The Instigator
SenorSwanky
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

A Third Party Based On Surveys Will Succeed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,487 times Debate No: 23062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

SenorSwanky

Pro

I am introducing a hypothetical new third party called the "Survey Party". The outline of the party can be found here:
http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com...

The gist of the party is that each issue is surveyed and the results of the survey form the platform of the party. The politician that runs under the "Survey Party" must vote on the side of the survey results. The politician must follow the party platform in Congress. A party designed in this manner would succeed in getting politicians elected to Congress. Success here and in the title means to gather enough votes to elect politicians to Congress that run under the Survey Party.

Some pre-debate notes on issues that tend to arise:
1) This is a new third party in politics, just like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. It is not a call for direct democracy nor am I calling to abolish the other parties. Its simply another choice of parties.
2) The surveys are taken in a scientific manner and accurately reflect the views of each Congressional District. This is a mental exercise so I do not want to lose focus by debating how surveys should be administered.

Thank you to any challenger who takes the time to read this and accepts the other side. Good luck!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

In the words of imabench:

It's on like Donkey Kong.
Debate Round No. 1
SenorSwanky

Pro

I won't even try to argue with that!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I'll wait for my opponent to actually make an argument, and therefore fulfil his burden of proof, before continuing in the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
SenorSwanky

Pro

Accepting a debate explicitly means sufficient warrant has been provided for the position. Logic dictates that one either does not accept a debate where the burden of proof is not clear or asks for clarification in Round 1.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My opponent has provided no reason to believe in his position, nor posted an argument. In light of the fact that I am defending the status quo, and have only the burden of rejoiner, my opponent is conversely arguing for reform, and arguing for change, and created the debate, it is expected that he has the Burden of Proof, as evident in the vast majority of past debates.

In light of this, I urge a vote CON, on the grounds my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof, nor made an argument.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: 1st round is acceptance so Con wins due to the FF by the Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See innomens vote.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented a case, but this is a larger detriment to Pro; he held the burden of proof as the instigator and presenter of a change in the status quo. I cannot award arguments to Con, as he had none, but Pro's performance (or lack thereof) is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This is ridicolous-Pro started a debate and didn't make arguments. It was pro who threw the integrity of the debate away
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: SH made no real attempt at taking the debate seriously wasting his opponent's time.
Vote Placed by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
SenorSwankyStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to PRO because CON plagiarized Imabench's pic. Arguments to CON because PRO never made one.