The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.
Debate Rounds (3)
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.