Do the post-election anti-Trump protestors respect Democracy?
Debate Rounds (3)
I consider that the anti-Trump protestors are protesting against Democracy at least as much, if not more-so, than they are protesting against Trump.
Incidentally, I didn't vote for Trump; I'm British, so I'm about 240 years too late to have any say in what America does. Hopefully the fact I am not American might lend itself to being a bit more objective when it come to the whole Republican/Democrat divide. But then again, I think the whole concept of Socialism is fundamentally flawed, so maybe not so much... but that is one for a whole separate debate.
I simply watch on aghast as many thousands of people are effectively protesting against our Western way of life, apparently only because they didn't get their way - much like a petulant child. Maybe it is no coincidence that these protestors tend to be amongst the younger age brackets of society.
If anyone feels that they can adequately defend the actions of the anti-Trump protestors, from the point of view that they can protest in this way and still somehow respect the system of Democracy, then feel free to take the Pro argument.
Incidentally, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be protesting. That is their right to Freedom of Speech. If they have nothing better to do with their time, this is up to them. I might question why they didn't protest this much against - I dunno - the actions of ISIS? The fact that millions of people are still starving to death in a world of abundant food production? Take your pick of just about any other topic they really ought to be putting more effort into protesting over, rather than against a democratically-elected future leader in a free and open election process...
I could also question why the media mention none of the above salient points in any of their reports about the protests, but I have given up all hope on the media doing their job properly any more. Plus, I would say that the manner in which these people are protesting against Trump in general, in particular the vulgar language and inflammatory/anarchist rhetoric, I simply disagree with as anti-social and uncivilised. But bottom line, they are free to protest (non-violently); that is not the point of my argument.
My argument is merely that by choosing to protest and effectively refusing to unite as part of their nation behind the democratically elected future head of state, they are frankly defecating all over the concept of Democracy. That is a good analogy to draw in fact; they might as well go and do a big poo on the Top Hat of the seated Lincoln in his Memorial statue.
Rules: There are three rounds, say whatever you want, in whatever order. Do ad hominem attacks against me. Postulate straw men arguments. I don't really care. I think anyone bold/foolish enough to take on Pro needs all the help they can get.
Clinton won the popular vote. They are supporting democracy.
You have two problems with this approach:
1) The official figures for the final tally of the popular vote are not yet released, nor are they likely to be before the end of this debate. So I'd like to see your citation as to any official evidence for the final numbers that voted for Hillary and Trump respectively. I have seen many projections and forecasts, perhaps these are what you are referring to?
2) Democracy is not a matter of simple majority vote. Otherwise Hillary would be celebrating right now. US democracy as it currently stands in 2016 has been formed by a series of democratic decisions over centuries. First, it started with some decisions reached by a handful of wealthy men, eventually it has expanded to decisions reach to by so-called "universal suffrage" - although in reality, this still does not exist. This series of democratically "evolving" processes, has led to the present democratic system: that of a "first-past-the-post" winner in each state, with the winner of each state taking 100% of the collegiate votes for the state, even if they only win by 1 popular vote in one state, and lose by 3 million popular votes in another. THAT is the democratically derived system currently in place in America. To reject that process, is to reject the series of democratic processes that have led to this current position. And hence to reject democracy, and its legacy.
If the protestors want to change this, then by all means go ahead. Democratically. Then they have a mandate.
1. We can assume that whoever leads most of the current tallies will win the popular vote. This is a logical assumption to make. That being said, we can assume Clinton will win the popular vote. 
2. This is a key flaw in your argument. Democracy is a matter of simple majority. The resolution specifies democracy; it does not say the protesters are against the American version- a democratic republic with checks on voting.
Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. 
Therefore, the electoral college draws a distinction between the true definition of democracy and the "democracy" that has been sold to the American people.
I feel like my simple argument still wins this debate. However, I will go further.
1. They can respect democracy and still be upset with the outcome. Unless a revolution begins they are excercising their rights, as Con stated. This means that they are accepting the result of the election. The "not my president" rhetoric we must understand is hyperbolic. He obviously is their president, they are arguing he does not represent them and that they are not satisfied with the election's results, but are not actively working against this.
2) I don't consider that Pro's citation defining Democracy does anything to highlight a flaw in my argument. If anything it highlights a flaw in Pro's. Pro seems to try to very narrowly define Democracy as a simple majority in point 1. But that is not what Pro's own quoted definition says under point 2. The definition merely states a "system of representation" - which is the type of system under which Trump won the Presidential election. The definition says nothing of a strict simple majority.
3) [Pro numbers it as a second 1, but I will call it 3) for clarity] Yes of course, I agree that the protesters can respect democracy and be upset with the outcome. I have felt that way about many elections myself.
I fail to see how Pro jumps from this assertion, to the next - that the anti-Trump protestors are accepting the result of THIS election? I think that this is a fallacious statement. I think by contrast, it ought to be readily apparent that many of the protestors are very vocally demonstrating that they will NOT accept the result of the election:
" More than 6,000 protesters were seen on the streets of Oakland with an initially peaceful march down a cop-lined street turning nasty after some protesters threw bottles at officers and torched a police car. An office block was also attacked, daubed with 'f*** Trump' and 'kill Trump' graffiti and then set alight.""[a]
" In New York, crowds converged at Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue at 56th Street in Midtown Manhattan, where the president-elect lives.
They chanted "Not our president" and "New York hates Trump" and carried signs that said, among other things, "Dump Trump." " [b]
" On Facebook, a page titled "Not My President" called for protesters to gather on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, in the nation"s capital.
"We refuse to recognize Donald Trump as the president of the United States, and refuse to take orders from a government that puts bigots into power," the organizers wrote.
"We have to make it clear to the public that we did not choose this man for office and that we won"t stand for his ideologies." "[c]
Fox News even goes so far as to question whether these protests are truly "spontaneous", or even temporary:
"Others claimed to have found ads posted on CraigsList in which a Seattle-based non-profit was soliciting "Full-Time Activists."
"We are looking for motivated individuals who are seeking Full-Time, Part-Time, and Permanent positions," reads a line from the ad from Washington CAN! posted on Wednesday. "[d]
and goes on to point out some of the darker sides to the protests:
" Some of the most troubling dissent was in the city of New Orleans where protesters wound up defacing the Lee Memorial, spray painting "Die Whites Die" and "F--- Trump" and "F--- White People."
Other messages scrawled on the memorial included "F--- Pence" and "We are ungovernable" next to a symbol of the letter "A" in a circle -- protester shorthand for anarchy. "[e]
These are not statements of groups of people respecting the process of democracy, or even that of basic law and order.
I think in overarching principle, Pro and I can agree that it is possible to disagree with the outcome of an election, and still respect the system of democracy that reached that decision - whether an individual personally agrees with it or not. However, I think Pro still has a long way to go to demonstrate that the types of anti-Trump protests we have seen over the last couple of days comes even close to showing a respect for this democratic process.
I have pointed out two factual misstatements made by Pro thus far, one in Round 1 and one in Round 2. The Round timing makes it impossible for me to refute any of Pro's Round 3 points, and this is Pro's advantage - similar to my advantage in having the first word in the debate. I will not do cheap tricks and try to counter any Round 3 points in the comments section or similar. I gladly give Pro the final word.
I want to thank Pro for a civil debate so far, and in that I have learned from hearing Pro's position - though I do not agree with it on this specific issue, it is always good to listen to different opinions and consider them against ones own.
Just as Con refused to do cheap tricks, so too will I. I will not bring up any new offensive arguments, any new ones will be refutation of Con's R3 points. I apologize for doing a second "1" in my R2, this hopefully wasn't much cause for confusion. The first two points were defense of Con's attack on my arguments, while the second "1" was an attack on Con's.
I'll start by defending my case.
1. It's true, I can not definitively prove Hillary won the popular vote or that she will. However, as Con conceded, it can be concluded that she will, so for the purposes of this debate we can and have agreed that she won the popular vote. Therefore, the protestors are, justifiably, protesting a corrupted outcome (note: I am not using corrupted to imply any sort of foul play, but rather an outcome that has been distorted from what it should have been). This alone should win the debate for Pro, as Con has conceded that we can assume Clinton to have won the popular vote, therefore in a truly pure democracy this would have been the outcome.
2. Here is where Con is wrong. The "system of representation" refers to electing Trump or Clinton. A direct democracy is where the citizens would literally vote directly on matters (legislation, law interpretation, etc.) while the democracy America adopted is a representitive democracy. The 'free' part is where the electoral college comes into play. In practice, only once has a voter of the electoral college not cast a vote for the winner of the college. However, in theory, the electoral college could easily elect Gary Johnson, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren in this coming vote. This is not a 'free' election. Therefore, protests, whether because of Trump, because of the college, or both, do not disrespect democracy, as they are protesting a system that is not 'free' which is necessary for democracy to exist.
3. As far as this goes, Con is cherry-picking data. Con admits that there are tens of thousands of these protesters nationwide. Most of them are on college campuses and smaller cities. The violence of a small number of the protestors in the big cities is not representitive of the wider range of protestors. Furthermore, Con ignores my argument that most protestors saying "not my president" are being hyperbolic. Sure, some probably legitimately think they can avoid accepting orders from Trump's office, but as I stated earlier, unless an actual revolution occurs, this is not the case, he is their president.
I have proven that the protesters are fighting against a system that is not real democracy. A system that, in this century, has reversed the decision of the people 40% of the time. These protesters respect democracy. Therefore, my case stands. Vote Pro.
Good debate to Con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.