms in the US. Here's a breakdown of the primary logical issues present in their response:

1. **Gish Gallop**: This technique involves overwhelming an opponent with numerous arguments, many of which may be weak or irrelevant. The acquaintance starts by saying they aim to avoid a Gish Gallop, yet proceeds to present a list of issues that detract from the main point of discussion. This can hinder a focused dialogue on the core topic.

2. **Red Herrings**: The questions raised are largely unrelated to the issue of civil liberties and freedoms under Trump's policies. For instance, questions about protecting women’s sports, immigration enforcement, and government aid are relevant political topics but do not directly address the specific impact of Trump’s policies on American civil liberties.

3. **Loaded Questions**: Some questions presuppose agreement on certain contentious issues or imply a value judgment. For example, framing protection of girls/women's sports as simply "common sense" pre-empts any nuanced discussion on gender identity in sports.

4. **Relative Privation**: The argument implies that one should agree on minor or tangentially related topics before addressing the critical issue of civil liberties, which is a form of relative privation. It suggests fixing other 'lesser' issues first and distracts from the more pressing question initially posed.

5. **Begging the Question**: There's an implication that agreement on these points would naturally lead to agreement about Trump's policies more broadly, without making clear how these specific issues relate to the reduction or protection of civil liberties and freedoms.

To effectively address the topic at hand, it would be beneficial to guide the conversation back to specific policies and their direct impact on civil liberties, encouraging a focused, evidence-based discussion.