Instigator / Pro
0
1464
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2808

There was a lot of fraud in the 2020 election

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

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

acglade
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1515
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description

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?

-->
@RationalMadman
@Bugsy460

Although a magician never reveals his tricks, you might be on to something!
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

-->
@RationalMadman
@turk082
@acglade

Note
I only @ed RationalMadman because I'm using an idea he had in the notes for my RFD, and I don't want to take credit for his idea that it was satire. Also, thank you for doing basic win-loss vote, those are the best.

RFD
I vote con but it was a lot harder for me than it would have been if I took Pro at face value. At face value, he has a bunch of no evidence disproved points while Con, despite dropping his case in the last speech, disproves everything with enough doubt, especially coupled with his BOP he set and definitions, that it's an easy vote. However, the idea that this was a satirical performance was really interesting and one that I end up believing is the intent of the Pro, but since this doesn't come with a BOP or a reason to prefer the performance, I vote Con.

Comments
Pro
If you are simply a troll with no intent of winning, you can disregard this, but if you want to use your troll approach and win, then there's a way to do that. For example, in this debate, your resolution, description, and first round speech would be fine, but after that you should run a kritik that "engaging with far right bait is harmful to education and fairness because it gives them legitimacy. Vote aff to endorse the deplatforming of the alt-right and far right." This allows you to troll people into a trap that gives you an easy win if you can justify that the education outweighs the unfairness of shifting the debate.

Con
You did really well on the arguments and line by line and BOP definition work, so you had a really good strategy going in. If you look at the notes I give Pro, these kinds of debates can be a trap for a kritikal argument, meaning you should do some preempts like shifting the debate is unfair or read your own kritik at them, for example "being satirical is unfair because I don't know what the debate is about and I can't engage meaning this entire debate is meaningless, vote con to endorse literal speeches and resolutions." If he's satirical, this is a lot to deal with, if he's not, then you're probably guaranteed the win and can lose the words.

If y'all have questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.

I don't think that the voters on this debate had any clue just how deeply satirical and clever Pro's case was. Pro was imitating Trump at first and his supporters in later Rounds, read very carefully and you will spot what can only be imitation and satire.

“ Whether we like it or not, about 75 million Americans feel this election was rigged.”

This should not summarize so much of a debate.

-->
@Barney

That is very interesting and might prove my case. If they did it then, they could do it again.
Thanks for sharing the link.

-->
@turk082
@acglade

Interesting thing, apparently in 1960 there may have been an election stolen:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395/

"They just stool the election"

I don't know why I find this typo so amusing.

-->
@Barney

I agree, and that's why I defined "a lot" as "significant, enough to influence or significantly impact the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election" in the first round. I figured that was what Pro was trying to argue anyway.

If not already done, this is a debate to be careful to define “a lot.”

Every presidential election is assured to have plenty of voter manipulation and even cases of fraud, but how much constitutes “a lot”?

Also the difference between fraud and manipulation should be clearly defined... or if they are treated as the same, that should be defined.

Probably too late for this one.

-->
@Death23

That would have been a smart K for pro to fall back on.

-->
@turk082

Oh good, I almost thought the debate on the pyramids would be more difficult.

There was a ton of fraud in the 2020 election, and it was all coming from Donald Trump.

-->
@zedvictor4

Maybe. That's for you to figure out.

Define a lot

-->
@zedvictor4

Negative. Donald Trump has finished his inside work on earth and has traveled back to Zargor.

-->
@turk082

Are you Donald Trump?

Your above description, is uncannily Trump like.