The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote/run-off system
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
thett3
| Started: | 7/3/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 10 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 3,939 times | Debate No: | 24545 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (89)
Votes (9)
 Pro -Creates swing states (a few states decide election for entire country) -Creates lock states (millions of votes have no chance of counting) ^Disenfranchises voters^ -Could create voter chaos (could be a tie of Electoral votes, in which case the House of Representatives elects the president) -Over-represents smaller states (why doesn't (shouldn't) one vote count as one vote?!) -Miserable distribution of votes (winner-take-all format) means that a 51% victory is exactly the same as a 100% victory, which can be millions of votes. -Eliminates the possibility of anyone other than one of the "main" two candidates could win -We vote for every elected office as a constituant of the area over which they govern. Why is the president any different? -If the electoral college is superior to the popular vote, why don't we use it to elect senators (giving Electoral votes to counties) as well? -The biggest and most critical issue: popular vote > Electoral College because one guarantees that every single vote will be counted EQUALLY, while the other not only doesn't count them equally, it doesn't guarantee that it will be counted at all.  Con Thanks, Pro. I'll refute your arguments in the next round. I debated this issue months ago, so I just copy/pasted my case from that previous round.
I negate the resolution. Observation 1: The Electoral System in the U.S. has worked well for centuries, there needs to be an extremelycompelling reason to re-form our entire election process. We ought not reform legal precedent based off status quo unless we can conclude that A) The status quo has a problem, B) The problem will not go away by itself, C) changing the status quo will fix this problem, and D) the unintended problems from changing the status quo have been evaluated and considered of less significance than the current problem. If my Opponents arguments do not meet all these criteria, you vote Con by default. Observation two: The resolution calls for a comparitive analysis between DPV and Electoral Vote. Luckily for me, my system (the electoral college) is already in effect, so I dont need to argue one. However, since my Opponents position is advocating a change in the status quo, he must present a coherent voting system in replacement. This means, essentially, that if we want to affirm this resolution we need to have some framework of what our new voting system ought to be. (IE, are votes counted state by state still? Will minoirity presidents still go to the house of represntatives? Will all votes still be taken on the same day? ECT.) C1: The EC preserves a moderate government. Joy McAfee writes[1]: "Without a two-party competition, it would almost be impossible to win a true sizable plurality of at least forty percent. Compromises and concessions would vanish, and a candidate could represent all fifty states by winning the vote with a minimal plurality. True representation would cease to exist because it would not be needed to win. Instead, a minority party could represent a select group with large numbers and disregard the many important compromises needed to gain these votes under a two party system.” Recall also that there's a swing state in every region (Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa in the Midwest, Virginia, N.C. and Florida in the South, New Hampshire in New England and New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon in the West) so the electoral college ensures that regional concerns are accounted for, preventing candidates from just going to areas with large populations and pressing for every vote the can as happens in a direct popular vote scenario. C3: The Electoral College respects the states. DPV takes away the voice of the small states. Let's be honest, do we really believe that under a system of DPV states lke Wyoming or the Dakotas are going to have any say at all? Of course not. Here's what CATO institute has to say: “The sole practical effect of [direct election] will be to eliminate the States from their share in the political process. A president so elected may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns because state identities and considerations will no longer matter at all since the states will no longer exist so far as presidential elections go. Such a president might also be likely to pursue policies that enhance or enlarge the scope and power of the federal government.” While direct election may not have strong partisan effects, the further empowering of the federal government and a subsequent increase in its ambit would run counter to the founding aspirations for limited government and individual liberty” If we want to base things just off of population like DPV will, then should we not follow that same line of reasoning and abolish the senate as well? My Opponent needs to show us where the line ought to be drawn in regards to states rights if we abolish the elctoral college. Therefore, you should vote Con. Sources: 1. McAfee, Joy. Cumberland Law Review 2. http://www.heritage.org...; 3. http://www.cato.org... |
 |
|
Pro Please define "has worked well"- because I fail to see the correlation between an opinion-based statement- "has worked well" - and the numerous arguments against I proposed. "there needs to be an extremelycompelling reason to re-form our entire election process" You mean like the fact that the president of the United States is decided by a few states? Or that whether or not your vote counts, and how much it counts for, varies based on where you happen to live? I made these arguments with the hopes that someone would refute them. I hope you do so. "since my Opponents position is advocating a change in the status quo, he must present a coherent voting system in replacement" Direct popular vote, if you get a majority of votes you win. It's very simple. The runoff system is slightly more intricate (and I think more fair and effective) and if no candidate wins a majority, the top 2 candidates have a runoff. "Luckily for me, my system (the electoral college) is already in effect, so I dont need to argue one" Just because your system is already in effect doesn't mean you don't have to defend it. You've come very close to, and/or committed the appeal to tradition fallacy several times. "The EC preserves a moderate government" This debate is about the President, not the government as a whole. "Without a two-party competition, it would almost be impossible to win a true sizable plurality of at least forty percent" So your argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it artifically inflates the number of votes for the two major candidates? Exclusion of otherwise very qualified candidates who were unable to gain the nomination of a major party is only another argument AGAINST the EC system, not in favor of it. Your argument also ignores the part where I mentioned a runoff system together with the popular vote. "Instead of the landslide victories requires by the electoral college" This is demonstrably and blatantly false. The Electoral College doesn't even require that a candidate gain the most votes, and a candidate can win as few as 13 states (if I remember correctly) and still win the election. "with DPV the winning candidate is whoever gains the most votes--even if that doesn't constitute a majority. " Wait, like in 1992 when Bill Clinton defeated Bush and Perot with a whopping *43%* of the vote? And in that same 1992 Election when the brilliant Electoral College system left Perot, who had more than half as many votes as Bush, with the same number of Electoral votes as me. "The Electoral College provides a good focus for candidates" Yes. The Swing states- because your vote can count for more than others, if you live in the right state! In 2004 *99% of the money spent, was spent in only 16 States* That's some focus right there! "Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection" Opposed to the 35 states in that situation now? Good argument. "In this scenario, a handful of states (or heavily populated cities) win, while the remaining states and less-populated areas suffer significantly" Incorrect. Under the DPV system, every single person's vote counts precisely the same. So while candidates may not campaign in rural Iowa, they care equally as much about Joe Farmer in Iowa as they do about Jeff Lawyer in New York. As the system is, only swing states matter. In fact, your argument is self-defeating. You say that "a handful of states win" whereas that is precisely the scenario the EC creates with swing states. "A candidate advocating the execution of abortionists, Christ in school books, secession of Texas (*cough* Rick Perry), War in Iran, and the Federal Marriage amendment would probably win in the South" Would probably? Evidence please? "However under DPV conservatives campaign to conservatives, and liberals to liberals" And thus we are left with the top candidates campaigning to the independent/centrist voters. The difference between the DPV and EC here? Under the EC candidates only care about moderates in a few swing states, whereas under the DPV they campaign to EVERY moderate voter across the nation. "With the EC candidates in order to win must take either a center-right or center-left platform or else they're lose" No it won't. Winning votes of ONLY liberals or ONLY conservatives will not be nearly enough votes to gain a majority. "the electoral college ensures that regional concerns are accounted for, preventing candidates from just going to areas with large populations " Regional concerns being accounted for is PRECISELY the reason we have the House and Senate. You seem to be confusing the legislative branch with the executive branch. The Senate is there to look out for the interests of the small states, not the office of the President. "Let's be honest, do we really believe that under a system of DPV states lke Wyoming or the Dakotas are going to have any say at all? Of course not" And this is the crux of the fallibility of this argument. People do not vote as members of the state. They vote as individuals. Under the DPV, EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL has their vote count equally. Under the EC they do not have their vote counted equally, oftentimes not at all. Every single voter in Wyoming has their vote count precisely the same as every single voter in California. One vote equals one vote. "A president so elected may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns" We elect the president to take care of national interests, we elect senators (by direct popular vote by the way, as of the 17th amendment) to take care of state interests, and representatives to take care of regional interests. Why should we elect the NATIONAL leader by each STATE? We don't elect state leaders by county, do we? "If we want to base things just off of population like DPV will, then should we not follow that same line of reasoning and abolish the senate as well" This logic does not follow. How does changing the way we elect the president have anything to do with getting rid of the Senate? You're creating a strawman of my position. The Senate is there to protect the interest of small states. I don't think small states should get special treatment, nor do I think voters who happen to live in a state where voter turnout is close between two parties should get special treatment. I think one vote should equal one vote, that every single voter across the nation is guaranteed that their vote be counted, and be counted precisely the same. And I do hope in future posts you would be so kind as to address my argument directly instead of copy-pasting from past arguments or other websites. Con This is going to be a pretty messy debate, since my opponent chose to go with the "shotgun method" of argumentation as opposed to refuting my contentions individually. I'll begin refuting his assertions now. 1. Swing states --> TURN: Swing states encourage moderation since swing voters can vote for either candidate. A right or left wing extremist will lose in swing states. --> No impact argued, who cares? 2. Lock states --> No impact argued, who cares? --> This is how elections work. It's not like the candidate who wins 40% of the vote gets to be in office 40% of the time, elections ARE winner take all. The difference between having votes counted at a state level or at a national level is merely symbolic. 3. Chaos --> An electoral college tie has never happened, and mathematically is extremely improbable. This is a poo argument, I could just as easily say "direct vote can tie" even though thats mathematically improbable. --> No impact argued. Why exactly does it matter if the house chooses the president...? 4. Small victories This point is nonsensical. Elections are, by their very nature, winner take all. 5. Small parties --> It's nonsensical to criticize the EC for having two "main" candidates, when a runoff system does the exact same thing. --> No impact argued, who cares? 6. Constituancy --> TURN: The electoral college fits the federal nature of the United States. The president is not the supreme leader, but rather the representative of the federal government to work with the representatives of the states, so it makes sense that the president would be decided by each specific state individually. --> Saying that other officials are elected in other ways is not an argument. --> This is a false argument. Senators and representatives do not "govern" their individual districts, they represent them in the federal government. Refer back to my turn. 7. Senators --> This isn't even an argument. Not using something something to elect senators has nothing to do with the president. Refer to my response to his 6th argument. --> Since the president is a figure that has to work with all states, the electoral college is set up, just as the legistlature, to give a voice to the smallest states. They have a voice larger than their population to keep the large states from swamping the small states. This isn't a concern for the election of representatives, since districts are SET UP to make sure that the people in them generally have the same interests. I actually think it would be better to elect senators by the state legistlature to ensure that all interests of the state have a say instead of just the majority, but that's beside the point. 8. All votes should be counted --> No impact argued, who cares? --> The electoral college goes with the popular vote around 96% of the time, while still preserving the federal nature of the United States. That's a good trade-off, especially since many of the discrepancies were the result of voter suppression. My opponents arguments have literally no impacts at all--you prefer the status quo since he gives no compelling reason to change it. ==My case== It's going to be difficult to answer all his attacks since he didnt do them by a contention basis, but I'll do my best. Recall also that I've already won the debate since he gives no impacts and the status quo is preferred by default. To my observation one he replies with some rhetoric that votes count more or less in certain areas. Whatever. The fact is that under DPV or the EC it is UNDECIDED VOTERS who are being courted. Eliminate the EC and you have the votes of undecided people having their votes seem more important than those who are already decided. He gains no solvency. 1. Moderation He basically drops this argument. His only responses are strawmen. The argument was that the EC forces the larger parties to absorb the interests of the smaller, and more radical ones--something that DPV doesn't make happen. He either completely misunderstands this or can't think of a refutation to it, so I'll extend it. Again, there is no need for moderation when the only goal is to get to the second round of voting and then get selected as the lesser of two evils. There is no need for compromise, and as such minority opinions get completely ignored. Compare our system to Europe (which has DPV), where the parties are much more extreme, and the damaging effects of radical ideologies like socialism can better be observed. He argues that a candidate can win "as few as 13 states...and still win the election." This is likely true...but the reason those states have so many electoral votes is precisely because they have higher populations...victories in all of the large states would be an almost certain popular vote victory--especially considering that these states are highly polarized. He cites the example of the 1992 election to try to disprove my point..except that voters still favored Clinton over his opponent by a wide margin. TURN: Elections like 1992 show the large parties that they need to attract swing voters. Ross Perot doomed Bush I, but the republican party picked itself up and reformed its platforms to sweep the 1994 elections. 2. Focus He drops the Heritage card showing the results of implementing a direct popular vote, and the group polarization effect. So extend the impact that polarization will increase, and cross apply this concession to contention one. He completely misunderstands this point as a matter of fact. Non swing states have plenty of say. The fact is that swing states, by being swing states ARE a good focus for candidates...they have on balance a more moderate ideology, which means that cnadidates cant win simply by being extreme in their own "safe areas". Party platforms are more moderate, again compare with Europe. His sole argument basically relies on "well every vote needs to be equal", but what he isn't understanding is that they ARE equal in each state. And under the federalist model, the states decide the president, not the people. He again misunderstands the point, arguing that one vote is one vote, but the fact is that under the EC small states do have higher representation, to give them a voice that they would lack under DPV. Under the EC politicians campaign in both large and small states because there are many swing states. This ensures that more peoples interests are accounted for. Most of his arguments against my contentions lack substance, or ask for evidence for predicted events that haven't occurred. He posits that the house and the senate are for regional concerns, not the president. Ermm, the president is supposed to represent the federal government to the states, so obviously he has to take regional interests into account when trying to get federal action to take place. Recall also that his entire argument falls apart when you look at the solid fact that its incredibly rare for the popular vote not to follow the electoral vote. He asks: "why should we elect the NATIONAL leader by each STATE? " because the "national leader" is not that...he's the leader of the federal government. There's a difference, and since states are supposed to have power themselves as well. 3. States He drops the Cato card, so extend that impact. That's CRITICAL, because he has no offense, and since drops=concessions, I now do. I win by default. His response makes no sense, so the senate, which gives small states disproportionate representation, governs the whole nation, and is elected state by state (sound familiar?) shouldn't be abolished, but the EC, which is the EXACT SAME THING except it's one individual being elected instead of 100 should be abolished? His reasoning is fallacious. Finally he tries to argue that "We don't elect state leaders by county" except we do...not counties, but districts. This way, the interests of all communities are represented. Since the pres. is but one man, the EC is the only way to ensure this representation still happens. Vote Neg. |
 |
|
Pro You're the one that chose to copy-paste sources and previous statements, opposed to answering directly, not me. I responded to you directly by quoting you and following with a response. "Swing states...who cares?" "Lock states...who cares?" So your arguments against the massive weakness created by the EC is "who cares?" The argument by dismissal is a logical fallacy. Ignoring my arguments doesn't make them go away. I showed you how swing states and lock states are created by the EC, and how voters are disenfranchised because of it. Failure to refute, and dismissal of arguments- not a very good way to win a debate! "The difference between having votes counted at a state level or at a national level is merely symbolic" No it's not, because counting them on a national level guarantees that one vote be counted as one vote, and that all votes are counted equally. Counting them at a state level (and having the EC system) not only guarantees that some votes will count for more than others, but that many votes won't be counted at all. "An electoral college tie has never happened, and mathematically is extremely improbable" Yes, since it is unlikely we should ignore it. That seems like good policy for electing the president. You have admitted that your system is flawed, but it's "so unlikely" we should just pretend it's ok. "This is a poo argument" Wow, rather convincing! Oh, and another argument by dismissal. "I could just as easily say "direct vote can tie" even though thats mathematically improbable. " Now you're grasping at straws. First you say it's not a big deal, now you say "well your system has that problem too!" The difference is, when you have tens of millions of people voting the chances of a tie are literally asymptotically close to zero, whereas we can easily calculate the probability of a tie in any given presidential election, and they are far from negligible. And by the way, it seems as though you don't even understand the system you're supporting, and here's why: It's not ONLY a tie that would create chaos. It's if a candidate doesn't reach the 270 electoral votes. A third party candidate who wins a few states dramatically increase the probability of this scenario. So go ahead and re-write the argument: "BUT A TIE IS UNLIKELY!" because it only shows you don't understand the different scenarios the EC can create. "Why exactly does it matter if the house chooses the president...? " Because the president is supposed to be elected by the people, not Congress. If you have no problem with the House choosing the president, that's fine with me, but I hope those who might be voting on your side would be fine with it too! "It's nonsensical to criticize the EC for having two "main" candidates, when a runoff system does the exact same thing." A run-off system guarantees that ALL candidates who are running have equal opportunity to be voted for, and that all votes cast toward that candidate will count. Under the EC system, any vote cast for a non-mainstream party is like voting for Donald Duck. Under this system, since one vote = one vote, it doesn't matter if you win the right states, you have to gain support throughout the nation. The runoff system allows the two top candidates to run head-to-head, if no MAJORITY is earned in the original election. "it makes sense that the president would be decided by each specific state individually. " He/she isn't. The president is decided by the few swing states created by the EC system. The millions of democrats in Texas, the millions of Republicans in California- they can stay home. They don't matter. But those lucky few who happen to live in the right states, THEY MATTER! Your argument would only work if votes were apportioned under the EC, but they aren't- a winner-take-all format, dividing the US into 51 voting districts, guarantees that many, if not most states will have a certain outcome. It's only the states that are "close" that matter. "Not using something something to elect senators has nothing to do with the president" And yet, you're the one that brought up the nonsensical "we might as well abolish the senate as well" So when you stray on an irrelevant tangent and I respond to it, you're going to try and say MY argument is irrelevant? Sorry, those type of slimy debate tactics won't slide here. "They have a voice larger than their population to keep the large states from swamping the small states" I already refuted this argument too, and yet you keep trying to make it. The House and the Senate are the constructs that protect the small states from the large states. The election of the president is an entirely different issue. One vote should equal one vote- everyone's vote should be the same, no matter where you live. And by the way, if you did even just a little bit of math, the issue isn't large vs. small states, it's lock vs. swing states- because the few swing states are the only ones that matter. There's a reason 99% of the money is spent in 16 states. "No impact argued, who cares?" This seems to be a favorite response of yours. As long as you know that this argument by dismissal is a logical fallacy, I welcome your continued use of it! "My opponents arguments have literally no impacts at all" When you understand why ignoring and dismissing arguments isn't a valid debate strategy, then you'll understand why you haven't refuted the vast majority of what I have said in the least. "you prefer the status quo since he gives no compelling reason to change it. " CASE AND POINT: I've stated several times that a few states shouldn't decide the election, the importance of your vote shouldn't be determined by the state in which you happen to live, and that one vote should equal one vote- And yet your haphazard "ignore-and-assert" (ignore what I said, assert that it is flawed and that you have defeated it) strategy has gotten you nowhere in this debate. Not to mention, you made several claims which were lacking in evidence, that I asked you to give some for, and you didn't do that either. "Recall also that I've already won the debate since he gives no impacts and the status quo is preferred by default. " Once again, you're more interested in asserting "I WIN" than actually refuting my arguments, or defending your own position. I already pointed out that your "status quo is preferred!" argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy, but you ignored that too. "but the reason those states have so many electoral votes is precisely because they have higher populations...victories in all of the large states would be an almost certain popular vote victory" Miserably false. As you've brilliantly pointed out, the winner-take-all nature of the EC means that you only need a SMALL victory in the state to win ALL of their votes. By bringing up "popular vote victory" you are implicitly admitting that the popular vote is the fairest standard, yet ignoring that entirely for this debate! "He cites the example of the 1992 election to try to disprove my point" Because I did. You claimed that the DPV was flawed because someone could win even without the majority. I showed you not only that you ignored a portion of my argument, (the runoff) thus failing to refute my point, that you made an argument AGAINST your own system in doing so. "the senate, which gives small states disproportionate representation, governs the whole nation, and is elected state by state (sound familiar?) shouldn't be abolished" People elect senators in the states they represent. There's no need to elect the national leader state-by-state, especially when such a system disenfranchises voters in most of the states. SUMMARY: My opponent there's no problem with the House electing the president. Moreover, the EC means that only a few states decide the whole election. Vote DPV,1 vote = 1 vote Con Alright, in this final round, I'll clear up any remaining areas of clash in the debate. ="Argument from dismissal"= My opponent complains that many of my attacks on his arguments regarded the lack of impacts coming off of his arguments. First, recognize that I did in fact attack his arguments, refer to my round two. Irionically, it is he who "dismissed" the majority of my attacks. But second and more importantly, the charge of his arguments having no impact is justified. Indeed, his arguments are all a mere sentence long, and he doesn't explain to you why they actually matter. Imagine if I just typed "the EC gives small states a larger voice" (fact) without explaining why that's important...that is the nature of his arguments. This is a critical issue: if the debater advocating a change in the status quo doesn't have an impact behind his arguments than he loses by default. It is not an "argument from tradition" fallacy as he posits, but rather the acknowledgement that theres no reason to change the status quo if there are no reasons to do so...that's obvious, not to mention the fact that he, as Pro, has the burden of proof in this round. =Affirmative case= Pro completely misunderstands my main response to his case, which is that, given the federal nature of the United States, the president, and the entire Federal government, is a partner with the individual states to enact policy. The president resides over the people only in the sense that the Federal government resides (partially) over the states, so the States should be the ones to choose the president, not the people. Moreover, the electoral college is the best way to ensure that the interests of most states, even small ones, are represented as opposed to the interests of the big cities that will be favored under DPV (he drops both thisa rgument, and the card explaining it). My opponents response is non sensical. He says that the democrats/republicans who live in a "solid" state may as well not vote. That's a dumb response, not to mention that it missed the point entirely. The votes for the candidate in the state that lost were cast in an effort to win, just as the votes for the losing candidate nationwide were cast in an effort to win. He completely drops my turn about how swing states are good. Extend that. Most of his arguments are either unsound or nonsensical. For example, look at his "equality" argument--for one thing even if you buy into this argument, it doesn't provide a compelling enough reason to change the status quo since the scenario of a popular/electoral vote diverge is, historically, 4% and much less when you discount the 33% of those diverges caused by election fraud (election of 1877, the black vote was supressed). Moreover, he doesn't explain what the difference is between counting votes at a state level is vs national other than it's "unequal"...this is untrue because, again, the difference is just symbolic. He's correct in that it's somtimes the voters in a particular state that end up deciding the president, but since no one can forsee this until the votes begin to get counted and the states declared, their votes are not inherently worth more than anyone else's. It's just the way the dice roll that makes theirs critical. He misunderstands my response to his "tie" argument. Nonwithstanding the fact that it's never happened and electoral math makes it extremely unlikely to happen, he doesn't explain why it's bad to have the house, the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, to elect the president. It's true that the odds of a popular vote tie are astronomically less likely than an electoral tie; I was not attempting to compare them. Rather, I was showing that it's ridiculous for my opponent to advocate this argument without understanding that the likelihood of it happening is incredibly slight. He also rudely asserts that I dont understand the EC because apparently I didnt know that the house elects the president if no one reaches 270 electoral votes. Actually, I did know that, I have debated this topic formally at least 10 times after all, but it doesnt matter--he still hasn't explained why the house electing the president is a bad thing, other than "the people should elect the president". He just asserts this, while entirely dismissing my argument (not assertion) that the states should elect the president...ok. His argument about the "main candidates" is more ranting about the two party system than it is an argument against the EC. Not only did he drop my turn that the major parties will modify their platforms to attract those potentially critical fringe voters (while remaining over all moderate), but he didn't explain why his system dismantles the two party system we currently have in place. The fact is, in a runoff only the two parties with the most votes go to the second round. The two party system would remain, except without the benefit of having the best parts of the fringe ideologies absorbed into their platforms. He doesn't seem to understand that the EC gives small states a boost in their "say" when it comes to electing the president. He argues that the house (where seats are given by population, lol) and the senate will protect small states, but not only has he not explained how, he doesn't understand that the president is the entity that approves or rejects bills from the house and senate, so obviously we want the small states to have a say in electing him to keep them from being "bullied" by the larger states and their interests. My opponents arguments are fallacious and he's dropped or failed to refute literally all of my attacks on them. He's failed to meet his BOP, so he loses by default. =My case= My opponent dropped much of it (including all of the sources) in his second round, and dropped almost all of my responses to his attacks in his 3rd round. Still, I will respond to the few attacks he still tried to bring onto my case. 1. Moderation Barely attacked in round two, and his responses are all refuted, and he ignores it in round three. So, dropped and therefore conceded. Dropped the CATO card showing the negative effects of implementing DPV. His only response is to assume that a candidate hypothetically won 51% of the vote in the (highly polarized) large states, and 0% in the rest in his attempt to disprove me. Obviously, this isn't something even remotely likely to happen. He drops my turn regarding the 1992 elections. 2. Focus Drops the Heritage card and the group polarization effect. He drops the rest of it in round three. Extend. 3. States He says: " There's no need to elect the national leader state-by-state" but time and time again, he's either ignored or misunderstood the fact that since the president works with the states, he should be chosen by the states. Since his only response makes no sense, I'll just extend this. Vote Con. =Voting= I don't usually make a voting guide, but it's warranted in this scenario. For the reasons elaborated above, I've clearly won the arguments points. My opponent exhibited absolutely horrendous conduct, poor formatting (S & G point), and a complete lack of sources, while dropping all of mine. It would seriouly not be a votebomb to vote 7-0 in favor of neg in this debate. |
 |
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no impact and failed to show sufficient evidence for a needed change of the status quo; and, as Con clearly expressed, made numerous errors and misunderstandings. He failed to rebut the fact that such a system in place allows a broadening of the campaigner's position or the issue of the tie, and so forth. Pro's conduct was, while high-strung, not overtly violent but his organization of his arguments could need work, which lead to the failure to provide a coherent argument.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Horrendous spelling and grammar coupled with dropped points, poor conduct and weak arguments lead Con to have an easy victory here.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct -- Insults in the comments ** Arguments -- Pro mainly focused on the failures of the EC, and not the benefits of the NV. For us to have a good comparison Pro must effectively argue both systems then in his conclusion use a comparison on why the EC failed, therefore his case fails. Further Con provides a stellar case without an adequate Pro rebuttal, and my favorite contention (C3, the small states) still stood in the end. CON wins...
Vote Placed by Maedis 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a better argument overall. He explained each one of his points professionally and with clarity. Pro did not refute many of his claims and as such has lost this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses insofar as he provides no tangible impacts while Con argues that the system prevents extremism. S/G to Con because the structure was better.
Vote Placed by phantom 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: A tie is not much of an issue, and even if it were, it's mathimatically improbable to ever happen. Con showed how the EC increases moderation, and demonstrated that other countries without it, have much more radical parties. Pro's arguments lacked substence. He should have gone into more length about their rellevancy; a problem that con highlited. No impact argued. He also dropped allot of cons arguments. Pro was a litte high-strung, but not enough to warrant loss of the conduct point, imo.
Vote Placed by TUF 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Cirrk said it perfectly.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 10 months ago
| flylike1 | thett3 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Easy. Pro offers no impacts thus never linking into the preferable world/comparative analysis. But on the substance the moderation contention gives clear reasons to vote Con. The EC forces candidates to move to the center to appeal to swing states, as such extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism is protected against.
I have acknowledged the subjectivity of my former RFD and how I was influenced by the comment wars with a friend of mine, and have decided to remove the influence of such subjectivity from the voting on this debate.
As a result, I have abridged the RFD, made it a bit more legible, and instituted a warmer tone. I apologize for letting something outside of the parameters of the debate affect my vote.
So thett3 has made three puppet accounts, including myself? what of any future voters? :P
However, points for spelling and grammar were given to Con simply because of Pro's failure to provide an actual case instead of sheer rebuttals and contentions.
One should also keep in mind that Pro's decision to lash out because of the failure of Con of not "addressing" his point is pointless, especially since those arguments only demonstrated a general crux for the later arguments...and that Con himself did state that he would actually address Pro's "arguments" in the first round...later.
Pro did not wish to actually engage Con in the debate and consistently--and rather rudely--argued that Con "dismissed" his arguments and decided to, consistently as well, name fallacies and ascribe them to Pro's case; the very fact that much of his case consists of sheer questioning, dismissals, and so forth warrants a deduction of conduct, especially with statements like "Failure to refute, and dismissal of arguments- not a very good way to win a debate!" that underestimate Con's explanatory power. Pro himself, as stated, did not provide sources to warrant the many underlying pinions and bastions for his arguments--which, ironically enough, were trunctated by his very disorganized form due to a failure to actually to provide a cohesive argument with all rebuttals orienting around his position.
It's obvious that Pro not only failed to substantiate his position but did not fulfill the burden of proof placed upon him. :(
That's a contradiction. You can't mock one system unless you have another one in mind.
Ask around buddy, ask anyone you want to read this debate and see if I responded to your arguments. I responded to them one by one, and my responses were almost always longer than your one sentence arguments themselves were.
Appeal to popularity. Claiming that, for example, the side that gets the most votes is automatically better.
I'm surprised I had to explain that, because being so well-versed in debate, I'm SURE you know logical fallacies...not sure why you keep committing them though XD
I don't have an objective standard for "better debater" because I don't think there is one.
But flat out ignoring points made against you generally disqualifies you from even being respected, let alone decent...and claiming you responded to things you never did? Pathetic.
I have no interest to debate people who refuse to answer arguments posed against them, and then are arrogant enough to turn around and say they did. I can find a much better use of my time.
Best of luck to you!
If you think you're so much better than me, debate me on another topic.."