LIVE DEBATE: Should the Electoral College be Abolished?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
--Live Debate Structure--
6min - Pro Constructive
3min - Con CX's Pro
7min - Con Constructive AND Rebuttal
3min - Pro CX's Con
4min - Pro Rebuttal and Defense
6min - Con Rebuttal and Defense
3min - Pro Rebuttal and Defense
Each debater has 4 minutes of prep time which they may use at their discretion, so long as it does not interrupt an ongoing speech or CX.
======
ALL VOTERS MUST VOTE BASED UPON WHAT WAS STATED IN THE ACTUAL DEBATE
======
LINK TO DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnROUSKR7qY
Full RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qvXfL6NQMxkU8e1zn8FqEU7nbE3sfrxASIz4XDVD1kE/edit?usp=sharing
Good debate!
Pros Args:
1. That a few fraudulent votes could easily swing an election with electoral college. Con never responded so Pro gets this.
2. Increases national security. Con's response is that due to recounts and the like, you'd see a lot of delays and thus national security incidents on both sides of the house. Pro didn't really respond and I think Con's argument was good. This arg falls.
3. Certain states have votes worth more than others. Con never responds to this, so it flows for Pro.
4. Increased voter turnout. Con never responded, so Pro gets this arg.
Cons args:
1. That voter fraud happens b/c you put presidents in charge of their own elections, and also huge recounts. Pro never responded so it flows through.
2. Represents minorities better. I had a really hard time following why this was true. However, Pro never responded, so Con gets this arg.
3. Electoral college promotes listening to different groups. Pro's response that on his side, you would lose by only going to places like CA was very good and wasn't really responded to by Con, so this flows to Pro.
So at the end, Pro is left with fraudulent votes swinging elections under EC, certain states having votes worth more, and increased voter turnout. Con is left with voter fraud happening under incumbents and representing minorities. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.
I cancel out the fraudulent vote args on both sides because I wasn't told why they were LIKELY to happen, rather than they COULD happen.
So, Pro is left with certain states having votes worth more and increased voter turnout. Con is left with representing minorities more. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.
I wasn't given weighing so I'll do my own. In this case, I think appealing to a large voter base is much more likely to happen than Con's representing minorities more arg because the former simply makes more sense to me. It was just really unclear to me why minorities are represented more on Con's side. Because of that, it immediately outweighs, leaving Pro the clear winner.
I feel like pro narrowly loses. He tries to open up with lack of participation with electoral college which quickly disappears from his big argument, and he tacks on how it protects the minority in the US. The campaigning argument starts off well, but falls apart as Con points out that direct voting means that concentrations of population may defeat the spread of states' different opinions encouraging politicians to travel to different locations. The undermining of democracy is interesting, but Con points out there are a lot of problems with the idea. Pro depends a lot on California, and Con points out that that the voter fraud is troublesome with direct democracy. Con also notes that even though electoral college is somewhat flawed due to contradicting popular vote, the difference required makes pro impact much smaller. Pro makes interesting points about small states, but it's hard to tell exactly what we'll gain by getting rid of electoral college. Whiteflame implements his impact analysis pretty well in the debate and I generally feel I have more to grab onto than Pro.
Would absolutely do another round with you.
I agree. This was really fun. I want to do another round with you.
I'd like to reiterate that I really appreciate your having this debate with me, and that you're pushing for more live debating like this. I think it does a great deal to expand what makes this site great.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jasmine // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"I'm ok with this vote being deleted, but please do not take away my voting rights. ๐ฃ๐ฅบ
Con's arguments were like an eye opener. ๐ It would be so much harder to recount the votes as well as have voter fraud. I am kind of confused on how there could be electoral fraud if there are 538 votes and I'm assuming everyone of them has to vote. ๐ค๐คจ
Also how can a vote increase national security??? I genuinely don't get the correlation.
๐"
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Remember that to award arguments, you must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
Halfway through my vote on this thing. Will get it finished tomorrow
I know MisterChris is planning on it, and blamonkey's been asked.
perhaps you'd like to break the tie...
While I appreciate that, if you choose to cast a vote (and I hope you do), I hope your focus is on the strength of the presented arguments rather than how well it personally convinced you. I know the two often overlap, but not always.
Con convinced me.
Thanks for voting, appreciate the breakdown as well.
Good thing I'm working on a vote. Looks like I'll be the tie breaker ultimately
Bump. More votes would be nice
Thanks for the vote!
Thank you for listening and voting! I'd say it was pretty close as well.
Don't worry, we won't hold it against you. While you're working on this one, I'll work on yours with Undefeatable.
Aside from me forgetting to start the damn timer repeatedly, this was fun. Will leave a vote after I rewatch.