The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,809 times Debate No: 22187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)




Hi I would like to make this a Public Forum debate, where you argue mainly based on evidence. I hope that's ok because I usually debate in this style.

The old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" well, the side proposition says, "If our democracy is broke…. Fix it!"

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

I would like to define direct popular vote as voting done by members of the public directly, through a system where all votes are considered in the final decision. I define electoral vote as the current voting system within the United States, where the members of the Electoral College represent each state vote for the presidency.

As the proposition, I support the resolution for the 3 following reasons:
-the system of Electoral College is inherently flawed
-the system reduces American agency
-Direct popular vote maximizes collective liberties.

1. The system of Electoral College is inherently flawed and must be discarded
Sub point A the system right now does not follow the principles of democracy.
A truly democratic government is one in which all people have an equal say in deciding who is to represent them. The Electoral College structure as it stands, essentially ignores the political will of the minority of any given state. Through a system of direct popular, similar political opinions from multiple states could band together to contribute to the over-all number of supported for their party. Unfortunately in status quo, the supporters of a particular party are isolated from their counter-parts in other states; reducing the overall value of their vote should they lose. This means that the voice of the 51% of the people is infinitely louder than the voice of the 49% which is fundamentally unfair.

Source: (Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus)

Sub point B many people do not agree with this system

It is the opinions of the citizenry which matters most in regards to the method of democracy. Should the majority of Americans prefer an alternative system, than it would be entirely counter-intuitive to keep the current system. The vast majority of the Americans want direct popular vote. The real question isn't whether we should change the system to direct popular vote, but rather why is it that we have not changed it yet! We have to replace the Electoral College system with the direct popular vote. In Gallup polls going far as 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system. This meniscus percentage has not increased significantly since then. The people have spoken and it would be wise to listen.


Sub point C people will either stop voting or contribute to the polarized political culture of the United States

The Electoral College awards electoral votes based on a winner-take-all method: the candidate with the highest number of votes in each state gets all of the state's electors. This causes millions of votes to be effectively uncounted. The sad reality is that if an individual lives in a state where the vast majority votes for a party that they do not support, there is absolutely no incentive to vote. When a person knows it is essentially impossible to have their vote make a difference, there really is no point in participating in the political process. This forces the politically passionate to physically move to another state if they want their vote to matter at all, which we think is entirely unreasonable. Even if they do move, we think this is not in the best interest of the country. When you only have vastly polarized states with highly segregated political opinions, this tends to further isolate citizens from the opposite party and heighten political tension between the parties which hurt the political process as a whole.

Source: Michael E. McGrath explains why in "The Electoral College Inhibits Democracy,: written fro

2. This system selectively reduces the agency of marginalized American citizens
The Electoral College system fails to show nation popular will

In 2000, George W. Bush had 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266 electoral votes, but he had 50.2% of the popular vote while George W. Bush only had 49.8%. The narrowness of the results in California caused anarchy within the political structure resulting in a decision by the Supreme Court which was fundamentally undemocratic. Had a direct popular system had been implemented; the entire country could have distributed the hyper-burden placed on Florida, mitigating the problems caused by the political stress.

Source: 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, State Elections Offices, December 2001

3. Direct popular vote maximizes the democratic liberties of all Americans

(John B. Judis concludes in "Shut down the College," written for the American Prospect) Eliminating the Electoral College and nationalizing presidential elections could promote the proper use of the 14th and 15th Amendments by guaranteeing that each citizen enjoys equal access to voting opportunities through uniform ballots and voting machinery, and the availability of polling places.

The Electoral College prevents the United States from compliance with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which calls for "...elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage..." as a basic, unalienable right of all mankind. The US is not alone in failing to comply with this universal human right.


I will first refute her case.

C+1: The electoral college is flawed

--> The system we have now does not follow the principles of a democracy

May I first point out we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. [1] Now my opponent states that in our system we have an equal say in who is repressing us. This is true under the EC (electoral college) What happens is at the republican convention (state wide) people vote on who they want to be the electors. Once chosen the person pledges to the candidate. [2] Now, this means when we vote for president we are not voting for the candidate, rather his elector.

Then my opponent says it is possible that 49% may trump the 51%. She claims this is unjust. This is false, as it is just for the minority to win every once and a while. But what she leaves out is the largest states still have larger influence on elections. Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, this year it will likely be PA. The EC is not direct majority rule, but studies show democrats and republicans usually get the same percentage of votes in big states as they do overall, john kerry got 48% in 2004, and he got 48% in ohio. As larger states are worth more with or without the EC the overall vote is fair as it either gives you the big states or you don't. [3] Basically saying your overall win/loss with or without the EC is going to be similar. So therefore it generally forces a majority. If you look at all the elections put together the majority of the winners had the majority of the EC and the popular vote. [4] This disproves your argument as the EC usually ends in a majority win.

---> Most people do not support the system

This argument is known as the bandwagon fallacy.The bandwagon fallacy mean appeal to the majority, more people like this therefore we should do it. [5] Note, POPULAR SUPPORT IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO DO ANYTHING. This fallacy occurs when one argues to appeal to the majority. [6] Having this argument fits into this fallacy, and popular support is no reason to do X or Y. This argument is henceforth invalid.

---> People may not vote due to the EC

My opponent claims people may not vote because their vote might become worthless. May I point out that is false, as the vote is still counted in the overall vote when you are watching fox news in November and see obama gets 51% of the vote against romney. The vote is indeed counted in the popular vote, and voting is extremely important regardless. My opponents whole argument is in theory people may not vote under this system. If you look at the facts, the EC actually increases the voting power. As each vote is in each district and electors are proportioned accordingly, it makes each vote worth more on the elector. In a NV (national vote) System your vote is worthless as we have 200 million people voting. The EC makes votes worth more. [5] Also my opponent brings up the point about winner takes all. Although this is partially true, many states have a proportional voting system. This means if you win district C you get 1 elector, but he wins district A so he gets on elector. [7]

C+2: The system fails to make the majority win

This argument as I have stated is false. The majority of the time the majority wins. the election in 2000 was a special case. Only in 3/54 elections has the electoral vote and the popular vote been different. [8] This disprove your case as the EC almost always shows a majority. And as I describe later is good for the election.

C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans

This is refuted by my st contention when I make it. I argue the EC helps minorities, a national vote would erode power for the smaller states. I will refute the 14th and 15th amendment now though. This is assuming the EC takes away peoples rights. Peoples rights are not taken away as in the EC each vote still counts, any voe could sway all of the electors. under the NV it would certainly break the 14th amendment as minority's and small states would not matter in the main elections.

--My Case--

C1: The EC increases minority status

In small states under a NV system their votes will literally be USELESS. The NV system would mean the larger states have all the power, as the candidate would have to go to California, Texas, Florida, and the north east and bang! you won the election. This means the smaller states are neglected and would hold little power in the actual election. The electoral college actually gives smaller states influence on the elections. It actually means their vote is worth slightly more then someones vote in texas, as the EC makes it so a vote here in NM is worth more, but it gives our state potential to sway an election. Texas still is worth more EC wise, but the EC enhances minority status. [9]

"the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes." [10]

In a NV system the minority vote wouldn't matter as they are the minority. In the EC it matters as their vote may sway it from all of the electors or none of them. As stated it also helps the states with smaller population. [11] A NV system would not help EVERYONE as it would hurt small states and minorities.

C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country

The EC forces the winner to win the majority of the land mass to win. As the EC adds to the small states power (example Wyoming)

"The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states."

As the small states with low populations are the majority of the country, and now the EC makes them worth something, it forces the candidates to win those states or lose. Under the NV system they only need to win large towns.

"If presidents appeared to be solely regional candidates, it would tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the country. Given the current Electoral College, no person could become president without both the support of a substantial portion of the population and broad support over different regions of the country." [13]

In order of population you see although the individual large states have more population, the majority of the country has low population. The whole Midwest and Alaska have the least population and the largest area. [14] The EC forces you to win these states in the mid west or else you will lose. As the EC forces you to do this it makes you win the majority of the votes (most of the time) as well as the larger land mass (usually).

C3: The EC encourages a two party system

A NV system would mean more people would run for president. The EC makes it so there is only 2 viable parties running (making it easier on us). I will be fast as I am low on room. [15]

C4: Constitution

We have an amendment making the EC exist.

"The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system." [16]

Now, we know the small states would never pass the bill, and 3/4 of the states need to support a change in the system to change the EC to an NV. As there would be too many small states against this action, the EC change would be impossible. Any attempt would be futile. [17]


The EC has many benefits that should not be discarded, it helps minorities and small states, forces a majority usually and one must win most of the countries land mass, not just small concentrations of the US like with the NV, and it would be impossible to change the system as the small states would block the change. For these reasons, I urge a CON vote

Sources inside this link:

Debate Round No. 1


So I will now refute my opponent's case.

C1: The EC increases minority status

There are two things I would like to say about this contention. The first is that some votes of states matter more than others.

The system excludes many voters from a meaningful role in presidential elections. If you live in New York or Texas, for example, it is generally a foregone conclusion which party will win your state's electoral votes, so your vote has less meaning " and it can feel especially meaningless if you vote on the losing side. On the other hand, if you live in Florida or Ohio, where the outcome is less clear, your vote has a greatly magnified importance. Voters in small states are favored because Electoral College votes are based on the number of senators and representatives a state has. Wyoming's roughly 500,000 people get three electoral votes. California, which has about 70 times Wyoming's population, gets only 55 electoral votes. (1)
In Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others, so the candidates only have to focus on states (swing states) that will vote for them and has more value on votes.
The second thing is when people lose, they lose hard. The state only casts its vote to the candidates who the majority of the state voted for. So in another words, the majority aren't heard. They are just flat out ignored.

C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country
"The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states.
This isn't true as I have stated before, the candidates don't have to do this. They can just focus on swing states, and the states with the votes that are more of value.

C3: The EC encourages a two party system
This is actually bad because it means that other people who want to run can't so it is just discouraging people from getting as much as involvement in politics as they want.

C4: Constitution
This doesn't matter when the current voting system is obviously flawed. Sure America might not be a full democratic country, but in the case of Electoral College, trying to implement state rights do not work when trying to make the votes fair and equal. The definition of democracy is that people have equal say in the politics. Obviously when many people are being ignored,it is clearly out of the line of democracy.

Rebuilding my own case:

C+1: The electoral college is flawed

--> The system we have now does not follow the principles of a democracy
As I have said before, United States might be a constitutional republic, but the base line is democracy. The definition of democracy is people have an equal say in what goes on in the country. In the modern view, the president represents the people, but he also has to follow what people want.

Also, I think you misinterpreted my point about the majority having infinitely louder voice than the minority. What I am trying to say is that the minority are being ignored. Not being considered less, but flat out ignored. In a direct popular voting system, everyone is considered. Their votes are not being ignored, but counted. This is fundamentally unfair.(2)

---> Most people do not support the system
Yes, popular support is not always the best thing to follow. In this case, though, people's support matters. It is the people's decisions that chooses the president. This is not a politics case where people are deciding whether or not to go to war, this is how THEY want to vote for their president.

---> People may not vote due to the EC
The problem with Electoral College is that some people's vote matters more. So wouldn't this lead to a situation where some states are not getting some campaign from all the candidates at all? If that was the case, then would people want to vote knowing that some other people in states with more votes are more important than them?

C+2: The system fails to make the majority win
this has happened, and can still happen, and when it does, the people are not going to be happy. With direct popular vote, you have to get the majority of the votes, so this does not happen.

C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans
In direct popular vote, this won't take away the minorities' rights as much as Electoral College does, because every vote counts. They DO NOT ignore the votes. With Electoral College, they probably ignore almost half of the population's votes which does actually go against their right of having a say.

1. New York Times, 11-19-2008, Flunking the Electoral College,� National Popular Vote,

2.(Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus)

In conclusion, the benefits of direct popular vote clearly outweighs the benefits of the Electoral College.
Even though US is not a full democracy, it is still democratic. Sure state rights are important, but elections are about the people, not the states. The main flaw in Electoral College is that it ignores many people's voices, which is a very bad thing because it is out of the line from the definition of democracy.


D1: Helps Minority and small states

The basis of my opponents argument here lies on the bandwagon fallacy (we already touched on this) and this in turn means the majority may be bad. What Pro doesn't realize is the EC makes it more fair as a whole. In a NV system a few large states (texas, california, florida, NY, Ohio, PA, and NJ) Would totally control the elections. The EC does in fact make each individual vote worth slightly less, as my dads vote would be worth more then my uncles vote in TX, but if you look at the system overall the EC is MORE fair.

So, it is true each individuals vote is worth less/more slightly, but it keeps the big states from controlling 100% of the elections. It acts as a counter balance. So individually one on one they get crushed, but as a whole they are still worth more. So it gives us a say in the election so a few small areas do not rule the election, and still gives them overall more of a say. Does this make sense? I don't know how well I worded this is why I ask.

And then to debunk her main argument all I need to do is show the majority wins most of the time anyway. Further more if you look at the way the EC is designed it is made too make a majority almost every time. One must win 270 electors to have victory. [1] As this is the case, it forces a majority. As there are 435 members in the house, 100 senators, they add them together 535 electoral votes. As this is only very slightly weighted to small states, it is mainly fair. As it is fairly even (still slightly weighted) it forces a majority 99% of the time, exclude 2000. So is appeals to the majority much of the time anyway.

D2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country

My opponent needs to look at an electoral map. If you see the map the Midwest has more votes overall then California. These small states are the ones that bring the republicans to win anything. The Midwest now garners much of the electoral votes forcing candidates to win some of that territory. [2] As the smaller states are powerful enough to sway an election the candidates now must WIN part of the Midwest to win the election, forcing them to have a wider appeal.

D3: Two Party system

My opponent claims this is bad as people cannot run. This is false, as 3rd party people can run. But the EC encourages a two party system. Now if you think of it it does not exclude anyone. People like ron paul still run in the election as a republican. It makes the people with crazy ideas not want to run, therefore benefits us all. But other people like in the green party or libertarian parties can still run for president and win if the run under the banner of an {R} or a {D}. So it makes it easier for us in a 2 party system and people can still run successfully if they run as the new candidate under a R/D.

D4: Constitution

My opponents argument here is if the voting system is flawed fix it! Well first as I have proven it is not flawed. Second we are not a democracy like you keep saying. I already proved we where a republic. A republic is a government ruled by states but elected by the people. [3] So please, this democracy concept out, lol. No but this is a reason to keep it. If there is NO hopes in changing the system because every small state will veto it is a good reason, this reform will never happen this argument henceforth is in-futile. Its never going to fully go away with the small states vetoes. And changing it is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

C+1: Flaws

---> Were still not a democracy. In a republic the government decides policy. In a democracy the people do. [3, 4] These differences hinder the argument invalid as it cannot violate this. Also as I have stated the EC 99% of the time forces a majority. So all in all it does not even violate democracy if we where one.

My opponent is claiming the EC ignores the minority. As I have stated it enhances minority votes and small states, and your rebuttal to that basically conceded this fact. In the EC everyone is considered, in the NV system small states are not considered, only the eastern seaboard. If anything the EC enhances voter status.

---> popular support

My opponents argument is still false. Popular support is not a reason to change something and it falls under the bandwagon fallacy. As it breaks this fallacy it is invalid.

---> People do not vote

As I have stated it creates a counter balance so the big states overall are more important, and the smaller states do not get crushed. The NV makes the system worse. Individually we all are worth the same now, but in the government the small states now have NO voice. Texas decides over NM now. The EC makes it more fair this way so as a whole Texas is worth more then NM but NM is now going to have a say. The EC gives everyone a say, a NV system basically gives ALL OF THE POWER to NY and TX and CA. This is more unfair then the flaws you are pointing out with the EC. A reformation to the EC would be more valuable then an NV which makes it worse.

C+2: Majority

My opponents argument is still looking upon the band wagon fallacy of appeal to the majority. The EC almost always represents the will of the people, and this is how the EC was constructed. My opponents argument is statistically very low unless there is a major third party, like in 2000 Ralph Nader sole the win from Al Gore. But statistically speaking her argument is very unlikely. The EC's winner take all makes it so you win the majority of the vote in those states, well if you win more states then your winning the popular vote by each state. Theoretically then you are going to get the majority of the vote most of the time.

C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans

My opponents argument is still interesting, as the EC increases minority freedoms. It helps all minorities have a major swing in an election. Under the NV system only the majority of the population counts, politicians would try to win the ethnic majority vote so they get more. The ethnic minorities would be worthless as they are a minority. The EC makes politicians win the minority vote to win. So small states and minorities are now crucial. As I have already proven, and you have not refuted, the EC helps minority voters.


Direct popular vote is a system that is highly flawed and detrimental to the election system of the US. My opponents arguments as I have shown are flawed and fall under the bandwagon fallacy much of the time. I have refuted her arguments, as she has the BoP for being Pro AND changing the status quo. She has not fulfilled this burden therefore I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok, so I am going to clarify the difference between constitutional republic and democracy in elections. By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. In politics, it is a constitutional republic. The president represents the people and makes the decisions. In elections, it is democracy, because it all depends on the people and the president is chosen according to the votes or "majority". In the case of Electoral College, to be more specific, US is a representative democracy. Either way, US is still a democracy in terms of choosing the president, which is what we are debating about right now.

I hope this has cleared things up.

Going on from this, I have stated quite a few times that elections is all dependent on the people, not the candidates or the government. Seeing this, doesn't it make more sense that we should do this in a way that PEOPLE want, not the way the government says? After all, this election is about people choosing the president who they feel will be the best for them. But how can we do this if many people are not being heard? My opponent states that it protects the smaller states from the bigger states, but the fact is, many people, more than what could result from Direct popular vote, are being ignored. In direct popular vote, states don't matter. All votes are equal, they are all heard, so every person has at least a say in this. In Electoral College, the minority in a state are ignored, many states with less votes are not as important, so some people don't even get a say.

Also, sure two party seems great if you want to run in either the republic or democratic, but what if you have other opinions? Even if they run, they are as good as not running, because they won't get as much as influence as the two major parties.

I would just like to emphasize on the fact that PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING HEARD.There are swing states that the candidates only have to focus on, so what good is it for you if you live in a state with only one vote? You know your vote won't count as much against others, so how can this be FAIR? One vote equals one vote, not two or three. It doesn't matter it protects the smaller states from the bigger ones, because there are flaws where many states are at disadvantage.

So if you want a fair vote, have an equal say as others, and want your voice to count, vote for pro, because by changing to direct popular vote, the government will make sure your votes are not being ignored, and it won't matter what state you live in.


My opponent has dropped all of my arguments last round. She diverged into her one point about voter rights and how an election works. This is enough information to vote con, as she dropped so much. I will refute her arguments yet again, and as these are NEW arguments last round I urge the conduct point.

Rc1: Republic vs Democracy

The only part we need to talk about is the elections, as this is what the resolution fully pertains too. The framers of the constitution actually rejected the NV! Why? Because they thought our republican form of government need not be controlled by the popular states in the elections. [1] In a republic elections are different then a democracy, as winner usually has the majority vote, but it is not required. The republic system is more fair (EC) as smaller states and minorities votes actually matter. In the NV system all that maters is the big states and the majority ethnicity.

Rc2: Popular support

---> First this violates the bandwagon fallacy, again.

---> Second it doesn't matter as the small states would all reject the amendment to change the EC, therefore it would never be able be taken down as this will prevent a 3/4 majority.

---> Her argument lies on the argument people are being ignored. IF just IF we think the EC ignores people, then the NV is the EC on crack. The NV literally means ALL small states and ALL minorities are worthless. Why? Because the goal is to win the majority now, and you would rather win Texas then Wyoming. And minorities are now worthless as all you want is the majority vote, so everyone would be after the majority ethnic (currently white) vote. This is bad, as then large portions of the country are totally out of the picture. The complaint you are giving is people in NY individually are worth less then a redneck in Wyoming. If anything I approve of this, as it means the states now share power. If we had the NV NY would control a lot more, the states with the biggest population would be in control as everything revolves around population and votes from the majority now. The NV gives all the power to a few large states, while the small states get shoved into a corner. The EC still gives big states more power as a whole, but prevent them from controlling everything. If anything the EC makes it much more fair.

Rc3: 2 parties

---> As I ave stated the EC prevents voter fraud through the 2 party encouragement and the extensive re-counts. If we had a NV thousands of candidates would be encouraged to run, and as there would be so many more chances to fraud the vote and would need to be re-counted as the vote would be so close as they split the vote tremendously. [2] (overexerted with the thousands part) But think about it, there is no right to run for president in law, so having a 2 party system is great, as it reduces fraud and it prevents recounts and no right is violated. There is actually no downside to having a 2 party system, as:
1. No right to run for president, so no rights are violated
2. it prevents fraud [3]
3. It prevents long recounts [3]

Rc3: People are not being heard

---> I refuted this in Rc1. If people are not being heard now the NV is going to be the EC on crack as the NV totally ignores large sects of people as worthless, as the EC makes them worthwhile. In a pool of 100,000,000 voters, the minority of one million is now worthless. The EC makes them have a small say in the elections. The NV takes this say away. The EC is fair overall as NY still trumps me here in NM, but individually 1 on 1 we are slightly better, but as a whole they win. The majority is still being heard, but the EC makes us have a whisper too. The EC's discrimination you claim balances out.

Dropped arguments from pro:

Helps minorities, she focused on the band wagon fallacy this round
adds cohesiveness

She only refuted D3...


As she has dropped 3/4 of my arguments this round, I urge a con vote. She assumes the BOP as she is asking for a change in the status quo and a change in the constitution herself, and she has not fulfilled her BOP, my smaller BOP has been filled by me. As in PF we debate on evidence, I decree I urge a con vote here as I provided more evidence. I have showed abolishing the EC is more detrimental then helpful, and that the EC's "discrimination" was balanced out in the long run. I have refuted her arguments and the resolution has been defeated. The EC gives minorities and small states a say in elections, a NV takes them away. And last but not least the EC adds to the cohesiveness of the country. It forces you to have a wide range of appeal, and not just win a few big states, like the NV would force. The EC forces you win the Midwest and a few a large states, so the people from the urban areas and the farmers support you. It actually forces a person who is running to have a plan that everyone approves of. As pro said in round one, I have affirmed hte old saying if it ain't broke fix it. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
Wasn't this a PDF topic acouple of months ago??
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
I never said it was. Talking about a different debate entirely.
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
Who said this was a LD debate?

Pro stated in teh beginning that it was a PF debate.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Ah, that's not even a real LD debate. If you wanna see what shops LD debate is, I can teach you and do a debate with you.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
let me find it
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Really. What resolution?
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago

I did a DDO LD debate once. I won it :)
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
You'd definetely be better at PF. You'd die in LD xD
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good work on both sides. Pro just put all his eggs in one basket in the last round, and didn't make a very convincing case that "the people are not being heard".
Vote Placed by WriterDave 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did drop most of Con's arguments. Conduct and sources go to Pro, however, because the way Con did, linking to an outside page for sources, I consider that cheating.