The Instigator
JaLo757
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,205 times Debate No: 12430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

JaLo757

Pro

For this debate, I would like for the first rounds to be introductory; I will post the basics of my argument, and my opponent should follow with the basics of their rebuttal(s). In the second round, I will go further in depth with my reasoning, and address the issues my opponent raised in his introduction. My opponent should then follow suit, giving their reasons why I am wrong, including reasons why our votes do affect our nation. In the third round, I will address my opponents rebuttals and reasoning and present my closing remarks, after which my opponent should do the same. Use of sources in the second and third rounds is encouraged.

The basis of my argument is this:

In both local and national elections, we are given a choice of candidates to vote between. (I understand there are rare exceptions to the following statements.) Most candidates are from well off families, and have been groomed from a young age to think and act a certain way. Rare is the politician who understands what it means to be an average citizen. These candidates use party affiliations and advertising campaigns to try to appeal to as many people as possible for the purpose of winning the election. Once in office, their decisions and actions are almost always motivated by greed, and/or a desire to remain in good standing not with the people they are meant to be responsible for, but instead with corporate and political affiliates. The vast majority of laws passed on any level over the past century have had been to increase profits for the government or big business, usually at the expense of the taxpayer, and are almost always passed without any type of consultating the citizens who are affected by these laws. Money is constantly wasted without any influence from the taxpaying citizens whatsoever. Party affiliation is actually irrelevant, because both of the dominant parties, democrats and republicans, answer to the same elite group of the uber-wealthy.

Or more simply, it is like this: We are told to pick one; this rotten banana, or that rotten banana, and furthermore the bananas are disguised as delecious, ripe plantains. Both bananas are going to taste horrible, but by the time people realize it, they have already taken a bite.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

You seem to be missing two factors:

1. Primaries.

2. Write-ins.

The former is how votes pick WHICH rotten bananas are on the ballot.

The second allows you to ignore even that.

Individual votes still have infinitesimal effects, but the elections nevertheless are not for show-- they do, in fact, determine who gets in office. The fact that voters so far generally don't write in much and don't pick unrotted bananas is merely an indictment of the majority thereof, not a demonstration that elections are somehow inherently mendacious.

As for campaign spending-- that can do nothing but ask for votes. The votes are still the controlling factor.
Debate Round No. 1
JaLo757

Pro

Hmm...interesting, because I can't exactly disagree with you, but this is because you have played on my grammar. Technically, you are correct, we do affect which rotten people get to run and end up in office. I think it that I made it reasonably clear, though, that what I meant was we do not affect what happens in our nation by our votes. Whichever person we put in office is going to do the same as the rest, (since it's late, and there is no real argument being made, I will not restate my previous assertions in this round). Whatever rotten banana we pick is going to keep passing the same kind of legislations and creating the same types of clusterf...well you know the military term used. Anyhow, could we at least try to make round 3 a debate, or is this impossible?

This website seems to be quite a fail.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I've done more than "play on your grammar." In fact, I haven't touched your grammar.

Elections not only decide which rotten bananas end up in office, they also decide whether-- again, primaries are part of elections. And primaries render anything, including unrotted bananas, a possibility. Majorities may stop this, but that is not "elections being a show." It is elections being as-advertised.

Incidentally, there is more than one variety of rotten banana, and these DO matter. One variety of rotten banana will raise taxes and give health subsidies to the elderly. Another will raise them higher and give health subsidies to everyone. These are different policies with different effects. Different degrees of rotten banana. The only thing that caused a switch from the former rotten banana to the latter rotten banana is an election.
Debate Round No. 2
JaLo757

Pro

JaLo757 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

That argument seems to be quite a fail.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
Sorry, but sometimes real life cuts in to my internet time.

And I could have said "in america, you can't bring about positive change by voting."

Whichever rotten banana ends up in office answers to the same people. The same corporations. Whether they raise taxes to give everyone healthcare or lower it and give it to a few it still csts you money. It's just how it costs you money.

And people here seem to be more concerned with "proper phrasing". My argument wasn't at all vague. You can have the points guy. Americans are stupid
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - Really, Pro? "This website seems to be quite a fail." Also, final round forfeit on Pro's part.

S/G: Con - Pro isn't good at phrasing resolutions.

Arguments: Con - Obviously. Pro sort of abandoned the resolution and cried wol- I mean... semantics.

Sources: Tied - There weren't any sources.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'This website seems to be quite a fail'

Your ineptness at phrasing a resolution is hardly the site's fault.
Posted by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
Sorry, just got back from hiking. I haven't forgotten. Will post my next round soon.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.'

Sure it does. We get to choose which rotten banana gets in power. :P
Posted by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
Really man? Cmon...
Posted by JaLo757 6 years ago
JaLo757
studentathlete...I stated that the first round was introductory; I gave the basics of my argument. However, I find it odd that this abstract does not give you a good idea of the points I will be making. Also odd, the fact this was viewed 43 times before anyone accepted, even though there were 0 other debates in the challenge period when created this one.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Agreed.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Meh. This would be too much of an easy win. Not worth it.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
You didn't really prove that our elections are "for show." You merely stated that most politicians are sleazy scum-bags who want to get elected for their own selfish purposes. You really didn't affirm the resolution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
JaLo757Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
JaLo757Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
JaLo757Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05