Third Party Candidates are harmful towards the progression of America in this election.
Debate Round Forfeited
Ares-Ren has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||200 times||Debate No:||94851|
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Case, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
I will be arguing that voting for a third party candidate in this particular election is irresponsible for this election. My arguments will make claims against Donald Trump, and how by voting for a third party candiate could easily lead to a Trump victory.
C1: Donald Trump's policy stances
I. Donald Trump's claim
Donald Trump has proclaimed his ambition to ban all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Donald Trump claims that a significant portion of the undocumented immigrant population are rapists, drug dealers, and others that are detrimental to American progression. I would make the claim that this stance is absurd, and will give us access to more harms than benefits.
Undocumented immigrants contribute 11.6 billion dollars into the US economy. One can already prove their legitimacy through their subservience to our unfair tax system. Undocumented immigrants actually pay more than the top 1%. In a progressive tax system that America has implemented, the top 1% are supposed to pay the most. Banning them will allow the benefits of taxation to be inaccessible. This is a significant harm that Trump wants to pursue. The country will also have to allocate money to support rounding up 11 million people, and dispersing them into Mexico. I cannot see how this gives us access to any advantages.
Amnesty would be the best solution to this problem, because of the empirical evidence shown above. Undocumented immigrants have shown their subservience, and inability to rape and drug deal. The great majority of them are capable workers who are here for their families survival, and the pursuit of the American dream. America will still benefit off of consistent taxation on them, their children, and their grandchildren. Everyone receives advantages in this scenario. Hilary Clinton is a better option, because she supports amnesty.
Donald Trump has also made the claim that his administration would enact a ban on all Muslims globally to prevent terrorists from coming into our country. One would have to be a fool if he or she cannot realize the social consequences of such an implementation. This is no doubt an alienating remark that still gives us access to no advantages.
Our government has already implemented a vetting system that insures we take in the best and brightest from the Middle East. The vetting system is intolerable towards those who are vulnerable to jihadism, or jihadists themselves. An example of our vetting system can be found in the implementation of our ability to bring in Refugees. Obama has claimed that he is willing to let in 10,000 Syrian refugees. Yet, we have only admitted 64. Our timeframe for refugees is 18 to 24 months. 2% of those refugees are of combat age.
Now, each candidate has their fair share of contradictions. Secretary Clinton has also made contradictions, but at least the American people have a record to examine. Donald Trump has no political record which makes him unreliable. This contention will examine all of the views that are currently null due to his persistent contradictions.
Donald Trump's views on ISIS are the most inconsistent. He has claimed that we should not move into Syria, and start another war. On other days, Trump has proclaimed that he wanted to bomb ISIS, and take their oil. He has also proclaimed his stance to bring back torture, and kill the families of ISIS. Donald Trump shows his lack of knowledge when it comes to the Obama administration, because of his depreciative attacks on Obama's ability to eliminate ISIS. Obama has already and is currently destroying a significant portion of ISIS controlled oil areas. Voting for Trump will be a continuation of Obama concerning foreign policy, but his administration will also add a low tolerance of the Geneva convention.
Donald Trump has proclaimed his stance on lowering the minimum wage on a news network. He claimed that lowering the minimum wage would allow American workers to compete with other country workers. It would be an interesting idea if one had lost his or her moral compass, and does not think in the long term of the well being of the American people. Trump went back on his statement claiming that he is open to increasing the minimum wage. This is an obvious attempt to court Sanders supporters which proves he also has a lack of caring for the honorability of his campaign. The American people still would not know what Trump would do in office.
Donald Trump has proclaimed his stance on lowering taxes for everybody to assure government limitation. These were the policies that were implemented in the Bush era which lead to great events occurring. Trump now has proclaimed that he will in fact increase the taxes on the rich. My opponent can claim that he is being political, but Secretary Clinton still gives me assurances, because she has a record that I am capable of observing. Trump has never held a political office which doesn't give any assurances on what his presidency would look like.
C3: Trump's record
I. Net Worth
II. Business success
Trump's absence of a political record proves to also be another illegitimacy in his candidacy for president. Trump supporters claim that we should look at his business record.
Trump has had a very interesting past when it comes to his net worth. Trump sued O"Brien for libel a year after his book was published, claiming his net worth was actually $6 billion, not the $150 to $250 million O"Brien reported based on sources who"d seen Trump"s finances. In the process of making his case, Trump cited that year"s Forbes list, which put him at $2.7 billion"lower than he liked to claim, but better than being a mere millionaire.
During a deposition for the case, Trump and an attorney had the following absolutely amazing exchange:
Q: Let me just ask you first about the first sentence there: Trump relentlessly bloviating about his developments " this is going to be the biggest, best, most amazing " leads people to assume he exaggerates his net worth. Do you see that?
Q: Do you know what bloviating means?
A: Well, I"m not sure that there"s an exact definition, but I would imagine that"s what it means.
A: Could be, yeah.
Trump has been bloviating about his wealth for decades. Trump proclaimed that his net worth is 10 billion dollars currently. Yet, it is universally agreed with anyone who is not a Trump supporter that his net worth was 4 billion dollars.
Donald Trump has also made great claims about his successes in New York City real-estate. Findings prove that Trump does not even make it into the top ten lists of New York City's major real-estate owners.
Trump has also had an abundancy of failures in the casino business. His record proves to have 4 bankruptcies due to his impulsivity and recklessness with how he managed his casinos.
According to the New York Times, Wall Street banks remain hesitant to deal with Trump, due to the previous bankruptcies and his litigious nature. Federal Election Commission disclosures have shown that 15 companies associated with Trump owe more than $270 million to banks. Trump responds to these critiques by saying that he doesn't use Wall Street because he doesn't need the money " he's rich enough to do his own financing.
Trump still faces lawsuits from the venture, including a $40 million suit from the New York attorney general for defrauding students and operating an unlicensed university.
In conclusion, Trump is mentally incompetent for office. He has not displayed any experience in political office, and his business career is a compilation of bankruptcies, reckless bets, and inheritance from his father. The only quality that Trump has been able to prove himself proficient in is acquiring attention.
C4: Inclinations of Sanders's supporters
Sanders's supporters make up a significant portion of Hilary's side. A recent Bloomberg poll has signified the odds in Trump's favor to win the election. Half of Sanders's supporters are refusing to vote for Hilary Clinton. A significant portion of Sanders's supporters desire Jill Stein on the ballot. It is a fact that the third party candidates are benefiting the chance that the man who proclaimed proudly that he wanted to ban a religious group to become president.
"The only wasted vote is one for a candidate you don't believe in."
Not voting for the candidate you believe in, and instead supporting the"lesser of two evils" is flawed logic. "[Insert third party candidate] has not chance, so I'll vote for [insert D/R candidate]" this causes the third party to not get enough support, so they don't have a chance. This starts the cycle over again. The reason Gary Johnson and Jill Stein do not get the support they need has nothing to do with their views, or, in Johnson's case, his experience. (He and running mate Bill Weld are the only two in the race with any executive experience, but I digress.) It is instead people are afraid of "wasting" their votes. If all these people dissatisfied with the electorate were to band together, they'd most likely be able to support one or even both of the main third party candidates get to 15% and participate in the debates. From there the potential is endless.
II. BoP Analysis
My opponent's BoP is to prove that third party candidates are harmful to the 2016 presidential race. Mine is to prove that they are not. I do not have to prove that they are beneficial for me to win this debate. Only that they are not harmful.
An additional BoP Pro has apparently decided to take on is that Trump is the reason to fear third-party candidates. If Trump is unlikely to be elected, third party candidates are not harmful, and in turn, I win this debate.
I concede everything in my opponent's constructive about Trump being dangerous for America. However, we are a democratic republic, and the voters (on this debate, not in the election) should keep that in mind. If Trump is the candidate chosen by the people, he should be elected.
I will attack the flaws in my opponent's constructive in Round 3.
IV. Democratic Principles
This brings me to my first point in the round. We should always embrace third party candidates. They provide diversity of ideas, creating a more democratic process. They also challenge a tired system, forcing the Democrats and Republicans to change ideals which are outdated or unpopular. "When someone tells you you're wasting your vote, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are saying your beliefs aren't worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder. Vote your conscience, not someone else's politics." This is a problem with the anti-third party movement. Differences in opinions should be valued rather than silenced. This works to create a system in which people are free to choose candidates who more accurately represent their own ideals and will continue to do so in office, rather than electing officials who are consistent with just traditional Democrat or Republican values.
Those who vote third party do not want Trump or Hillary to win any more than someone who is voting Hillary just to vote against Trump or Trump just to vote against Hillary. They just don't think selling out on their vote is worth it. They refuse to buy into the flawed "lesser of two evils" ideology. They are voting their conscience. That being said, those who genuinely support Clinton or Trump should continue to do so, they have that freedom. But in the end, it isn't third party voters who are going to harm this election, but those who buy into the "lesser of two evils" ideology.
Thank you, back to Pro.
My opponent's whole case was a compilation of points elaborating on the idealistic nature of our country. My opponent argues that our system requires more democratic input, and third parties satisfy this need. I would have my opponent be aware that the resolution specifies this election as the election we are talking about. The pro side will not be making any claims about shutting out third party candidates. Pro will simply be making the claim that this election requires a candidate that can defeat the other candidate that has flirted with putting Muslims in internment camps.
My opponent makes the claim that if people are dissatisfied with the current candidates, than the people should choose an alternative. This is a logical claim if one looks through it with a purely democratic perspective. This debate does not require a democratic perspective. My opponent will have to prove that the democratic perspective is not harmful in this election. A democratic perspective allowed Trump to dominate the Republican primary. A democratic perspective would have allowed the whole south to deem gay marriage illegal, and still allows religious liberty laws to allow the capability of business owners to discriminate against gay people. Also, my opponent must accept realism, and prove that people would rise up in significant numbers to defeat Trump and Clinton. The claims that people will rise up to vote for third party candidates must be proven using evidence. My opponent must also prove that the democratic perspective will not benefit Trump's chances.
II. BoP Analysis
My opponent claims that it is unlikely for Trump to get elected. I would have you be aware of the fact that the party that is the alternative to the party that was in power has a strong likelihood of winning. Polls indicate that Trump is behind Hilary by 2 points. Other polls indicate that Trump is ahead of Hilary. Regardless, polls might ask which candidate is more appealing. But, there are also a significant amount of polls that have asked voters whether they will take time out of their lives to vote for the "two evils". The results found that 55% of the respondents will not show up due to the unfavorable values both candidates possess. Low voter turnout always on a consistent basis leads to a Republican victory.
My opponent concedes to all of the negative qualities that Trump possesses. Well, than my opponent should be well-aware of how dire our situation really is. The most powerful position in the world could be filled by Donald Trump. We could easily suffer another 4 years of Bush in the 2000s. Neo-conservatism has the likelihood of being implemented which would allow for an administration to practice trickle-down economics which would allow Wall Street to run wild, corporations to avoid taxes, and a degradation of all the progress in social and economic issues under the Obama administration. He is a significant disadvantage.
IV. Democratic Principles
My opponent claims that third party candidates are challenging a tired system. A third party candidate that is at 10% in the latest polls is a libertarian which is everything the Republicans want economically. Social Security, Healthcare, and Education will all suffer significant cuts under a libertarian system which will give us access to an abundancy of disadvantages. The Libertarian Party has proclaimed their stance on eliminating the EPA which will allow us to access amplified natural disasters in the future. My opponent proclaims to vote your conscience, but voting your conscience lead to Trump dominating the Republican primaries. Voting your conscience would have allowed southern states to deem gay marriage illegal. Voting your conscious has allowed the state of Mississippi to implement religious liberty laws. My opponent must prove that there are more advantages to embracing democratic principles.
Simple. Hilary Clinton is not that evil. The whole claim that Hilary Clinton is a terrible person is an amplification of the rhetoric that came out of Sanders's campaign. Note that Sanders is in support of the lesser of the two evils candidate which seems extremely unusual for a man who fought the establishment for his whole life, and has fought with third parties. Hilary Clinton is socially liberal, and on some economic issues right. But, she still has fought for the EPA. Hilary has still fought for raising the minimum wage. Hilary has still fought for gay marriage rights. Hilary has still fought for background checks. Hilary has still fought for Dodd Frank. Hilary has still fought for Obamacare. Hilary now will still fight for relieving the student loan debt. Hilary now will still fight for universal college. My opponent still needs to elaborate on why Hilary is the lesser of two evils.
Overview of attacks:
1. My opponent's views on democracy require realism and evidence for why the democratic perspective will degrade Trump's chances.
2. In Con's world, Trump has a better chance of winning.
3. The Democratic perspective does not remain consistent logically speaking. Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective in Germany when the Nazi Party(3rd party) was the favorite? Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective on Gay marriage in the south? Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective on the views of slavery in the south? Democratic values remain inconsistent due to its dependence on people who possess average intelligence.
4. The Libertarian Party has significant advantages if third parties were to be embraced. The Libertarian views on how the economy should be managed are dangerous, and makes our world even more vulnerable to global warming which above 90% of the global scientific community agrees upon it being a problem.
5. My opponent fails to elaborate on how Hilary is the lesser of two evil. The lesser of two evils require her to be an evil which she is not. My opponent will have to represent policy substance in order for this to be a legitimate consideration by a judge.
Thank you, Pro.
I. Value and Value Criterion
As America is a democratic republic, democracy is the status quo. It is therefore my opponent's job to prove why democracy is inherently bad rather than mine to prove why democracy is good and should be used as a weighing mechanism in this debate. However, I'll do so anyway, just to advance my own position. In the style of a Lincoln Douglas debate, I will provide a value and a value criterion for this debate. My value is limited freedom. Limited freedom allows individuals to decide their own fates and make decisions that they choose, so long as they don't harm another individual. My value criterion is democratic republicanism. Individuals can decide to elect leaders who most accurately represent the population.
II. Trump's Chances/Third Party Support
Literally every major poll taken since 8/4 has Clinton leading Trump.  Even the incredibly conservative Rasmussen Reports and Breitbart have Hillary beating Donald by 2 and 5 points, respectively. The average of all polls has Clinton ahead by 5.5%. All of these polls include both Johnson and Stein. 2016 Election forecasts have shown that it's over 80% likely that Clinton will win the Oval Office.  Trump is unlikely to win even if third party candidates are pulling from Clinton's support base, which is the unsubstantiated claim my opponent has made. It's no wonder Pro has failed to support their claim: it isn't true. Experts are in agreement that Johnson will draw about equally from both sides. 
If I prove Trump is unlikely to win the election or that Third Party candidates are not going to facilitate a Trump victory, Con is the way to vote. So far I have proven both. Vote Con. Thank you.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.