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?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

I sympathize with Pro’s position on this matter, but there’s just suspicion and no hardcore evidence. As a result Pro failed their Burden of Proof in proving without a doubt that mass voter fraud occurred in the nation. The poll watching case in Philadelphia was ruled constitutional by the courts. Every case nationwide was rejected by the courts on standing grounds or lack of evidence as Con mentioned in their case. Pro also in some instances used evidence that doesn’t quite connect to the the topic at hand. Trump having massive crowds doesn’t necessarily convey that he had to have gotten a higher vote and Democrats stole it from him.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is a really straight forward BoP failure. This is not to discredit pro. He has some valid points about certain things being suspect, the problem is he does massive leaps of faith instead of connecting the dots. Had the resolution contained the word "probably" then this would merit much deeper analysis.

Con effectively dissected pro's case for the many faults, including likely disinformation. Things like kicking out poll watchers does not prove voter fraud (it proves they disliked the poll watchers in question). To me the highlight of con's case is the too many people needed to remain silent point. While on topic, "See this link for further research because the facts matter" was a key weak point from pro, since with access to a clear researched list, asked the voters to go read it, instead of actually detailing facts from within it for consideration (I am not suggesting gish galloping, but a direct debate could be held on the worst offenses within it as a lead up to this larger debate). The invented quotation from Churchill being caught by con was a pretty bad blunder, but the antifa point had already failed (yes, at least one of the riots was a member of Antifa, but that does not even begin to imply enough of them for it to be a false flag operation).