A Third Party Based On Surveys Will Succeed.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
| Started: | 4/22/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 359 times | Debate No: | 23062 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)
|
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! |
![]() |
|
I won't even try to argue with that!
I'll wait for my opponent to actually make an argument, and therefore fulfil his burden of proof, before continuing in the debate. |
![]() |
|
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.
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. |
![]() |
Post a Comment
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 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | ![]() | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: 1st round is acceptance so Con wins due to the FF by the Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: See innomens vote.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | ![]() | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 1 |
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 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
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 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | ![]() | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 6 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: SH made no real attempt at taking the debate seriously wasting his opponent's time.
Vote Placed by Mestari 1 year ago
| SenorSwanky | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | ![]() | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to PRO because CON plagiarized Imabench's pic. Arguments to CON because PRO never made one.












