There was a lot of fraud in the 2020 election
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
They just stool the election. There were most certainly huge massive amounts of fraud. There is a lot of evidence. I believe there was a lot of fraud. Trump won the night and then, all of the sudden he loses?
- Pro is ambivalent towards naming names with regards to “they”. Later, the “they” is implied to be Democrats, but I’d ask Pro not only define who specifically is this“they”, but what exactly this “they” did. Was the nonexistent fraud carried out by “them” an organized effort? If so, how? What evidence is there of such conspiracy?
- This is baseless conjecture, presented generally without specific evidence. If there existed such a preponderance of evidence, surely Pro could provide that with citations, support from experts and election security officials, and any prior litigation over claims of fraud. However, he chooses not to.
- Pro is supplementing his “belief” that there was voter fraud with the actual reality of the situation. Beyond simply being disingenuous and unconvincing, his belief cannot be accepted as evidence. Evidence of fraud cannot be merely asserted, it must be discovered and presented objectively, which Pro has not done.
- Even if these false claims were true, this would not constitute “a lot of fraud”.
- I ask that Pro provides links for these specific cases detailing the events, so I can be more specific in my reply. However, the claims of Philadelphia’s “blacked-out windows” have been proven inaccurate. Not only do the windows with paper over them not even look into where counting is being conducted, but there was a livestream of the vote counting within the building. The process was transparent for the public, lending significant doubt on the notion that there was deliberate voter fraud on behalf of officials.
- The issue with poll watchers has already been litigated in Pennsylvania. According to the AP, “In Pennsylvania, for example, state election officials said poll watchers were certified in every county. Republican lawyers acknowledged in court that they had observers watching polls and mail-in ballots being processed”. In essence, this issue was litigated, relief was granted, and Republican poll watchers were allowed to observe the votes being tallied. This is a non-issue.
- Even if solely Republican poll-watchers were completely barred (not mentioning Democratic poll watchers that were also barred for a variety of reasons across the country), this does not entail voter fraud. It’d be a reasonable issue to investigate (as it already has been), but it would not be fraud in-and-of-itself.
- None of anything Pro has introduced constitutes “proof” of a claim. Again, this is baseless conjecture and false rhetoric, not a substantive case demonstrating mass voter fraud.
- I ask that Pro provide definitive evidence that Democrats received and tried to submit extra ballots (not ballot applications). Based off of current evidence thus far, instances of this occurring have only really happened with Trump and Republican voters.
- I ask that Pro provide definitive evidence of receiving “three extra ballots.” Photos, a video, something that shows they received three ballots (again, not ballot applications). I have significant doubts as to the validity of their story, and – if it were a true story – why wouldn’t Pro report this mistake to the State?
- For Pro’s claim that only “two countries in Europe…” is actually a recycled claim from Trump, which was evaluated and rated mostly false by fact checkers. As the Washington Post explains, “[this claim] also ignores the fact that countries have other ways to accommodate voters who cannot go to the polls, such as proxy voting. In the end, it’s clear that some of the largest countries in Europe, such as Britain, Germany, Spain and Poland, allow voters to cast ballots by mail”. In short, the claim is fallacious and paints an inaccurate picture of the reality of mail-in voting.
- Mail-in voting can actually reduce fraud, and is most certainly not a major source for mass fraud. As the Bipartisan Policy Center explains:“People who vote in person sometimes don’t update their addresses, even when they have moved. But because it’s an in person voting model, the state or county doesn’t go to great extremes to keep [address] lists clean. In comparison, jurisdictions with all-mail elections must constantly update voters’ addresses to ensure that the right voters receive the right ballots.”As is often noted when this issue arises, the military have been voting by mail for years. So not only does it have arguably more security, that security has been trusted and empirically validated year after year. Between the 2016 and 2018 elections, the Washington Post found mail-in voting fraud accounted for 0.0025% of all votes via mail (372 votes out of 14.6 million cast).
- Mass voter fraud simply would not be viable in most American elections.Voter fraud has practically no incentive on an individual level. If someone attempts to vote twice for the same candidate, they would put themselves at a substantial risk and criminal punishments (that are actively enforced and prosecuted) for only increasing the vote tally by one. Even if voter fraud was highly organized and led by officials, it would require a mass amount of labor for marginal outcomes. If able to impossibly defy a highly transparent and heavily secure process, this organization would need to occur at the city level, at the county level, at the state level, and at the national level and coordinated among the various states. The reality that Pro is trying to paint simply could not exist. It is not only absurd, but would also require too many people to remain silent.
- Trump has issued 62 lawsuits regarding fraud in the 2020 election, and 61 have completely failed. Even in court, even with Trump appointees looking at all of the evidence provided by Trump to show his claims have merit, he has consistently been ruled against. Outside of court, Trump's DHS declared the 2020 election to be the most secure in American history. His Attorney General and steadfast loyalist, William Barr, declared there was no widespread fraud in the election. A joint statement of national, state and private election officials issued a joint statement declaring that there was no fraud.And, most importantly, following two-and-a-half months where there existed every opportunity to prove Trump won the election, Joe Biden was sworn into the presidency.Trump objectively did not win the popular vote or a majority of the vote (either 2016 or 2020), his appointees ruled against him, his loyalists disagree with him, the courts have found no evidence, despite having every opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. These baseless notions of this not only damage democratic institutions, but also directly led to the Insurrection on the US Capitol. It is a dangerous fantasy, divorced from realitly.
- Where/what are Pro's other examples? Where is Pro's evidence that “a lot” of voter fraud occurred in Philadelphia? Or anywhere else?
- Commentary from one partisan commentator and a single instance of voter fraud doesn’t equate to “a lot” of fraud, let alone any amount that is capable of flipping the election to Trump.
- Pro’s Fox News article is not only about voter fraud in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 elections, but it’s also from May 21st, 2020 – far before the 2020 election or any voter fraud falsely alleged by Pro could have occurred.
- Again, this is one city, in one state. Pro should be discussing widespread, maliciously pre-planned voter fraud, which occurs across the country (or at least in swing states). I will continuously emphasize the fact that Pro has to demonstrate this, because he is only talking about small examples and fallacious anecdotes.
- Pro clearly did not read my response to this last round, nor did he read my prior refutation of the “blacked-out windows” conspiracy. I extend my arguments and sources in R1.2.
- The matter with the poll watchers has already been litigated and settled, with relief being granted initially and then being overturned by the State Supreme Court (who ruled 5-2 that poll watcher’s rights were met sufficiently).
- “ To support my position here is footage of Dems cheering on as a Republican poll watcher is abruptly removed.”
- I’m sorry, how does this prove your point?
- There is not even a mention of party affiliation for the “poll challenger” (notably not a poll watcher), let alone any context for the clip. If Pro wants to fixate on this irrelevant point, I invite them to provide a link to an article for more context.
- Pro admits to not having any means to show he has three ballots. Nor do they reply to the question of why they didn’t report this error to the State. Not even for fallacious anecdotal evidence is Pro able to provide any substantive backing beyond their flimsy word.
- I ask Pro define who exactly these “many voters” are.
- Pro provides no backing to the notion that “Democrats are notorious for election fraud.”
- The notion of a “tradition” of always knowing the winner of the presidential election on election night is largely fabrication. I mean, early elections in U.S. history would last over a month up until 1845, so there isn’t much merit to this, again, fallacious appeal to tradition.
- Pro continuously asserts allegations of fraud but does not provide any outside evidence apart from his word. Pro hasn’t detailed who exactly perpetuated this, how many votes it threw off, if the cases he’s describing were litigated, or any details really.
- Pro repeats a lie to start, misunderstands what the Washington Post Fact check was saying, and then begins an irrelevant, sourceless, baseless tirade against liberals and Leftists. Again, how is any of this showing and/or demonstrating that fraud occurred and was pre-planned and widespread in the 2020 election? It’s not, largely because there was only ever a negiblibe iota of fraud in this election.
- I ask that Pro clarify exactly what precautions the military take with regards to mail-in ballots, and why similar precautions couldn’t and don’t apply to average citizens.
- Pro’s attacks on my Washington Post articles don’t dismiss the information within them, which have been easily verified by other media outlets and individuals (people can research the amount of fraud cases themselves, most information is public with regards to this). If Pro wants to provide counter claims or statistics, I encourage them to do so. Regardless, the information is still correct.
On top of this, if Pro takes issue with Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post, I ask that he also consider the billionaire corporations and individuals behind sources such as Fox News, the USA Today, and YouTube (namely, the exact sources Pro used in his last round).
- 75 million Americans voted for Trump, but that does not entail that they believe the outcome was rigged. Polling has been done on this, and only a small minority of Americans believe the election was rigged.
- I’ll just say that what Pro described is not how “basic logic” works, nor does it make any sense as a tactic to show how fraud truly existed, occurred, and was widespread.
Everything Pro says here are certainly several theories that some people might believe in. But these theories aren’t substitutes for an argument; they’re a series of conclusions drawn from no prior basis in reality. Arguments explain, detail, and oftentimes provide evidence for what ought to be believed. These theories accomplish none of these aims.
Take: “I know because I been to a Trump rally. There's nothing like it. As opposed to a Biden rally. Biden was boring and had no charisma.” Not only is this painfully fallacious, largely-off topic, and based on a personal anecdote, but it doesn’t really argue for anything. I know Pro goes on to detail Biden rallies as “evidence” of the amount of charisma he has, but the vast majority of their arguments boil down to essentially this type of contextless reductionism, conveyed by thinly veiled beliefs. Pro presents no means for us to test his claims. Pro doesn’t provide a means with which we could measure Biden’s level of charisma contrast it with Trump. Not to mention, he doesn’t mention why “crowd size” is indicative of a propensity towards voter fraud. Every facet of this argument fails.
- Yes, it is 100% because COVID required the campaign to operate in a different way. The Biden campaign not only wanted to encourage strong health-and-safety precautions, but wanted to keep Biden himself as safe as possible.
- As much as I truly felt joy sifting through Pro’s onanism for Trump, I don’t see its relevance, nor do I see how it relates to mass voting fraud in anyway.
- It is irrelevant entirely.
- Also, I’d ask Pro stop spreading disinformation. 5 people died because of this rhetoric, hundreds were injured. Pro would rather express a cavalier disregard for human life than not, all in an effort to score a cheap political point against the Left.
Since Pro didn’t reply to either one of the points in my case, I extend them and will introduce one more argument.
- Pro only names other swing states and alleges fraud. He does not establish that any widespread voter fraud occurred in these states, let alone enough to constitute “a lot”.
- Pro notably does not respond to my “essay” on blacked-out windows, the arguments within I extend fully.
The great thing about Pro’s source is that it is from election night (Wed. Nov. 4th, 2020). We have the benefit of time to show that not only were the claims completely dismissed by the courts, but what was being alleged would not even constitute fraud.
- I provided a source demonstrating that knowing the winner by election night is simply not an actual tradition historically speaking, and that elections used to last a month up until 1845. Pro just says he “disagree[s]” and that it is a tradition, without engaging with what I in fact argued. This is not a sound, comprehensive argument against what I said.
- Pro abandons their point from an earlier round and does not specify the precautions taken with military ballots that aren’t taken for the public; notably because there aren’t any.
Pro’s link to Tucker Carlson has been fact checked and found to be partly false. Note that this source came out ~2 weeks before the election. If it was a serious problem, not only should the GOP and Trump’s campaign have litigated it, but it would at least be corrected by the time of the election. Also note that, again, this would not even have amounted to “a lot” of voter fraud if it were true.
- Pro concedes that their sources were subject to the same criticisms that he levied against one of my single sources.
This point not only is largely irrelevant, but also just baseless conjecture.
Pro seems to think I care what liberal media institutions have historically said, when I not only don’t – mostly because I’m not a liberal – but when we’re having a debate about voter fraud.
- Cruz’s arguments don’t address what I even claimed.
Ted Cruz’s claims have also been fact checked prior, and his description was found to be misleading by the people who did the original polling.
Also, the percents Cruz mentions does not approach amounting to 75 million people believing the election was rigged.
- Pro just isn’t arguing anymore. Essentially, Pro argues by saying: “I disagree. [insert baseless political rhetoric].”
I don’t believe I ever denied Biden “not having charisma,” however Pro wants to specifically define/measure that. But this entire conversation does not prove widespread voter fraud; it is disattached from the resolution completely.
But I'll indulge nonetheless: by Pro’s same metric, I’d argue Trump largely doesn’t have charisma. I mean, what substance is there when he has spoken to the press or given speeches? He rambles like he has severe ADHD, jumping between different topics as if they were shiny objects (this source being one of many to demonstrate this). How can someone who doesn’t have anything cohesive to say be “charismatic”?
^For the reader’s information, this isn’t an argument, but just a personal take on something abstract and unrelated to the debate (just like most of Pro’s argument).
Also, Pro’s last source is from Nov. 9th, 2020. Any claims that Carlson makes in this clip either have been litigated or not, and now there exists a different POTUS. If there was a case for fraud in this clip, why wasn’t it made in the three months leading up to the inauguration?
Pro also forgets the fact that he used 16% of his Round 2 to speak about how something that objectively occurred didn’t (the Insurrection on the US Capitol). I simply asked them to stop spreading disinformation, which was, apparently, too controversial for them.
- Pro has not, in fact, responded to my arguments about (R1.2, specifically my arguments in RB2). Pro replied in Round 2 (which also didn’t engage with the aforementioned arguments), to which I replied again. Pro then didn’t even mention Philadelphia in Round 3, in which I extended my arguments (R3.2).
- I’d rather not “agree to disagree” within a debate. That’s kinda the whole point – you know, not to do that.
Pro’s assertion of a fact does not make it so. Again, I have shown time and time again that it simply is not a tradition. Even if it were a tradition, how does this in any form demonstrate mass and widespread fraud that constitutes “a lot”?
Funny that Pro mentions the 2000 election and the 1876 election, where the conservative and liberal winners, respectively, were not known definitively unti long after election night – furthering my negation of the notion that such a tradition exists.
Given precautions related to COVID-19 and conservative/Republican legislatures obstructing the counting process , everyone ought to have been – and was aware – that it would require longer to figure out the election results. There was no possible means through which the results could have been known for sure on election night unless there was a landslide in either direction.
In essence, Pro is merely asserting a fact to be true without backing it up with evidence, and the evidence he has introduced goes against the claim which he is making.
- I do dismiss Carlson, because of the fact that he is wrong (refer to my explanation in R3.4). If Pro has any issue with fact checkers compiling and stating objective facts, I encourage them to bring them up in the debate. Pro does not explain this though.
- Pro concedes my argument and fact-check about Cruz.
A “feeling” a minority Americans feel does not replace the objective reality of the situation (“facts don’t care about your feelings” or something like that).
With regard to the women convicted of 134 counts of election fraud, the charges were levied Nov. 6th. Any fraud that occurred has been corrected. Pro should be pointing to examples where it wasn’t caught and it affected the 2020 election; whereas this case was one in which they were caught and their attempted fraud was negated. Nonetheless, even 132 manufactured votes would not affect the election in any significant manner – especially in Texas – nor would it bear constituting “a lot” as the resolution requires.
Looking at the case still, the issue wasn’t even manufacturing votes; quoting from my aforelinked source: “Brunner allegedly submitted voter registration applications for 67 residents without their signature or effective consent, while purporting to act as their agent” (emphasis mine). . Her actions were merely submitting voter registrations. This was a crime, but couldn’t be possibly construed as de facto “voter fraud” given the definitions of this debate. Regardless of anything, this point ought to be rendered moot by its negligible nature.
With regards to Pro’s claim about, “more people vot[ing for] Biden than the residents of that state,”: not only do they assert this sans evidence, but they also assert this putting forth known disinformation. Charts which show this tend to highly, highly inflate the vote count while giving accurate population sizes. Fact checkers have consistently found these claims baseless.
Pro also puts forth more known disinformation with regards to “dead people voting,” also sans any evidence. The notion of dead people voting simply is a longstanding myth. Votes are thrown out consistently due to voters passing away. There is established security within the electoral system that deals with this issue effectively.
I request Pro provide a source for “a man from 1925 vot[ing] for Biden,” as I can find absolutely zero evidence this occurred and wasn’t just utter fabrication.
I also request Pro remember the headline for that video to which they themselves linked: “Trump Repeats Baseless Voter Fraud Claims After Barr Says No Evidence”. His claims presented in the speech not only constitutes Pro abusing the nature of this debate by linking to outside arguments, but also have been routinely fact checked and found to be false.
- What does any of this have to do with the resolution? My point was the perception of either candidate having charisma is utterly subjective to each voter. Pro is deriving a fictional conclusion of what is objectively so, all entirely from his subjective view, about something that doesn’t even constitute voter fraud. What’s the purpose of devoting Pro’s argument to this question?
Trump’s approval ratings have never ticked aboved 50%. Most people voted against Trump – perhaps that’s why he has never won the popular vote in either election. Why are we shocked he lost following his sad, sordid failure of a presidency?
-As for Pro’s last source and as I mentioned prior, I cannot – nor do I have any obligation to – respond to every point mentioned by this article; it is an argument linked outside the debate, not a source backing up specific claims within Pro’s original argument. If Pro desires to spend his next 10,000 characters to detail claims here, they are more than welcome to do so.
I extend again my still unaddressed case (R1.3, R2.2), and I turn it back over to Pro.
- I did respond to the allegations about TCF Center in Detroit (round 3 point 2). Pro either maliciously lies about this or simply didn’t click on my sources. Even if I didn’t, blacking-out windows isn’t proven voter fraud, let alone an amount that constitutes “a lot”.
- “...everyone admits that there is no evidence of Russian interference,” is factually untrue. Russia objectively interfered with the 2016 election, the term “collusion” was never the actual crime being investigated, and Trump officials did, in fact, meet with Russian officials in 2016. Pro is not being truthful in their description of what occurred with regards to Russian interference in 2016.
- Pro repeats the lie that, “Tradition has it for hundreds of years that we always knew the winner on election day,” still without any backing or meaningful response to my prior arguments demonstrating that it’s not (round 2 P3.2, round 3 point 3, round 4 point 2) . Asserting a baseless fact does not make it true.
- The Fox News link discusses a group bringing forth factually incorrect claims of voter fraud, but the claims clearly never materialized in court – made most notable by the fact that there is another POTUS currently.
- Though Pro doesn’t make the argument, his link and appeal to Giuliani’s authority (despite the lack thereof) doesn’t even prove the claim. He is not only directly challenged and called out in the video Pro links to, but what he argues for wouldn’t constitute “a lot” of voter fraud had it occurred in the 2020 election (which Pro doesn’t even assert).
- Pro’s assertion that, “Again, you failed to respond to my question” with regards to dead people voting is another lie. I replied to the allegation specifically in the 6th paragraph of my 4th point in round 4.
- There is not evidence to Pro’s claim that, “Back in 2016, the Dems tried to pass a bill that would mandate universal mail-in ballots.” Searching for any proposed bill from 2016 akin to this description has turned up nothing.
- All of Pro’s second paragraph to round 3 is presented without any sources and is entirely baseless (apart from the descriptions of what is needed for an ID, I suppose).
- Pro’s laughable claim that “Just as art is objective, we know what makes good art, it is so with popularity,” is removed from the reality of the established understandings of “art”, “objectivity”, “good”, and “popularity”. What is good art versus what is bad art is so subjective that it is a literal entire field of study. On top of this, Pro puts forth no metric as to measure any of the concepts which he is writing about.
- Pro’s claim about Hunter Biden has been fact checked and found to be made without evidence. On top of this, it is always important to note that whatever Hunter Biden partook in had zero effect on mass, widespread voter fraud.
- Though not strict disinformation, Pro is trying to really put across the notion that Biden was a terrible candidate as a provable fact, when it is completely subjective. Who is and isn’t a good candidate is a matter of subjectivity, as evidenced by the very existence of presidential primaries (which attempts to answer which of these subjective beliefs is most widely held). With regards to candidates being good/bad, Pro cannot negate this subjectivity of belief that objectively exists.
- Though still irrelevant, Pro lies blatantly about their own quote. Again, from their Round 2: “...but now that you mentioned it, there was no ‘Insurrection’ at the US Capitol. Did you see the footage? Trump supporters walked calmly, casually walking through the halls of the Capitol building like tourists” (emphasis mine).
- Pro’s claim that “antifa” caused the Insurrection at the US Capitol is unequivocally false, without basis, and an intentional act of fabrication and disinformation.
- Pro’s claims about “Antifa” being a large, organized effort is a lie. At its most basic level, it is a philosophy that directly opposes fascism through whatever means necessary. At its most, it is a highly, highly decentralized political movement without any actual real organization, springing up purely to respond to protests from fascist organizations and entities.
- Pro claim about Nazis actually being left wing (while opposing communism?) is a lie. From Full Fact, “While their name did include the word 'socialist', their policies and treatment of left-wing opponents show they were not socialists in any meaningful sense.”
- Pro’s evidence of John Sullivan being an established left-wing activist is intentionally misleading, and leaves out Sullivan’s complicated past with regard to left-wing movements.
- Pro puts forth a fake quote from Churchill.
- Pro frames the tweet China sent out in a misleading manner. The quote was directed entirely at Trump claiming he won the 2020 election “by a lot”, which, as I have covered throughout the course of this debate, is simply not the case in any way.