The 2020 ELECTION was not STOLEN

1 day left for easy FF's

less than a week for voting

"there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so"

You are a sucker to think so. Donald Trump inherited one/tenth of all rental properties in New York City and lost it all in twenty years. If he had done absolutely nothing but held on to what he inherited he'd be worth $200 billion today and easily the richest man on Earth. But still, after losing it all, the media let him publish books about his financial genius and then the media actually paid him to play a guy on TV who knows about money, the media knew he was pocketing all that money he claimed to give to charity on his tv show and they let him get away with it, the media knew all those people calling into radio shows to talk about how much they loved Donald Trump was actually just Donald Trump and they let him get away with it, the media knew he'd ripped off nearly every bank and lawyer he'd ever done business with but they let him get away with it, the media knew Jeff Epstein threw parties for Trump where it was just the two of them alone with 30 girls and they let him get away with it. Nobody in the history of mankind has gotten a better break from the media than Donald Trump.

"You basically only argue truisms."

Since you disagree with everything I say isn't that your admission that not only are you wrong about everything but you know that you are wrong about everything?

I have been working on being less cynical and you are sucking into defending some argument I don't agree with because Ii enjoy defending the position.

I did want to state there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so. That's just a bad take.

Instead of taking a reasonable take by pointing out people like pol pot, mao and Hitler were also outsiders you take the take of "derp Trump was an establishment insider despite the establishment going after him like rabbis dogs"

You win debates because your opponent is arguing on unequal ground. I suggested a far more interesting debate. One about the ethics of overthrowing a Democratic government if election tampering went through.

Still an argument that is a bit on unequal grounds, because there are processes to challenge injustices such as courts, but because the resolution only slightly favors you, you puss out of taking it.

You basically only argue truisms.

seems like a delaying tactic but fine,

Should I go ahead and set up the forum post?

"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.

Good, that should be your claim.

"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."

That would be insane.

"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.

Good, that should be your claim.

"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."

That would be insane.

Well if your definition of stolen is that all votes were illegitimate then that is obviously a given that the election was not stolen.

I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden. I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate.

I used "stolen" because this was the wording used in the title of this debate. So I was just using the language that was already in use.

Maybe we should do a forum post where we both come to terms with what we would like to debate. That way it will speed up the process, and it will also provide context to the potential voters.

"Stolen" is your claim not mine. I would encourage you to set up the debate as a positive assertion and define all of your terms maximally in the DESCRIPTION so that I can review them and accept/reject. You must prove that Biden only won through fraud not just that there was some fraud. Much of Trump's fraud was more or less out in the open.

Oh, especially in regard to things like "stolen" and such. Does a stolen election mean it was simply rigged or that Trump actually won and the left stole it?

We would need to define these terms. This is why I prefer the legal definitions as set out in the U.S. Code. Or at minimum the closest we can get to them.

If I accept, we would need to start with a commonly-held set of definitions or at least a common dictionary.

Ideally, I'd want to use the U.S. Federal Government's terms and the U.S. Code to determine the ground rules and such for what we are debating.

Without doing this then there is really no point in debating it, right? There's no common ground and we could just make up our own arguments, definitions, and sources at that point.

"P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests

Agreed. In 2020, the govt was run by Trump who was only out for his own best interest

"P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders"

Objectively false. Trump's entire career has been schmoozing political insiders. If the Bush and Clinton families are the dominant political insiders of the past 30 years, then few Americans have given more money, attending more parties, invited them to more of his parties than Trump. Trump best friends were Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein, both introduced to him by Roy Cohn in the 1980s, both of whom spent every waking hour schmoozing Republican insiders. When the time came to write his political platform for the 2016 election, Trump took Romney's platform word for word except for dropping US support for Ukraine and dropping condemnation of Russia's invasion of Crimea. In 2020, he made zero changes to the Republican platform at all. Trump put it in writing that he thought that Republican principles in 2012 were just fine for 2020. No previous presidential candidate or president has ever been so well satisfied with the status quo.

"P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected."

Trump was the ultimate insider from 2016 to 2020 and his many treasons were both super detectable and now starting to be referenced to our criminal justice system.

:C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election."

Your syllogism game really sucks.

A does B
C hates B
A does B
therefore
A does B

There's little doubt Trump did everything he could to steal the election but he was thwarted by the honest democratic participation of many good citizens.

"I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations."

Let's recall that Paul Manafort ran that election for the Russo-Ukrainian faction too. Manafort now admits that he gave Trump's election insider info to Putin in exchange for $30 million.

"The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud." "Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?"

post-facto non-sequitur. The ease with which Trump followers were duped after the election has no impact on the facts of the election itself.

"Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?"

Obviously you haven't studied the Orange Revolution yourself or you would know that it was a bloodless revolution. You'll remember that that Yushchenko survived an attempted assassination by Russian agents, which united the fractured opposition against Putin/Manafort's candidate. The election day results were so obviously fake because the majority of election officials complained about fraud, all international observers complained about fraud, the exit polls were way off from the results. The majority of parliament refused to attend the swearing in ceremony. After two months of non-violent but economically devastating general strikes, the Supreme Court ruled the election was rigged and ordered a re-vote under much more free and fair conditions, which Yushenko won handily.

In other words, the exact opposite of 2020.

P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests

P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders

P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected.

C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election.

I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations.

The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud.

Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?

Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?

Just looking for somebody with the guts to explain why they believe the 2020 election was stolen. What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence and ALL of the evidence presented to claim fraud boils down to mentally ill conspiracy theories.

I have no reason to respect critiques from people unwilling or unable to stand up for the counterargument.

Of course you are correct. As I stated previously, "I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism." Despite the forfeits, the instigator did not even deliver a valid argument that supports his position, and in my view, he conveyed it to a much weaker degree than perceived in the mainstream.

Be happy to remake this debate for either of you.

I'm unsure why CON forfeited when all Oromagi did was appeal to authority.

Basic burden of proof requires that the person who makes the claim must cite evidence for their claim.

The problem is, state and city governments DO NOT publicly reveal the vote tally. Not even to the people who cast their vote. So there is no way to know if the governing officials are lying or not. We are not allowed to see that data.

Additionally, the CISA document does not actually show any evidence for why they make their assertion. They simply make a claim without evidence, which violates basic burdens of proof and also constitutes as an appeal to authority.

Those in favor of voter fraud have brought forth 900 fact witnesses, hundreds of news articles, and mathematical analyses that purportedly show voter fraud. This evidence was conveniently ignored.

It's a shame. Because I really wanted to read a good debate on this.

There isn't enough evidence available to know if it is fraud. He had available Access to classified documents I don't. Knowing what I do about the oligarchy, I would say yes

I think I'd recommend that you summon the courage to complete one debate without forfeiting before calling other debaters cowards.

So you admit that Trump's "stolen election: claims are fraud?

This is the type of cowardly debate I am talking about. The far more interesting debate is, assuming the election was stolen, would the actions on January 6th be justified.

Thanks for voting!

Please remove my vote here, it appears I voted for the wrong side.

Thanks for voting!

Mike says you are welcome.

Thanks for voting, FLRW!

I can re-issue this if you'd like

wrong debate, ignore last comment

3 days left to vote!

They stole votes, not the election, if anything.

It is stolen from the democratic people voting actually. :)

You just got semantically bodied, troll.

That is your opinion. You can’t own an election. Nor did any election just announce a change of its date after it has happened. No election has disappeared all of a sudden. What is stolen, if anything, is electoral votes. The election itself because it is there Is not stolen no matter what.

@TWS1405 probably best to find unbiased news sources as a source. No?

The election could have been stolen, and it could have not been. If con is able to present reasonable uncertainty, I would argue that the resolution defaults to the Pakistani gentleman. I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism.

Confirmation bias.

And still not one shred of "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election." For some reason, you decided to tell lies in the comments of this debate and now you are desperately trying to change the subject rather than try to prove those lies.

With each post that you fail to offer anything that looks like "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election" you lose credibility.

>>retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:<<

Easy to claim, so easy an amoeba can do it. Much harder to prove. Takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence to do so. The latter you clearly are deficient in. But you are abundant in denialism regarding the last part of that statement. Genetic fallacy 100x

retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:

"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."

>>The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.>>

My links cited in the previous comment were in direct response to the above nonsense.

Unsurprisingly, none of these links seem to be about the 2020 Election or offer any proof that the election was fixed as you have claimed. On this debate site, linking to somebody else's argument instead of formulating your own opinion is the same thing as making no argument at all.

Says you...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/levin-post-constitutional-america

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/josh-hawleys-humiliation-by-jan-6-committee-unconstitutional-mark-levin/ar-AAZVRsP

https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-host-mark-levin-i-hope-you-dont-watch-january-6-committee-hearing

https://uproxx.com/viral/mark-levin-josh-hawley-jan-6-committee/

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/mark-levin-jan-6-committee

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jan-6-hearings-abomination-american-system-mark-levin

https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/28/sean-davis-pelosis-jan-6-committee-is-a-farce-run-by-shameless-dishonest-partisans/

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/28/january-6th-emergency-hearing-delivers-laughably-absurd-bombshells-n585732

https://www.freepressfail.com/2022/06/12/its-morbin-time-the-jan-6-committee-is-officially-a-joke/

I can go on and on and on...

"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."

That's not only quite false but also the opposite of true. The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.

I continue to refrain from giving any opinion on this matter, as new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election. But I will wait for more affirming and damning evidence that will expose the truth we all have known all along.

"You can't steal an election, it will always be there."

As a citizen of China, I must say you're one of the only people on the website who could make that statement sound more ironic and off-topic than it already is.

Welcome to the site!

You must be new here

You can't steal an election, it will always be there.

trying to farm an easy win lol

But what about Bill Clinton?