The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 96916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Donald Trump was NOT trying to win the popular vote.

That is NOT how a person becomes the President.

If Trump wanted to win the popular vote, he could easily have done so by spending time and money in California. If Trump can do the impossible and win Wisc. Ohio, Michigan, Penn. etc. - Do you really think he couldn't pull out a few more thousand votes in California?

If Clinton wins the popular vote, it's only because no one was trying to win the popular vote.

Today, Donald Trump is President (elect) because he is simply smarter than Hillary Clinton. He spent his time and money, in the right places, she did not.

You can't play the game of Football and claim that a "Home Run" or "3 Point Basket" matters.

The final vote tally, which ever way it breaks, is completely meaningless, because it was never contested and was never part of what is required to become President..


Hello, I will accept your argument. First off, we will be debating whether or not there is any validity to the statement:

Hillary Clinton deserves to become president because she won the popular vote.

I realize the popular vote does not necessarily determine who is President and we will not be arguing how the President is determined through the Electoral college (as this is objective and can easily be googled). On the contrary, we will be arguing whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved to be President because of her win of the popular vote.

Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Quote -
we will be arguing whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved to be President because of her win of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is not what the challenge to debate proposes and you should not have accepted this debate.

If you had wanted to debate the concept of total vote vs electoral college, than you should have started another debate such as, "Electing a President via the Electoral College is idiotic."

The premise of this debate is the idiocy of trying to change the rules AFTER the contest.

Before any game or contest is held, both sides agree to rules of fair play and the goals required to determine victory.

Attempting to move the goalposts after the game, is the position CON is required to defend.


So in other words you created a debate for which the claim was:

Trying to change the rules to a contest after you lost is idiotic.

That is, quite frankly, a really stupid debate topic. Nobody is going to debate that. You literally started a debate topic which no one disagrees on and then worded your claim ambiguously to make it sound as though it was a different debate. I am sorry that I have misunderstood you.
Debate Round No. 2


Quote -
You literally started a debate topic which no one disagrees on and then worded your claim ambiguously to make it sound as though it was a different debate. I am sorry that I have misunderstood you.

I'm not sure how the statement that a a certain point of view or argument, "is idiotic" - could be more clear.

Although, I am happy to see that you realize the complete stupidity of the Clinton winning anything argument. Because that argument amounts to nothing more than trying to change the rules after the game.

It's like saying I played football by myself and scored 100 touchdowns. So what? Do you think that's what would happen if there was another team trying to stop you?

It's just stupid. IF.... Clinton wins the popular vote, it's only because neither Trump or Clinton was trying to accomplish that goal.


I apologize to my opponent that we were unable to truly debate anything.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by szexiv 1 year ago
What is the point of a democracy? Is it not to give the voice to the people? What better way is there to accurately depict the voice of the people other than tally actual votes? The Electoral College is outdated and horribly skewed. When County and district lines can be drawn to take advantage of demographics, election results become skewed, and do not accurately reflect the true, unbiased voice of the people. Since we believe that our democracy ought to reflect the voice of the people, the popular vote makes more sense for the election of our officials. In so far as my previous statements, "clinton won the popular vote" is not an idiotic argument.
Posted by Danbury 1 year ago
Well, you Trumpers sound charming, I suppose what should be expected, considering who, and what, you just made our president.

Meantime, this is "". Someone started a legitimate debate here. You are not forced to participate in a debate you don't like or agree with or believe is legitimate. So rather than just spewing invective and rage and hostility toward others, join the debate, or go find a topic you actually would like to debate. But can you even? We saw how well your guy did in the debates. Not very. He too was more comfortable not debating but rather flinging hostility and nastiness. What a strange place for folks like you and him to be most comfortable.

As for get over it...ROFL! That is funny, considering how the right treated Pres. Obama, for eight years, despite his winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College, in BOTH elections!

So, good one.

I'm guessing the popular vote is only idiotic when a Democrat wins it and a Republican wins the Electoral College, but it would be quite an issue had HRC won the EC and Trump won the pop. vote. Kind of like the above telling people to get over their loss, versus their complete inability, for eight years, to have done so re: Obama.
BUT, I do not expect anyone who saw anything remotely redeeming in Donald Trump to begin to grasp that concept, let alone possess any empathy.
Posted by Politics2016 1 year ago
We elected the president of the United States, not the President of California, okay? Get the hell over it Hillbots.
Posted by batman01 1 year ago
Hey, I'm really sorry to my opponent if I came off sounding mad in my last argument I am just frustrated that I accepted a debate which I shouldn't have.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Based on what we saw during campaigning, we saw Hillary is a weak little b**** who will get nothing done.
Posted by Danbury 1 year ago
It is a legitimate debate, since the US does have a law whereby Electoral College Electors can in fact overrule the college and elect the candidate who won the popular vote. has a petition going around now getting signatures to urge such a vote. I don't think this is about sore losing by Clinton supporters. I think there is genuine and earned fear of a Trump presidency based on what we saw during the campaign.
No votes have been placed for this debate.