The Instigator
sjps
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
jc16squared
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Third-Party Candidates be in Debates?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
sjps
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,439 times Debate No: 27036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

sjps

Pro

Debate Rules:
1.No profanity
2.No trollers
3.Use a source.

Ready when you are.
jc16squared

Con

Thank you for having a open argument.


I accept the challenge
Debate Round No. 1
sjps

Pro

This is my first debate, so it may not be my best...lol.
Shall we begin?

1.EVERY Candidate deserves a chance at sharing their opinions on the subject. No matter WHAT their party is, they have a right to share what they personally believe in to get out their voice!

2.They need to get their voice out into the open to help boost their campaign. I believe that every candidate should have a fair chance at president, so let them into it!

Thank you.
jc16squared

Con

We shall begin and you are a great arguer.

The third parties that run are really muninsiple and they are really unimportant. If the third parties are not even in the debates so how can you vote for them if the majority of America hasn't even heard of them. Also they do put the third parties in the option to vote put usually the people that vote are trying to figure out "who is this?" making it stupid to even mention in a news report unless the said party has won a state they may be eligible to be a important party. Also that party must have money unless that they are completely irrelavent.


Thank you. And appologies if I spelled anything wrong I refuse to use spell check
Debate Round No. 2
sjps

Pro

You stated that America has not heard of any Third Party Candidates, and saying they need too much money.
I am here to tell you that this statement is incorrect.

In the past, many parties have ran for president, all of investing time and money into this position. Are you stating that third parties are irrevelant?

Let's say that we had a horrible election, in a year like, er--- 2016.
Both candidates are completely HORRIBLE.

Who would you choose?

And you saying that they don't afford it?
You NEED money for elections, for advertising and such.

There have been articles on online stating that there have been third party candidates affecting elections.
jc16squared

Con

Yes I am stating that third parties are irrelevant. Third parties aren't heard by the MAJORITY of America. Now for a third party to be heard is by weather it has enough money to support that campaign. On Tuesday did you hear of any other MAJOR third parties?Except for the local ones in you're area.

Except for the third party that was in you're state, you cannot say that a MAJOR third party was in that election. But yes there have been relevant third parties in votes. But they didn't win nor did they come close to doing that. Because of the fact that"id hate to admit" are focused of voting democratic or republican. There may be right now a minority that would vote for a third party right now. And those voters are young. Point blank because no American over 40 would vote for a third party. Unless swayed in a big way which I will address later


And next election if both candidates are horrible, yes I agree that a third party that has a great candidate that should be president. BUT America wont do it unless they are willing to change and I don't that they can do that. If they can do that is because the news like ABC or NBC or they have ads that can swing the American voters they cannot win unless they get the word out which I think will be for years to come. America cant take more than two candidates. America will be split unevenly the swing states will be the only states visited. But to get my point across America will not vote for a new party candidate in the next 3 elections because the new party will have to build up popularity and have large amounts of people follow it.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sjps 4 years ago
sjps
Mine too.
Posted by jc16squared 4 years ago
jc16squared
Thank you for criticism this is my first debate so thank you.
Posted by sjps 4 years ago
sjps
@PoliticallyDisagreeable,
can you vote please?
Posted by PolitelyDisagreeable 4 years ago
PolitelyDisagreeable
I'd say that third party candidates don't have much influence BECAUSE they are not allowed in debates and such, and also because the republican and democrat parties control the media. I think Con got the cause and effect mixed up.
Posted by sjps 4 years ago
sjps
It's fine, i used my head too.
Good luck
Posted by jc16squared 4 years ago
jc16squared
Sorry about not using a source i go off of personal beliefs and news site like mnmbc NO NOT WHAT YOURE THINKING
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
sjpsjc16squaredTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's core argument, that nobody knows the third party, pretty much backs up the main thrust of Pro's contention: the system is set up in such a way that it makes access difficult for members of third parties.
Vote Placed by Bordenkircher 4 years ago
Bordenkircher
sjpsjc16squaredTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro has some convincing arguments, and o did con. My beliefs are sort of in-between both of them, but closer to pro, so I choose him.
Vote Placed by BobbyYaz 4 years ago
BobbyYaz
sjpsjc16squaredTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was very persuasive