The republican party didn’t even form until 1845. For a while it was the Whigs and the Democrats. We’ve had at least 5 different parties win the POTUS. I’m not saying this is astonishing, but the claim that a third party has never won is laughably wrong. I even explicitly noted it to you and you weren’t smart enough to go look it up on your own.

Political parties have come and gone. But there were only two main parties at any given time. Characterizing new parties as third parties when they only had one political party as opposition is disingenuous.

Incorrect. The votes still count. When it comes to the electoral system, it’s effectively the same on the outcome.

The votes count, but since they are towards a candidate with no chance of winning, it is the same as not voting for the purpose of counting votes for the main two political parties, Republicans and Democrats.

However, when it comes to showing who you support, clearly who you actually support (especially if we are talking by giving them your vote) it’s not even remotely the same.

In a two party system, support for a third party is measured in the votes it detracts from the candidates from the two main parties. For example, the Green Party took votes from Al Gore in Florida and cost him the 2000 presidential election.

No, you refuted nothing. You just called them liars with zero evidence. Your accusation is based solely on the fact that it contradicts the conclusion you’ve already come to. You don’t care about reality, you care about trying to convince people you are right.

I have already copy and pasted my argument once. Pretending my argument doesn't exist won't help your argument.

But are you just going to drop the fact that you used the ad hominem to refute their claim?

I pointed out that their meaningless statement was false and therefore that they were lying, for the sake of clarity. Your argument has unsuccessfully attempted to misrepresent this clarifying statement as my argument. Not because it was my argument, but because my argument saying they were lying sounds like it was making an ad hominem statement as the basis of my argument when it was not.

Actually, you know what? You’re lying right now and you actually agree with me, because no one would be stupid enough to hold your position. That was easy. lol I like this style of debate.

My argument's position is that they are supporting Trump, by not voting for Biden. Their statement that they are not supporting Trump, is false. Therefore it is a lie. But the fact that they are lying is simply the conclusion I reached by following my arguments logic. It is not how I arrived at that conclusion.

I think you have convinced yourself with your arguments. But the goal of debating someone is to convince others. I know my arguments. I know your argument is misrepresenting them. Your argument is not going to fool me. I can see your arguments misrepresentation clearly and write down exactly what it's doing. Anyone else can do the same. If you want to convince people, argue against what was said and not what you've decided was said. Or keep doing what you're doing, but it won't convince anyone.