Holy shit, mate, are you twelve?

Here you go:

Question posted to AI

Could you weigh in on a problem?

There’s a thread on a forum about the US government. During the discussion, some people suggested that voting for the Democrats is wrong ideologically. Others noted that not voting for Democrats is wrong because it gives a victory to the Republicans.

One user stated adamantly that voting for Democrats is still wrong.

He was asked “So who do you propose should win?”

His response was a list of fundamental changes in how democracy is enacted in the USA.

He received the following response:

None of this exists yet, so it’s not an alternative, it’s wishful thinking.

My question was: since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are “as bad as” Reps?

That user now claims that the original question was loaded, and that the clarification that followed was “moving the goalposts”.

What is your opinion? Please give me a short answer.

Mistral AI

The original question - “So who do you propose should win?” - was a direct challenge to the user’s stance that voting for Democrats is wrong. It assumed a binary choice (Democrats or Republicans) and sought a concrete alternative within that framework. The follow-up - “since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are ‘as bad as’ Reps?” - was not moving the goalposts. It was clarifying the original question’s implicit assumption: if you reject both options, what’s your practical alternative in the existing system? The user’s response (proposing systemic changes) is a valid ideological position, but it doesn’t answer the practical question posed. The clarification was fair, not a shift. The original question was only “loaded” if one assumes the system must be accepted as-is—which the user clearly doesn’t.

ChatGPT

The original question wasn’t loaded, and the follow-up wasn’t moving the goalposts. The first question (“Who do you propose should win?”) was clear: it asked for a choice among actual options in the current system. The user avoided answering by shifting to hypothetical reforms, which is deflecting, not a legitimate claim of a loaded question or goalpost shift.

In short: the criticism is fair; the user sidestepped the original, concrete choice.

Grok

The clarification wasn’t moving the goalposts; it was a fair follow-up.

The original question (“who do you propose should win?”) was asked in the immediate context of a real election with only two viable outcomes. Proposing systemic reforms is a valid long-term view, but it doesn’t answer the practical binary choice being debated. Pointing that out and asking for the current preference (given the “Dems as bad as Reps” stance) is reasonable pushback, not sleight of hand.

The “loaded” complaint is weak here — elections force near-term tradeoffs even if you hate both options.

Note - I edited the hyphens in Mistral’s response to preserve formatting.

That’s 3:0. Ready to acknowledge that you’re wrong, or do you want me to use some other LLMs out there?