Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Abolish the Electoral College RFD

Amedexyius
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 2:00:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Before I start, I should say that one argument may be stronger than another which affects the overall conclusion. One argument may also be stronger than two arguments depending on the topic at hand (x+x<y). I also make my overall arguments based on material and foundation, rather than perspective and assumptions.

Pro's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Undermines Democracy: Pro makes sound examples of the anti-democratic system in the EC and the power it has over the popular vote, backed with numbers. These arguments are material and strong in support for the democratic system the United States works for.

Swing States: Pro makes argument of the fact that some states wield an unbalanced and enormous amount of power, abolishing the EC makes candidates work for the votes they need. The argument sheds light on the fact there is an inequality in attention payed to the less populous states simply because they can be considered less important to their goal of presidency.

Voter Turn-Out: States the reasons behind solid party states and the lack of voters with examples of low turn out in hard states. This reasoning is sound but the principle still applies in the absence of an EC, that one drop makes no difference in a sea.

Con's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Cost: Con makes the arguments that the necessity of trying to abolish the electoral college would create too many obstacles too accomplish. This argument is sound and hard to refute the credibility but the topic of the debate is regarding whether the EC should be abolished. *The efforts required to make it does not excuse the necessity to preserve majority-rules, but the argument (while weak), still does make some ripples in the debate.

Federalism: Con argues that the US is not a direct democracy due to her size and so abolishing the EC can hurt the status as such. This argument is the strongest provided by any person advocating pro-EC, and very capable. The matter of this material argument is based on perspective, but the statement that abolishing the EC would remove the US as a constitutional republic is false, as Pro points out later.

Risks: Con argues that drastically changing the political system with abolishment can possibly set off strong negative reactions from across the country. This argument is not sound and only assumptive considering Con does not provide actual evidence hinting the change would destabilize the American political system, especially since the majority of Americans are against the EC.

Pro's Rebuttals, Round 3:

Cost: Pro argues there is already a strong force against the electoral college by the American people, the effort necessary to abolish the EC is as valuable as the positive products behind it. This argument is actually mostly based on perspective, but it is followed by the previous arguments which gives it meaning and sway.

Federalism: Pro points out the EC does not affect American federalism, federalism has regards to Congress. Pro also points out contradiction in Con's argument that smaller states actually suffer more under the hands of the EC. This argument is backed by material sources and the argument that smaller states suffer from the EC.

Risks: Pro points out the fallacy of Con regarding that change is bad, argues systems can become outdated and dysfunctional like the EC which is an obstacle to democracy. This argument would also be based on perspective, but the prior arguments give it the push to give sway to the debate.

Con's Rebuttals Round 3:

Con's argument completely drops every rebuttal made by Pro, a fatal blow to Con's side.

Con, instead reverts to alternative plan for the EC, arguments rephrase prior points made which were refuted by Con and describes plan to amend the electoral college. He uses foundation to back up claims and arguments of the amending of the EC which also, by default, does make rebuttals against only some of Pro's arguments.

Pro's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Pro argues Con's argument does not align with the topic of the debate. Technically, it is still in line because Con's plan doesn't abolish the EC but it still drops the rebuttals from the prior round. Regardless, Pro is able to make strong rebuttals against the alternative plan that Con offers. There is foundation in the arguments Pro provided and the rebuttals that came with them which provides strong fortification as a conclusion.

Con's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Con's small rebuttals directed towards defending his plan is strong, but there is a lack of detail. The rebuttals do not have strong fortification considering that such amendments that Con provided, as Pro stated, is far too strong of a hassle than one large abolishment. The arguments that Con provided would also fall short of really changing the EC, considering if only a section of states (Who are mostly small anyway) choose to remove the EC, only more powers would be granted to the remainders of the EC.

Conclusion:

The conclusion of this debate falls in favour to Pro, but only with a barely scraped win. The arguments provided by both sides were well fortified with sources to every influential statement both parties provided with the exception of assumptions by both sides and a blow to Con from Round 3. My suggestion to Pro would be to focus more on the votes of the individual decisions made by the representatives and press hard on it as it is very swaying to the debate giving far more power to the argument of undermining democracy. To Con, my suggestion would have been to press hard on the fact that the larger states have more points for a reason. These states are far more populous and they are in possession of the power they wield because as large states, even in a system without the EC, would be visited far more often than the smaller states, who still don't get as much attention, either way. Anyways, for the win, the biggest factors that made me choose for Pro was the fact that Round 3 dropped rebuttals for a new argument that could have been introduced in Round 2, and the fact only 2 of the 3 arguments of Con was material, while one of the opening arguments was completely assumptive. Pro's arguments were all sound.

Great debate to both sides, I enjoyed reading it!

This RFD was brought to you by the Voter's Union.

*Just in case anyone decides to look at my debate history and call hypocrisy, one of my debate votes gave credit to capability of an action that would be hard to accomplish (Chinese Containment Debate) kind of like this one, but the difference is that this argument requires effort, while my other vote had to do with whether the action was even possible to accomplish without serious repercussions.
Amedexyius

Member of the Voter's Union
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:39:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:00:18 AM, Amedexyius wrote:
Before I start, I should say that one argument may be stronger than another which affects the overall conclusion. One argument may also be stronger than two arguments depending on the topic at hand (x+x<y). I also make my overall arguments based on material and foundation, rather than perspective and assumptions.

Pro's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Undermines Democracy: Pro makes sound examples of the anti-democratic system in the EC and the power it has over the popular vote, backed with numbers. These arguments are material and strong in support for the democratic system the United States works for.

Swing States: Pro makes argument of the fact that some states wield an unbalanced and enormous amount of power, abolishing the EC makes candidates work for the votes they need. The argument sheds light on the fact there is an inequality in attention payed to the less populous states simply because they can be considered less important to their goal of presidency.

Voter Turn-Out: States the reasons behind solid party states and the lack of voters with examples of low turn out in hard states. This reasoning is sound but the principle still applies in the absence of an EC, that one drop makes no difference in a sea.

Con's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Cost: Con makes the arguments that the necessity of trying to abolish the electoral college would create too many obstacles too accomplish. This argument is sound and hard to refute the credibility but the topic of the debate is regarding whether the EC should be abolished. *The efforts required to make it does not excuse the necessity to preserve majority-rules, but the argument (while weak), still does make some ripples in the debate.

Federalism: Con argues that the US is not a direct democracy due to her size and so abolishing the EC can hurt the status as such. This argument is the strongest provided by any person advocating pro-EC, and very capable. The matter of this material argument is based on perspective, but the statement that abolishing the EC would remove the US as a constitutional republic is false, as Pro points out later.

Risks: Con argues that drastically changing the political system with abolishment can possibly set off strong negative reactions from across the country. This argument is not sound and only assumptive considering Con does not provide actual evidence hinting the change would destabilize the American political system, especially since the majority of Americans are against the EC.

Pro's Rebuttals, Round 3:

Cost: Pro argues there is already a strong force against the electoral college by the American people, the effort necessary to abolish the EC is as valuable as the positive products behind it. This argument is actually mostly based on perspective, but it is followed by the previous arguments which gives it meaning and sway.

Federalism: Pro points out the EC does not affect American federalism, federalism has regards to Congress. Pro also points out contradiction in Con's argument that smaller states actually suffer more under the hands of the EC. This argument is backed by material sources and the argument that smaller states suffer from the EC.

Risks: Pro points out the fallacy of Con regarding that change is bad, argues systems can become outdated and dysfunctional like the EC which is an obstacle to democracy. This argument would also be based on perspective, but the prior arguments give it the push to give sway to the debate.

Con's Rebuttals Round 3:

Con's argument completely drops every rebuttal made by Pro, a fatal blow to Con's side.

Con, instead reverts to alternative plan for the EC, arguments rephrase prior points made which were refuted by Con and describes plan to amend the electoral college. He uses foundation to back up claims and arguments of the amending of the EC which also, by default, does make rebuttals against only some of Pro's arguments.

Pro's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Pro argues Con's argument does not align with the topic of the debate. Technically, it is still in line because Con's plan doesn't abolish the EC but it still drops the rebuttals from the prior round. Regardless, Pro is able to make strong rebuttals against the alternative plan that Con offers. There is foundation in the arguments Pro provided and the rebuttals that came with them which provides strong fortification as a conclusion.

Con's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Con's small rebuttals directed towards defending his plan is strong, but there is a lack of detail. The rebuttals do not have strong fortification considering that such amendments that Con provided, as Pro stated, is far too strong of a hassle than one large abolishment. The arguments that Con provided would also fall short of really changing the EC, considering if only a section of states (Who are mostly small anyway) choose to remove the EC, only more powers would be granted to the remainders of the EC.

Conclusion:

The conclusion of this debate falls in favour to Pro, but only with a barely scraped win. The arguments provided by both sides were well fortified with sources to every influential statement both parties provided with the exception of assumptions by both sides and a blow to Con from Round 3. My suggestion to Pro would be to focus more on the votes of the individual decisions made by the representatives and press hard on it as it is very swaying to the debate giving far more power to the argument of undermining democracy. To Con, my suggestion would have been to press hard on the fact that the larger states have more points for a reason. These states are far more populous and they are in possession of the power they wield because as large states, even in a system without the EC, would be visited far more often than the smaller states, who still don't get as much attention, either way. Anyways, for the win, the biggest factors that made me choose for Pro was the fact that Round 3 dropped rebuttals for a new argument that could have been introduced in Round 2, and the fact only 2 of the 3 arguments of Con was material, while one of the opening arguments was completely assumptive. Pro's arguments were all sound.

Great debate to both sides, I enjoyed reading it!

This RFD was brought to you by the Voter's Union.

*Just in case anyone decides to look at my debate history and call hypocrisy, one of my debate votes gave credit to capability of an action that would be hard to accomplish (Chinese Containment Debate) kind of like this one, but the difference is that this argument requires effort, while my other vote had to do with whether the action was even possible to accomplish without serious repercussions.

Post these in miscallaneous forum
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:20:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:00:18 AM, Amedexyius wrote:
Before I start, I should say that one argument may be stronger than another which affects the overall conclusion. One argument may also be stronger than two arguments depending on the topic at hand (x+x<y). I also make my overall arguments based on material and foundation, rather than perspective and assumptions.

Pro's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Undermines Democracy: Pro makes sound examples of the anti-democratic system in the EC and the power it has over the popular vote, backed with numbers. These arguments are material and strong in support for the democratic system the United States works for.

Swing States: Pro makes argument of the fact that some states wield an unbalanced and enormous amount of power, abolishing the EC makes candidates work for the votes they need. The argument sheds light on the fact there is an inequality in attention payed to the less populous states simply because they can be considered less important to their goal of presidency.

Voter Turn-Out: States the reasons behind solid party states and the lack of voters with examples of low turn out in hard states. This reasoning is sound but the principle still applies in the absence of an EC, that one drop makes no difference in a sea.

Con's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Cost: Con makes the arguments that the necessity of trying to abolish the electoral college would create too many obstacles too accomplish. This argument is sound and hard to refute the credibility but the topic of the debate is regarding whether the EC should be abolished. *The efforts required to make it does not excuse the necessity to preserve majority-rules, but the argument (while weak), still does make some ripples in the debate.

Federalism: Con argues that the US is not a direct democracy due to her size and so abolishing the EC can hurt the status as such. This argument is the strongest provided by any person advocating pro-EC, and very capable. The matter of this material argument is based on perspective, but the statement that abolishing the EC would remove the US as a constitutional republic is false, as Pro points out later.

Risks: Con argues that drastically changing the political system with abolishment can possibly set off strong negative reactions from across the country. This argument is not sound and only assumptive considering Con does not provide actual evidence hinting the change would destabilize the American political system, especially since the majority of Americans are against the EC.

Pro's Rebuttals, Round 3:

Cost: Pro argues there is already a strong force against the electoral college by the American people, the effort necessary to abolish the EC is as valuable as the positive products behind it. This argument is actually mostly based on perspective, but it is followed by the previous arguments which gives it meaning and sway.

...

Thanks for a great RFD!
ThinkBig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notable Notes and Quotable Quotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I GOT SIG'D"
"WELL FVCK ME IN THE A$SHOLE AND CALL ME A CUCK I GOT SIG'D AGAIN"
-Kiri
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig.
-7th
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge or vote? Nominate me!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 7:51:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 2:00:18 AM, Amedexyius wrote:
Before I start, I should say that one argument may be stronger than another which affects the overall conclusion. One argument may also be stronger than two arguments depending on the topic at hand (x+x<y). I also make my overall arguments based on material and foundation, rather than perspective and assumptions.

Pro's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Undermines Democracy: Pro makes sound examples of the anti-democratic system in the EC and the power it has over the popular vote, backed with numbers. These arguments are material and strong in support for the democratic system the United States works for.

Swing States: Pro makes argument of the fact that some states wield an unbalanced and enormous amount of power, abolishing the EC makes candidates work for the votes they need. The argument sheds light on the fact there is an inequality in attention payed to the less populous states simply because they can be considered less important to their goal of presidency.

Voter Turn-Out: States the reasons behind solid party states and the lack of voters with examples of low turn out in hard states. This reasoning is sound but the principle still applies in the absence of an EC, that one drop makes no difference in a sea.

Con's Opening Arguments, Round 2:

Cost: Con makes the arguments that the necessity of trying to abolish the electoral college would create too many obstacles too accomplish. This argument is sound and hard to refute the credibility but the topic of the debate is regarding whether the EC should be abolished. *The efforts required to make it does not excuse the necessity to preserve majority-rules, but the argument (while weak), still does make some ripples in the debate.

Federalism: Con argues that the US is not a direct democracy due to her size and so abolishing the EC can hurt the status as such. This argument is the strongest provided by any person advocating pro-EC, and very capable. The matter of this material argument is based on perspective, but the statement that abolishing the EC would remove the US as a constitutional republic is false, as Pro points out later.

Risks: Con argues that drastically changing the political system with abolishment can possibly set off strong negative reactions from across the country. This argument is not sound and only assumptive considering Con does not provide actual evidence hinting the change would destabilize the American political system, especially since the majority of Americans are against the EC.

Pro's Rebuttals, Round 3:

Cost: Pro argues there is already a strong force against the electoral college by the American people, the effort necessary to abolish the EC is as valuable as the positive products behind it. This argument is actually mostly based on perspective, but it is followed by the previous arguments which gives it meaning and sway.

Federalism: Pro points out the EC does not affect American federalism, federalism has regards to Congress. Pro also points out contradiction in Con's argument that smaller states actually suffer more under the hands of the EC. This argument is backed by material sources and the argument that smaller states suffer from the EC.

Risks: Pro points out the fallacy of Con regarding that change is bad, argues systems can become outdated and dysfunctional like the EC which is an obstacle to democracy. This argument would also be based on perspective, but the prior arguments give it the push to give sway to the debate.

Con's Rebuttals Round 3:

Con's argument completely drops every rebuttal made by Pro, a fatal blow to Con's side.

Con, instead reverts to alternative plan for the EC, arguments rephrase prior points made which were refuted by Con and describes plan to amend the electoral college. He uses foundation to back up claims and arguments of the amending of the EC which also, by default, does make rebuttals against only some of Pro's arguments.

Pro's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Pro argues Con's argument does not align with the topic of the debate. Technically, it is still in line because Con's plan doesn't abolish the EC but it still drops the rebuttals from the prior round. Regardless, Pro is able to make strong rebuttals against the alternative plan that Con offers. There is foundation in the arguments Pro provided and the rebuttals that came with them which provides strong fortification as a conclusion.

Con's Rebuttals and Conclusion, Round 4:

Con's small rebuttals directed towards defending his plan is strong, but there is a lack of detail. The rebuttals do not have strong fortification considering that such amendments that Con provided, as Pro stated, is far too strong of a hassle than one large abolishment. The arguments that Con provided would also fall short of really changing the EC, considering if only a section of states (Who are mostly small anyway) choose to remove the EC, only more powers would be granted to the remainders of the EC.

Conclusion:

The conclusion of this debate falls in favour to Pro, but only with a barely scraped win. The arguments provided by both sides were well fortified with sources to every influential statement both parties provided with the exception of assumptions by both sides and a blow to Con from Round 3. My suggestion to Pro would be to focus more on the votes of the individual decisions made by the representatives and press hard on it as it is very swaying to the debate giving far more power to the argument of undermining democracy. To Con, my suggestion would have been to press hard on the fact that the larger states have more points for a reason. These states are far more populous and they are in possession of the power they wield because as large states, even in a system without the EC, would be visited far more often than the smaller states, who still don't get as much attention, either way. Anyways, for the win, the biggest factors that made me choose for Pro was the fact that Round 3 dropped rebuttals for a new argument that could have been introduced in Round 2, and the fact only 2 of the 3 arguments of Con was material, while one of the opening arguments was completely assumptive. Pro's arguments were all sound.

Great debate to both sides, I enjoyed reading it!

This RFD was brought to you by the Voter's Union.

*Just in case anyone decides to look at my debate history and call hypocrisy, one of my debate votes gave credit to capability of an action that would be hard to accomplish (Chinese Containment Debate) kind of like this one, but the difference is that this argument requires effort, while my other vote had to do with whether the action was even possible to accomplish without serious repercussions.

You should also include a link to the debate.