So still no actual counter-argument then? You realise that just saying option 1 is bad doesn’t constitute an argument for choosing it over option 2?

I’ve argued thay voting for a party supporting genocide will create a norm that supporting genocide is OK, that it doesn’t risk loss of support. That’s a dangerous precedent to set because if politicians find it expedient to support another genocide they will know they can do so without risking their power. Withholding a vote is the only way of ensuring politicians know they will lose support if they are complicit in genocide. Therefore it is the only option to ensure genocide is not normalised.

I’ve also argued that if we follow a principle of voting Democrat no matter what their policies are, this will set another dangerous precedent that a) politicians do not have to adjust policy to meet the will of the electorate, and b) that we’re effectively thereby creating a one party state.

Note the uses of phrases like “because…” and “therefore…” These are how you construct an argument. Take some agreed premise and draw conclusions with rational steps.

Your counter-argument can’t just be “but Trump’s goimg to do bad things to minorities” because that doesn’t counter any of the points in the argument I made. You’d have to disagree with some premise or one of the conclusions therefrom, or argue why you think minority rights are more import than the consequences I’ve reasoned toward.

And it may alarm you to discover that putting something in alternating capitals doesn’t really persuade anyone of even moderate intelligence of anything. It’s not really a stand in for justificatory reasoning.