Instigator / Pro
4
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Topic
#3677

The USFG Should Decertify The 2020 Election

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

TOPIC:

The USFG should decertify the 2020 US Presidential Election due to illegal election activities sufficient to deny Biden's victory

STANCES:

PRO must argue there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.

CON must argue there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.

DEFINITIONS:

The following sources will determine the standards for illegal election activities:

- U.S. Code and U.S. Constitution
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

For definitions, the U.S. Code, in its entirety, shall supplement the definitions, and where the U.S. Code fails to provide a definition, then The Law's law dictionary will be used:
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/

And if neither can provide a definition, then Merriam Webster will be used.

"Sufficient" means that illegal election activities affected more ballots than the margin of victory for then-candidate Joseph R. Biden.

RULES:

By participating in this debate, PRO and CON agree to adhere to the following rules:

1. Use of logical fallacies are strictly prohibited. Any logical fallacy that exists in this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is banned from the debate. All logical fallacies shall be defined according to this Wikipedia webpage. Any deliberate usage of a logical fallacy results in immediate forfeiture and admittance of defeat. Accidental usage can be rectified by not using the fallacy again and moving on with the debate.

2. The rules and definitions of logic shall come from the webpage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic, and not Merriam Webster's online Dictionary or any other Wikipedia page. This debate shall be governed by the laws of logic, meaning burden of proof is required by both parties.

3. Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this wikipedia article, as an argument is banned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

4. Usage of any compliance technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this wikipedia article, as an argument is banned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_gaining

5. The rules of grammar and proper english shall come from Grammarbook.com available here: https://www.grammarbook.com/ and they will be followed strictly. Deliberate attempts to use gibberish english result in forfeiture of debate by the person who committed the action.

6. Using definitions from any source not previously listed is strictly prohibited and results in forfeiture of debate.

7. For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be allowed or rejected based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, available here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

8. Disobeying these rules repeatedly results in immediate forfeiture of debate.

-->
@RationalMadman

I understand

-->
@Public-Choice

I do not agree with the idea that Oromagi broke the deacription's rule(s) and I am jot sure either side fully established the cut-off point to declare it to be overturned.

I am busy and not really that into this debate and honestly you would not want me to vote you 14-8 instead of 7-4. This debate is hard to read fast, it is so many nitpicky details.

-->
@RationalMadman

Are you casting your vote?

-->
@oromagi
@Public-Choice
@Sidewalker

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sidewalker // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:

Pro set up the debate with the first two lines, and then did nothing to establish that USFG has the ability to overturn an election, which of course it doesn't, there is no constitutional or legal process for doing so, and secondly he did nothing to establish line two to show the requisite evidence of fraudulent voting that could have mattered in the first place. Instead he seems to rely on the complex set of rules that followed to gain the win, but that certainly did not make his case. I awarded condut point to con based on the attempt by pro to utilize rules rather than argument to win, I think it was a disengenuous attempt.

You win a debate with content and a strong argument, I don't think you can win a debate on a technicality of rules complexity, nor can you turn over an Federal election on one, especially in the absense of any established rules for overturning an election whatsoever. While the rules were complex and presumably designed to favor pro, I don't think pro complied any better then con, you could probably have three more debates about each rule.

Lastly, considering that rule 7 has been tested in court on this subject 60 times and lost every time, I'm was convinced pro's argument would need to be extraordinary, but it didn't appear to even be trying to make the requisite argument. May as well have just stated he thinks we should overturn the election because Trump said to, as far as I can tell, that was the actual basis of his argument.

As far as acual content, reason, and facts go, Con made the case strongly, with a solid argument and good sources.

>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter does assess some points presented in the debate, he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. This specific point may be the most important one in the debate, but the voter cannot simply say that without touching upon the responses to it.
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. Both sides attempted to use the rules in this manner, and while Pro is the one who wrote those rules, Con did accept them by taking the debate. Any justification for conduct on this basis must include that context.
The source points are insufficiently explained. The voter just says that Con had good sources, which is not a comparison of the sources presented in the debate, nor is it sufficient evaluation of Con's sources to award these points.
**************************************************

-->
@Sidewalker

I understand that you're still relatively new to the site and to voting. This removal is not meant to dissuade you from voting, just to draw attention to the missing elements in your RFD. In particular, though I didn't mention this as part of the reasons for removal, it's best not to insert arguments or perspectives that are not presented by the debaters themselves, as you did with rule 7. It may be a valid point, but if it's not given by the debaters, then you're essentially inserting yourself into the debate.

Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.
I'm kinda new here too! Welcome to the site!!

"I don't think you can argue it should be decertified."
Yes but this is a moot point. It is obviously assumed it can be done if we are debating the possibility of it happening. It is also a red herring because that isn't the topic of the debate. By this measure we might as well argue anything we want. Topics become completely unnecessary entirely if we are allowed to debate other things than the topic itself. For instance, I could argue that we should impeach Congress over certifying a fraudulent election. While this is a debate topic, it has nothing to do with the actual topic in the debate.

"I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one."
The federal rules of evidence are not rules for the VOLUME of evidence, but what is considered evidence. This debate agreed to the Federal Rules of Evidence because we were debating a government action. The whole idea of using rule 7 to argue that my case wasn't voluminous enough is a judgement call. CON also barely made an argument for his case based on voluminous sourcing by this measure. We used largely the same sources and debated largely the same content. We both cited the WEC, the Wisconsin Constitution, and other state and federal laws. I fail to see how my case was not sourced well enough even though CON did not really out-source me.

"I did try to vote on the quality of arguments"
Where did you have a breakdown of our individual arguments and why one was better than the other? You made blanket statements about our two sides and didn't cite any specifics. By "explain" I meant explain why you believed what your believed.

Voting on here is difficult. I had to have a long Q&A with one of the mods before I even had a basic understanding of how it works.

To be clear, you are allowed to agree with one side or another going in, but your reasoning should be adequately explained and you should use the same judgements for both PRO and CON and explain why both sides agreed or disagreed with your standards.

-->
@Public-Choice

Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.

I reported your vote because the question wasn't if the election was decertifiable but whether it should be decertified. --
I don't think you can argue it should be decertified without addressing the question of can it be decertified, isn't that kind of like arueing that pigs should fly, without addressing that they don't have the ability to fly?

I also reported because your awarding of conduct is not in accordance with the terms of voting as I understand them. --
Might be the case, I'm not sure I understand the terms of voting myself, probably why I talked content rather than rules.

You also claimed that one of the rules that was for the debate didn't even matter to the debate, which doesn't make any sense. --
If you're talking rule 7, I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one.

You also didn't explain how CON made a strong argument and didn't evaluate how my argument was weak --
I thought I did, con addressed the fact that you didn't acheive either of the first two criteria you set up well, granted, I admit I went in agreeing with Con but I did try to vote on the quality of arguments I saw, despite the fact that i absolutely despise the big lie of electional denial, so it is very hard for me to fairly judge it, especially when my mind keeps saying "Oh, bite me pro" with every sentence I read :)

-->
@Public-Choice

yeah, glancing the debate anything other than arguments is wrong here for either side. I may vote actually but not within a few hours' time, give half a day.

-->
@Sidewalker

I reported your vote because the question wasn't if the election was decertifiable but whether it should be decertified.

I also reported because your awarding of conduct is not in accordance with the terms of voting as I understand them.

You also claimed that one of the rules that was for the debate didn't even matter to the debate, which doesn't make any sense.

You also didn't explain how CON made a strong argument and didn't evaluate how my argument was weak.

-->
@logicae

Thank you!

-->
@whiteflame

Take your time. I know this one is really long.

-->
@oromagi
@Public-Choice

I am still planning on voting on this, guys, mainly just need to re-read those final rounds and get my thoughts together.

-->
@Public-Choice

Well done with the debate rules! A very formal and truth focused setup.

To Truth!
Logicae

yeah never mind, im not smart enough to vote on this, it seems.

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to politics, especially things to do with the structure of the US government and law, but I'll try and put a vote on this one. It would be a shame for so much effort to feel like it went unappreciated from both parties.

-->
@oromagi
@Undefeatable
@Public-Choice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con

>Reason for Decision:
Pro gives two simple crimes: That the votes were mis cast due to missing information, and that there was illegal support from the public for lobbying. However, through out the rounds his argument wanders all over the place, and Con sufficiently displays that the Mis-cast votes missed an incredibly small amount of information. And supported that this was understandable due to ambiguity of the Street code information, as well as missing simply zip code, which was not essential for the crime. Pro misses out on supplying a critical quote from Time Magazine and instead simply claims this lobbying was a crime, while Time had not stated anything about its illegality. Thus, due to his own sources being self-contradictory and cherry picking without sufficient backing for the arguments, I give sources to Con. The two spend a needlessly long time bickering about the Fallacies and the rules of the debate, which I shall not listen to as this debate concerns the topic alone. Pro pretty much committed every fallacy first before con, which causes a conflict with the rules.

Whether USFG *can* decertify, I feel has very little effect, and Pro largely implies that the severe crime would allow them to take extreme action, so I feel that argument is really not worth much here. Still, I vote for CON due to sufficiently conveying that the persons had not committed fraud/crime.

>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources, the voter must assess specific sources presented by both sides. While the voter does do this for Pro, the voter does not do so for Con. The voter must also provide a reason to award conduct. There is some explanation here with regards to who used fallacies first, though the voter acknowledges that both sides did use fallacious points, so it's unclear why he is favoring Con with regards to conduct under these rules.
**************************************************

-->
@Undefeatable

It doesn't matter what I think, the Wisconsin Constitution was clear. Thanks for your vote!

I am reporting, though, because you did not explain how I broke every rule before CON did, and also decided to vote without applying the rules in the description. I feel this is not a proper way to debate since we were both held to the same rules that we agreed to.

If the mods disagree then so be it.

-->
@oromagi
@Public-Choice

RFD comments.

I have voted. You can ask any questions but I felt it was already won by round 3. Pro was wandering in circles trying to detail and bicker about how the Votes cannot even miss a simple line of zip code (which I am sure, other elections have missed out on. Though Con did not make that argument, so whatever). And also trying to accuse the lobbying as conspiracy to commit the crime and perhaps even bribe the officials, but there was no such evidence from Time Magazine. What a crazy debate from Pro.

Put another way, FDR was a fascist socialist, and Calvin Coolidge was a small government capitalist. That is often the paradigm. The WEF is not anything remotely close to true right-wing, neither is the current Republican Party in America, despite its founding.

-->
@RationalMadman

Fascism and communism are both left-wing. Communist China and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are all indistinguishable from each other.

The left right paradigm is socialism (left) and capitalism (right).

Alternatively it is big government (left) and small government (right). But this one is almost never used.

By all metrics, though, a ruling class that owns everything is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. So these are actually left-wing policies, not right-wing policies.

-->
@Public-Choice

and yet that is precisely what every single right-wing shithole is experiencing for the majority of its population.

Kenya is a prime example.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks!

-->
@RationalMadman

I wonder what your definition of elite and "right wing economics" is, because the World Economic Forum clearly only supports a ruling class where everyone else will "own nothing and be happy." That isn't capitalist at all. It is fascist or an oligarchy.

-->
@Public-Choice

I’ll get to it.

-->
@Public-Choice

Not a topic I care much for (I believe we will never 100% know if any election was stolen and personally unless it is a fascist maniac, I just adapt to the politics, I also believe the elite support right wing economics, so I am a left wing cobrpiacy theorist if either faked it).

I will look later maybe.

-->
@Barney

Understood. Thanks!

-->
@Public-Choice

For the next while, I’m pretty much not going to be voting on anything I can’t knock out during a restroom break.

Best of luck on the debate. It looks like it was done well.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@whiteflame
@3RU7AL
@Novice_II

Any of you wanting to vote on this one?

Bump

CON's ROUND 5 SOURCES:

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9Q73XZ-1
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/twenty-months-later-trump-isnt-done-decertification-push-rcna39088
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/7/477823_2.pdf

CON's ROUND 4 SOURCES:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/sep/21/new-york-post/mostly-false-ted-cruz-same-senator-who-once-suppor/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/planet-destroy-earth/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-regularly-had-her-maid-print-classified-documents/
https://nypost.com/2015/12/13/sensitive-principal-bans-santa-and-other-religious-symbols/
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/01/william-benson-huber/ny-post-op-ed-rebuts-starving-children-claim-was-n/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-violate-mask-mandate/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/migrant-kids-kamala-harris-book/

-->
@Novice_II

I actually have those rules for all my debates that I create. It keeps both people honest and focuses solely on the facts and the logical analysis as opposed to who is the better sophist. It wasn't just for Oromagi.

When I was on DDO I had a modified version of it. But the original website I used has changed its format entirely and gotten rid of the pages I used to stamp out logical fallacies and keep the rules of logic, so I needed to cobble a few different sources together.

-->
@oromagi

ACH! I thought today was my last day to reply. If you choose not to extend I understand.

This week I had much more work than usual so I messed up scheduling the reply.

CON's ROUND 3 SOURCES:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/?s=decertification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3677-the-usfg-should-decertify-the-2020-election?argument_number=2
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/i/01
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/republicans/election-bills
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Suppose I were to vote on this, I would have no choice but to vote for pro because of rule 8. While it is a harsh rule, pro has established that a single rule violation is enough to result in an automatic forfeit, and con at this point has undeniably violated a rule regardless of if he is winning the debate.

While both debaters are doing well enough, pro laid out the rules perfectly, knowing exactly what the contender would argue, and knowing exactly how he argues.

PRO's Round 3 sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-949
{3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
[4] https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
[5] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/9
[6] https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
[7] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/affect/
[8] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/prejudice/
[9] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/fear/

ROUND2 SOURCES:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_gaining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ipse_dixit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/how-do-i-get-a-real-id/real-id-checklist/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
https://ballotpedia.org/Debate_over_the_prevalence_of_noncitizens_voting
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CA&combine=&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All&page=1
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

What a round.

PRO's ROUND 2 SOURCES:

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[2] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
[3] https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
[4] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/effect/
[5] https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/

CON's ROUND 1 SOURCES:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://img.apmcdn.org/8e01e18aa0a2530e539dc95d0b93a31ca8766b01/uncropped/980181-20200722-bob-capen-s-ballot.jpg
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/i/01
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%202.&article=II
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/how-do-i-get-a-real-id/real-id-checklist/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
https://ballotpedia.org/Debate_over_the_prevalence_of_noncitizens_voting
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CA&combine=&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All&page=1

-->
@ProfessorS17Jr

As I stated earlier, this is about the 2020 election. The sources I cited were the U.S. Code, and a reputable American legal dictionary to ensure the words used would stick to their legislative and therefore properly contextualized meaning. The U.S. Code is the rule of law for the United States in addition to the Constitution, which is also codified in the U.S. Code.

I did not engage in special pleading for the sources. They are simply the laws of the land, and a reputable dictionary. We are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election, so the U.S. Code is the standard of what is illegal. It is that simple. This is similar to any court case that happens in America. The law is used as the standard. Criminals are convicted based on breaking the law. The law states what it states and is not a biased source.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules barring additional sources on the 2020 election as evidence. As long as any source aligns with the Federal standards for evidence, it can be a source. This is stated in the rules. It just cannot supercede the U.S. Code or the two dictionaries listed for definitions of words or for laws, because, obviously, we are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Oromagi and I had a forum post where we both supplied the rules we wanted for the debate. Without definitions, there is no objective way to prove what anyone is saying. If Oromagi did not like the usage of the particular dictionaries, he was free to suggest his own.

It is also worth noting that the U.S. Legal system largely does not prosecute intent. They prosecute actions. So since we were debating whether illegal election activities took place, then this is simply the actions, not the intent. This is a specific debate about a specific election in a country governed by a specific set of laws. This is not a tautological or thought experimental debate. It is based on whether the 2020 election held enough illegal election activities to decertify it. To do so, there needs to be adherence to the U.S. Code.

Shouldn't both sides be allowed to use their own sources instead of the ones provided by the instigator? That way it prevents from the evidence being biased to one side of the debate.

Because your using a single website to define such things, in a way that can very easily point to saying, "Well TECHNICALLY it iS according to this one website" and not by the spirit of the idea. Im sure Oro has a plan, but this just seems very manipulative at best.

By banning logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, and compliance gaining strategies, all that is left is pure logic. Which is the point of this dispute. Any matter of national importance should be handled with the utmost care, should it not? Why bother to debate things otherwise?

lmao, this totalllly doesn't seem seized to bullshit out of a loss whenever the evidence doesn't support pro's position.

-->
@BearMan

yup

damn thats a lot of rules