Instigator / Pro
15
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#2684

LIVE DEBATE: Should the Electoral College be Abolished?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
18
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

--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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qvXfL6NQMxkU8e1zn8FqEU7nbE3sfrxASIz4XDVD1kE/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.