It’s interesting the way people are able to rephrase an argument in such a way as to detract from the true nature of their argument. The most interesting part is that they do so with arguments that are either not incorrect or are immoral/unpatriotic to argue against.
For instance: Laws in Florida that were recently partially overturned, are a great example. The argument from apologists is that laws must be enacted to reduce voter fraud. When those arguing against the law suggest race, ethnicity, or struggles for political power are the root cause for the law and not deleting voter fraud, apologists simply restate their claim: Laws must be enacted to reduce voter fraud.
Responses to accusations of limiting democracy or outright racism in voter laws attack the accusers as simply looking for things that are not there and/or that the accusers want rampant voter fraud.
Therein lies the problem. The apologist argument here, that voter fraud is bad and requires laws to suppress, is accurate, laudable, and necessary in any well-functioning democracy. But this is not the true nature of the reason for the law. Yes, it is true that the law is written and advertised as voter fraud fixer upper. Therefore, no one can argue contrarily without arguing against democracy. Which, as we all know, in a democracy, is grounds for treason and burning at the stake. Ero, the Un-contestable Argument is born and never dies.
Similar arguments are made on a regular basis. Many revolve around voter rights, free speech rights, marriage rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, and the like. The above example was just that…a single example.