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
Tags
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
INTRODUCTION:
Thank you to oromagi for accepting this debate. I will prove the 2020 election should be decertified because illegal election activities affected more votes than Biden's margin of victory.
I shall do this by proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that multiple illegal election activities occurred that directly impacted the electoral process of the 2020 election and affected more ballots than President Biden's margin of victory. Most of the furnishings and charges for election fraud shall be based on 18 U.S. Code Part 1 Chapter 29, which deals with criminal election activities. And if not, the proper section of the U.S. Code will be stated.
Crime 1 - Violation of State Constitutions Concerning Election law violates 18 U.S. Code § 595 or "Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments":
18 U.S. Code 595 states:
"Whoever, being a person employed ... by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States ... in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." [1]
The Wisconsin Elections Commission, which is "responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal election laws, and [sic] county and municipal clerks administer elections," [2] found in their audit of the 2020 Election in Wisconsin that roughly 6.9% of certificates out of a randomized sample of 14,710 absentee ballots contained information that disqualified these ballots from being counted in the election [2, pp.42-43]. Furthermore, less than 1% of all ballots in the sample contained clerk initials, which the Wisconsin Election Commission explains is when clerks changed information on ballots and initialed showing they made a change.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission authors claim the randomized sample is not necessarily representative of statewide ballot practices because they only received ballots from a portion of the state. However, in Appendix 4, they used scientifically-validated statistical analysis methods to create a low and high range that they claim with 95% certainty is the number of illegal ballots cast during the 2020 election. Using the estimates provided, the total number of ballots that were affected by illegal election practices in Wisconsin amounts to between 15,662-27,056 total ballots. [2]
President Joseph Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 ballots. [5] This means that illegal election activities may have outnumbered the margin for President Biden's victory in Wisconsin.
To violate Federal election law, any election clerk must simply "affect the nomination or election." [1] The Law's dictionary defines affect as:
To act upon; influence; change; enlarge or abridge.[3]
They define "change" as:
" An alteration; substitution of one thing for another." [4]
So, by definition, Wisconsin election officials violated 18 U.S. Code 595 by making a change in the counting procedures that violated Wisconsin law, thus affecting the outcome of the Presidential election.
Crime 2 - A Conspiracy Group Solicited Illegal Advice to States that Accepted Election Infrastructure Funds From U.S. Congress And Therefore Caused State Election Officials To Violate 18 U.S. Code § 595
In addition to Wisconsin, Time Magazine reported in February of 2021 that businesses colluded to get "states to change voting systems and laws." [6] The basis for the report's conclusions is "based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum." [6]
This matters because this conspiracy group lobbied Congress to provide "$400 million in grants to state election administrators." [6] What this means is that any state official that received this election infrastructure spending cannot use "his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination of the election," [1] according to 18 U.S. Code 595.
Time Magazine reports that the conspiracy group, after obtaining Congressional funds to overhaul "America’s balky election infrastructure," [6] which boiled down to the needing of money, then proceeded to give "secretaries of state from both parties technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes." [6]
This ultimately resulted in the changing of state election procedures that violated State laws and constitutions, thus illegally affecting the outcome of the election in at least 4 states. [7] These 4 states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Collectively, these states contained 4,935,487, [8] 5,453,892, [9] 6,838,186 [10], 3,241,050 [11] ballots respectively. Combined, these states' ballots resulted in 20,468,615 ballots, which is significantly greater than President Biden's vote margin of 7,060,401 ballots. [12]
As it currently stands, more ballots have been affected by illegal election activities than Biden's margin of victory, which means the 2020 election should be decertified.
Crime 4 - Aliens Illegally Cast Votes In The 2020 Election, Violating 18 U.S. Code § 611
18 U.S. Code § 611 states:
"It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner..." [13]
From 2015-2020, California handed out more than 1 million drivers licenses to aliens. [14] In the state of California, anyone with a drivers license is registered to vote. [16]
Therefore, California has willingly violated both 18 U.S. Code § 611 and also 18 U.S. Code 595 for interfering with the U.S. election through illegally allowing aliens to vote in Presidential Elections. [15] [16] California has also illegally violated state constitution Article 2 Sections 2 and 2.5 by counting illegal ballots as official ballots:
"A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted." [17] [18]
Therefore, California's electoral college votes were affected by government-sponsored actions that affected the 2020 election, thus calling into question the validity of the 2020 election in California due to a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 595 and 18 U.S. Code § 611.
In addition to California, 11 other states and the District of Columbia had the same such illegal policies in place before the 2020 election, which is in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 611. Therefore 12 states also violated 18 U.S. Code § 595 by affecting the U.S. Election through directly violating U.S. federal voting laws banning aliens from casting votes in federal elections. [19]
This means that roughly 1 out of every 5 U.S. States that were reporting ballots in the 2020 election committed illegal election activities.
CONCLUSION:
Multiple state and Federal laws were broken during the 2020 election affecting more votes than Biden's margin of victory in 2020. Therefore, the 2020 election should be decertified due to illegal election activities affecting more ballots than President Joseph R. Biden's margin of victory.
SOURCES:
[14] https://nypost.com/2018/04/05/california-gave-drivers-licenses-to-1-million-illegal-immigrants/
[15] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2021/code-elec/division-2/chapter-1/article-1/section-2000/
Con
#2
Thx, Public-Choice!
The USFG should DECERTIFY the 2020 ELECTION
CON1:
P1A: ARTICLE II, Section1 of the US Constitution exclusively empowers the States to certify a presidential election by electoral majorityP1B: The USFG may only count electoral votes and may not override an electoral majority certified by the StatesC1: Therefore, the USFG may never DECERTIFY any presidential ELECTION
- Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
P1B: 12th Amendment:
- The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed
- This amendment makes some provision for Congressional intervention if no majority is achieved but gives Congress no power to override or modify an election certified by the majority.
CON2:
P1A: The 10th Amendment prohibits the USFG from assuming any new power not delegated by the US ConstitutionP2B: The US Constitution does not grant the USFG the power to DECERTIFY any ELECTIONC1: Therefore the USFG may never DECERTIFY any ELECTION
P2A: 10th Amendment:
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
P2B: Since Congress has no power to certify, an inference of power to decertify must be dismissed.
- Since DECERTIFICATION of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by the USFG is entirely illegal, PRO's proposition must fail
COUNTERARGUMENT:
- Crime 1:
Wisconsin election officials violated 18 U.S. Code 595 by making a change in the counting procedures that violated Wisconsin law
- No change was made to the counting procedure.
- PRO is relying on (but fails to cite) Chapter 6, section 6.87 subsection 6d of the Wisconsin State Statutes which states:
- If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.
- But of the 1022 certificates PRO claims should be disqualified, 799 [78%] are only missing a zip code in the "Address of witness" line under the witness signature.
- Only one line is provided on a notably narrow document
- The line only asks for the witness' address
- Neither the law nor the certificate specify whether "street address" or "postal address" is intended
- Some witnesses naturally interpreted 1 line to mean "street address only"
- Other witnesses obviously just ran out of writing room and left the zip code off as non-essential in a non-postal context.
- Since October 2016, Wisconsin Election Commission guidance regarding the Witness address has been to treat any address with a street name, number, and municipality as complete.
- Municipal clerks closely adhered to WEC guidance and did not exclude ballots for missing the witnesses' zip code.
- Furthermore, Chapter 5, section 1 of those same Wisconsin statutes clearly states:
- Except as otherwise provided, chs. 5 to 12 shall be construed to give effect to the will of the electors, if that can be ascertained from the proceedings, notwithstanding informality or failure to fully comply with some of their provisions.
- Let's emphasize this is the witness' address: PRO wants to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters based on the minor oversights of a third party.
- Contrary to PRO's assertion, clerks simply followed WEC guidance regarding complete address and counted ballots in accordance with their mandate to respect the will of voters in spite minor non-compliances.
- The fault lies entirely with the State Legislature's failure to specify what components are essential to any witnesses address and failing to provide sufficient space on the certificate for all that information to be included.
- If we follow Wisconsin law and effect the evident will of voters who's only flaw was missing a witness' zip code on a document from the ballot, the percentage of ballots that PRO might call "illegal " drops from 6.9% to 1.5% (or 223 out of 14,710 sampled ballots)
- PRO 's estimated impact ignored auditors' warning that "we cannot reasonably expect that the results of our review are representative of certificates in municipalities statewide" and drew an unsupportable conclusion in spite of that warning
- Still if we reduce PRO's unwarranted estimate by the 87% of ballots that he calls illegal only for missing a witness zip code, his estimate is reduced to 3,289-5,681, far below the margin of doubt.
- Furthermore, 43% of mail-in ballots were returned by registered Republicans vs. 35% registered Democrats.
- Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that any large exclusion of absentee votes would improve Biden's margin of victory, not Trump's.
- In any case, 3 U.S. Code § 5 requires that States resolve any such objections no later than the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, when electors meet to certify each State's results
- The findings of Wisconsin's October 2021 can have no possible legal impact on the results of the completed 2020 election
- PRO's claim that minor oversights by witnesses to absentee voting represents some kind of State or Federal crime is entirely unjustified by the facts.
- VOTERS are asked to notice that PRO's accusation here has violated Rule#3: "Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this wikipedia article, as an argument is banned" by employment of FALSE ACCUSATION, EXAGGERATION, CHERRY PICKING, and BIG LIE techniques.
- Crime 2
- As evidence of a crime, PRO only relies on TIME magazine, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, which describes the "crime" thus:
- For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.
- TIME's reporting makes no suggestion of a crime, instead lauding the determined coalition of labor and business, right and left to make sure that neither COVID nor Trump ended Democracy in America.
- Hitchens Razor reminds us "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
- PRO's claim of crime is here dismissed without evidence.
- VOTERS are asked to notice that PRO has violated his own RULE#1 prohibiting logical fallacies.
- PRO's entire argument is NON-SEQUITUR
XP1A: A bipartisan coalition of pro-democracy forces advised, promoted, and funded changes to election laws and proceduresXP1B: The other guy won the electionXC1: Therefore, the bipartisan coalition must represent a conspiracy and every change they supported must be criminal.
- BEGGING the QUESTION: The election was illegal because election law changes illegally affected the outcome
- FAULTY GENERALIZATION: Because states made changes to the election, those changes reversed the course of the election
- POST HOC EGO PROPTER HOC: Because changes were made, those change caused Trump to lose
- Many more fallacies and many of these conjoin with traditional PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES.
- Just because PRO calls a coalition a conspiracy doesn't mean that coalition has ill intent or is anti-Trump or illegally tampered with election law. PRO suggests all these without bothering to document any crime.
Collectively, these states contained 4,935,487, 5,453,892, 6,838,186 , 3,241,050 ballots respectively. Combined, these states' ballots resulted in 20,468,615 ballots, which is significantly greater than President Biden's vote margin of 7,060,401 ballots
- PRO fallaciously assumes that if there had been no bipartisan coalition, every voter in 4 states would have voted for Trump.
Crime 4
- Another clear cut example of PROPOGANDA TECHNIQUE by formal and informal fallacy.
XP1A: aliens may legally obtain a California driver's licenseXP2B: CA is sending out mail-in ballot to driver's license holdersXC2: Therefore, CA interfered with the U.S. election through illegally allowing aliens to vote in Presidential Elections.
- HASTY GENERALIZATION by assuming that "anyone with a drivers license is registered to vote" just because CA used Driver's license info to issue mail-in ballots.
- ARTICLE II, SEC 2 of the California Constitution:
- A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.
- By law, CA requires driver's license applicants to show proof of US citizenship before they are registered to vote
- This BIG LIE propaganda techniques is frequently, false repeated by Trump. This is also an APPEAL to PREJUDICE and FEAR of illegal immigrants. After all, legal immigrants and felons are also not permitted to vote but PRO makes no mention of those less emotionally loaded groups.
- A Brennan Center report could not document a single instance of non-citizen voting in CA in 2016.
- A Heritage Center database of 2020 voting fraud reported no cases of non-citizen voting in 2020
- All of PRO's claims stand disproved on the facts
- VOTERS will note that PRO's excessive rulemaking violates the RULE#4 ban on Compliance gaining.
- PRO repeatedly violates RULES #1 and #3 in his 2nd and 3rd argument
- Invoking RULE #8, CON looks forward to PRO immediate forfeiture in ROUND 2.
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 2
Pro
#3
CON1:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: RED HERRING
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.
The stance CON must take is not IF the election is decertifiable based on the U.S. Constitution, but that "there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
A Red Herring, as defined in accordance with Rule 2 of the Debate Rules:
Red Herring - introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic. [1]
As stated in the Debate Description, CON must only contain his arguments to:
there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.
THEREFORE, CON1 VIOLATES RULE 1 OF THE DEBATE.
* * *
CON2:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: RED HERRING
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.
The stance CON must take is not if Congress can decertify the election based on the 10th Amendment, but that "there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
Red Herring, as defined in accordance with Rule 2 of the Debate Rules:
Red Herring - introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic. [1]
As stated in the Debate Description, CON must only contain his arguments to:
there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.
THEREFORE, CON2 VIOLATES RULE 1 OF THE DEBATE.
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT 1:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: VIOLATION OF RULE 1: STRAW MAN
No change was made to the counting procedure.
FACT CHECK: FALSE
Chapter 6, Section 6.87, Subsection 9 states:
If a municipal clerk receives an absentee ballot with an improperly completed certificate or with no certificate, the clerk may return the ballot to the elector, inside the sealed envelope when an envelope is received, together with a new envelope if necessary, whenever time permits the elector to correct the defect and return the ballot within the period authorized under sub. (6). [2]
Chapter 6, Section 6.87, Subsection 6 states:
The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. Except in municipalities where absentee ballots are canvassed under s. 7.52, if the municipal clerk receives an absentee ballot on election day, the clerk shall secure the ballot and cause the ballot to be delivered to the polling place serving the elector's residence before 8 p.m. Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted. [2]
An incomplete address constitutes an improperly completed certificate, which violates section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The clerks were legally required to either completely disregard the ballot or mail it back to the absentee voter. Both of which were NOT done by the Wisconsin Clerks. WEC makes this plain when they write that they CHANGED THE PROCEDURE:
In October 2020, WEC’s staff updated this guidance to indicate that clerks should attempt to resolve any missing witness address information before Election Day, and this can be done by using reliable information, such as personal knowledge, voter registration information, or a telephone call with a voter or witness. [3]
So, instead of adhering to the clearly delineated procedures for an incomplete ballot, the WEC told clerks to correct the information themselves. CON also misconstrues the definition of effect hen he uses the Wisconsin Constitution to defend clerks breaking the constitution:
- Furthermore, Chapter 5, section 1 of those same Wisconsin statutes clearly states:
- Except as otherwise provided, chs. 5 to 12 shall be construed to give effect to the will of the electors, if that can be ascertained from the proceedings, notwithstanding informality or failure to fully comply with some of their provisions.
The definition of "effect" means, according to The Law dictionary:
The result which an instrument between parties will produce In their relative rights, or which a statute will produce .upon [sic] the existing law, as discovered from the language used, the forms employed, or other materials for construing it. [4]
So Chapter 5 Section 1 is stating that chapters 5-12 will tell the clerks how to do their jobs.
CON MAKES STRAW MAN CLAIMS ABOUT PRO'S STANCES:
CLAIM 1:
- Let's emphasize this is the witness' address: PRO wants to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters based on the minor oversights of a third party.
FACT CHECK: FALSE
I stated:
So, by definition, Wisconsin election officials violated 18 U.S. Code 595 by making a change in the counting procedures that violated Wisconsin law, thus affecting the outcome of the Presidential election.
PRO stated that election clerks committed illegal election activities. PRO did not "want to disenfranchise thousands of voters." PRO argues Wisconsin election officials changed a procedure, the procedure used violates Wisconsin Law. Therefore, 18 U.S. Code § 595 was violated. PRO is repeating publicly-documented information and citing the requisite laws that apply.
CLAIM 2:
- PRO 's estimated impact ignored auditors' warning that "we cannot reasonably expect that the results of our review are representative of certificates in municipalities statewide" and drew an unsupportable conclusion in spite of that warning
FACT CHECK: FALSE
I stated:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission authors claim the randomized sample is not necessarily representative of statewide ballot practices because they only received ballots from a portion of the state. However, in Appendix 4, they used scientifically-validated statistical analysis methods to create a low and high range that they claim with 95% certainty is the number of illegal ballots cast during the 2020 election.
I did not ignore the auditor's warnings. I clearly stated them. However, CON has ignored what the WEC stated in their own report about Appendix 4, which I made note of:
Based on statistical approximation, we are 95.0 percent confident that the total number of certificates with a given issue in a municipality is between these low and high estimates. If the certificates we reviewed did not indicate that a given issue occurred in a given municipality, we do not provide estimates for that municipality.
PRO did not ignore the WEC's caveat. Instead, PRO took the WEC's estimates in the proper context they were used in, as a low and high estimate with 95% certainty.
Therefore, PRO's argument stands due to CON repeatedly misrepresenting PRO's arguments and showing blatant disregard for the methodology of the WEC's findings.
CLAIM 3:
- VOTERS are asked to notice that PRO's accusation here has violated Rule#3: "Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this wikipedia article, as an argument is banned" by employment of FALSE ACCUSATION, EXAGGERATION, CHERRY PICKING, and BIG LIE techniques.
FACT CHECK: FALSE
I stated:
Wisconsin election officials violated 18 U.S. Code 595 by making a change in the counting procedures that violated Wisconsin law, thus affecting the outcome of the Presidential election.
As proven by the Wisconsin Constitution and the definitions I previously gave in accordance with Rule 6 of the debate, it is apparent the WEC gave guidance that violated State Law, thus constituting illegal election activity under 18 U.S. Code § 595.
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT 2:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: VIOLATION OF RULES 7 AND 1
Infracting Statements:
- Hitchens Razor reminds us "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
- PRO's claim of crime is here dismissed without evidence.
FACT CHECK: VIOLATES RULE 7 WITH A DISALLOWED RULE OF EVIDENCE
Rule 7 states:
For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be allowed or rejected based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, available here:
TIME MAGAZINE IS ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO FEDERAL RULE 401:
Evidence is relevant if:(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
The Time Magazine article makes a fact more probable than without the evidence. It also is of consequence to proving illegal election activities under 18 U.S. Code § 595. CON once again stated a STRAWMAN. I did not claim the conspiracy group did anything illegal. I claimed the state officials, not conspirators, who implemented the advice did something illegal:
What this means is that any state official that received this election infrastructure spending cannot use "his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination of the election," [1] according to 18 U.S. Code 595.
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT 4:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: VIOLATION OF RULE 1: SPECIAL PLEADING, PROOF BY ASSERTION
CON ignores the California Government's own statements which I repeated. California's government also has openly admitted in the past of adding tens of thousands of voters who were not qualified to vote. [5]
CON asserts without evidence PRO violated Rule 4. The Burden of Proof is on CON
CON repeatedly violated rule 1 by committing Proof By Assertion:
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction
CON repeatedly stated I have no facts. This violated Proof by Assertion.
PRO Invokes Rule 8; awaits CON's forfeiture.
SOURCES in comments.
Con
#4
Thx, Public-Choice!
The USFG should DECERTIFY the 2020 ELECTION
CON1 and CON2:
P1A: ARTICLE II, Section1 of the US Constitution exclusively empowers the States to certify a presidential election by electoral majority
P1B: The USFG may only count electoral votes and may not override an electoral majority certified by the States
C1: Therefore, the USFG may never DECERTIFY any presidential ELECTION
P2A: The 10th Amendment prohibits the USFG from assuming any new power not delegated by the US Constitution
P2B: The US Constitution does not grant the USFG the power to DECERTIFY any ELECTION
C2: Therefore the USFG may never DECERTIFY any ELECTION
As stated in the Debate Description, CON must only contain his arguments to:
- That's absolute bullshit. CON was required to argue "there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
- CON successfully demonstrated that not one of PRO's claims of "illegal" ballots has any legal standing, satisfying the debate's description.
- Now, PRO claims post facto that CON must CONTAIN his argument to ONLY this one point. Ridiculous.
- VOTERS are asked to review the debate description and confirm that the rules never state that CON must ONLY argue this single point or CONTAIN my argument to this single point.
- PRO said "must argue" insufficiency and CON successfully proved insufficiency.
- No reasonable instigator would seek to define the contender's argument for them.
- No reasonable contender would accept such constriction.
- VIOLATION of RULE #4: Compliance Gaining by DECEIT: trying to gain their compliance by lying to or deceiving them
- PRO fails to understand how a RED HERRING fallacy works. By definition a "red herring fallacy" must be irrelevant to thesis.
- No other argument could be more relevant to thesis than the fact PRO's plan is against the law.
- PRO's can't insist that counting witness certificates with no zip code is a crime (Literally, "Crime 1") but then ignore the fact that his correction is entirely unconstitutional. Pro's claim is bullshit but even if it weren't trying to remedy a minor violation by tearing down the pillars of Constitutional Law.
- VOTERS will note that PRO does not deny that his plan is illegal, so let's say it again:
- Since DECERTIFICATION of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by the USFG is entirely illegal, PRO's proposition must fail
COUNTERARGUMENT:
- Crime 1:
An incomplete address constitutes an improperly completed certificate, which violates section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The clerks were legally required to either completely disregard the ballot or mail it back to the absentee voter.
- PRO drops CON's central arguments:
- Wisconsin Statute s.6.87 (6d) ONLY states that "a ballotshall not be counted if its accompanying certificatedoes not have a witness address"
- Since 2016, WEC's definition of a COMPLETE WITNESS ADDRESS is "must include at least a street name and number as well as amunicipality."
- That is, in the 2016, 2017,2018, and 2019 elections clerks, always counted an address missing a zip code and/or state as a COMPLETE WITNESS ADDRESS.
- Clerks employed the same counting procedure in 2020 but only in 2020 have Republicans ever claimed that missing a zip or state should not be counted.
- Nothing in the State statute contradicts WEC's definition.
- Nor was counting these ballots challenged during the recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties.
- Therefore, it is PRO who is demanding that clerks use a different procedure from prior years. Counting the ballots with such certifications was (and remains) the status quo.
- Therefore it is highly relevant to point out that nearly 80% (799 our 1022) of the votes PRO wishes to throw out are only votes missing zip codes on the witness certification (not the actual ballot) that were counted as correct in the previous four elections, while 35% of the votes of the votes PRO wishes to throw out are missing states on the witness certification (not the actual ballot).
- All such issues must be resolved before the State's certification in mid-December. No objections were made regarding witness certifications until after the WEC's report in October 2021. Therefore, PRO's plan would be a violation of Federal law: 3 U.S. Code § 5
- Since Trump won the mail-in ballot vote in WI by 8 points, any such disenfranchisement would likely favor Biden, not Trump.
PRO did not "want to disenfranchise thousands of voters."
- PRO must argue: "there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election"
- If PRO is NOT arguing that ballots with certifications where the witness signed and gave address but left off the zip code is criminal neglect, then we are only questioning a very small number of ballots and this whole argument fails to forward PRO's thesis.
I did not ignore the auditor's warnings. I clearly stated them. PRO took the WEC's estimates in the proper context they were used in, as a low and high estimate with 95% certainty.
- That is, PRO took an unrepresentative sampling with 95% accuracy and used that unrepresentative sampling to estimate the statewide impact with 0% accuracy, according to the auditor's warning that this data was not a representative sampling.
- VOTER should note that using data as representative result of a process when the source specifically declares ""we cannot reasonably expect that the results of our review are representative of certificates in municipalities statewide" is a direct violation of Federal Rules of Evidence: RULE 901: "To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. (9) Evidence About a Process or System must include Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.
- Since the WEC says quite specifically that their estimates may not be used to accurately calculate statewide results, PRO may not ignore WEC testimony and make his own estimate anyway.
- Any Fed court would trash any statistic made from data declared invalid by the relevant statistician.
- Crime 2
For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be allowed or rejected based on the Federal Rules of Evidence,
- In Federal Rules of Evidence, Hitchen's razor is known by the Latin term, Ipse Dixit
- Ipse dixit means a person’s own assertion without relying on any authority or proof. It usually implies an assertion of authority, as in a statement is true based on the speaker’s authority and nothing else. In legal context the term is usually used to criticize arguments based solely upon authority and not backed by any proof.
- Whether we call it Hitchens's Razor or Ipse DIxit, VOTERS should note that PRO claims:
"The Time Magazine article makes a fact more probable than without the evidence
- But the only crimes even vaguely mentioned in the article are Trump's frauds and Trump's corruption.
It also is of consequence to proving illegal election activities under 18 U.S. Code § 595.
- What proof?
- "PRO must argue there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.
- But Time does not fault a single election ballot in any State.
- PRO's argument remains NON-SEQUITUR
- How can we infer any specific crime from PRO's ultra-vague speculation?
- PRO's does not refute:
- PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES.
- POST HOC EGO PROPTER HOC: Because changes were made, those change caused Trump to lose.
- BEGGING the QUESTION: There was crime because some States did something illegal. What something?
- FAULTY GENERALIZATION: Because something non-specific but Illegal happened, 7,060,401 ballots must be struck as illegal. But that's EVERY voter in 4 states....surely some of them must have voted for Trump?
- Without a single specific claim, this argument must fail as extremely unlikely speculation
- PRO must further explain whether there were any court challenges and what were the relevant court findings or
- If there were no challenges and the states certified the election, how PRO justifies breaking Federal law now in the service of Trump's interest?
Crime 4
CON ignores the California Government's own statements which I repeated. California's government also has openly admitted in the past of adding tens of thousands of voters who were not qualified to vote
- Well that's what is meant by PROPOGANDA TECHNIQUE.
- HASTY GENERALIZATION: It does not follow that because non-citizens have driver's licenses, they must illegally vote.
- By law, CA requires driver's license applicants to show proof of US citizenship before they are registered to vote.
- PRO has failed to document one single illegal vote in the State of California
- PRO dropped CON's complaints of multiple informal fallacies:
- BIG LIE repetition of a falsehood does not make it more true
- APPEAL to PREJUDICE and FEAR of illegal immigrants.
- PRO dropped CON's evidence, ever citing conservative sources.
- A Brennan Center report could not document a single instance of non-citizen voting in CA in 2016.
- A Heritage Center database of 2020 voting fraud reported no cases of non-citizen voting in 2020
The Burden of Proof is on CON
- I have given proof that there were insufficient non-citizen votes in California to change the election's outcome
- Not only do all of PRO's claims remain disproved but PRO demonstrates a surprising unwillingness to get serious about any factual claims.
- CON further objects to PRO's use of the New York Post as a factually questionable source of good reporting.
- VOTERS will note that PRO's refuses to forfeit in spite of flagrant violations of RULES# 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8.
- CON expects PRO to abide by his own excessive rulemaking and forfeit
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 3
Pro
#5
CON1 and CON2:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: RULE 8: REPEATED VIOLATION OF DEBATE RULES
The debate stances are specific. CON "must" argue one thing. And PRO "must" argue another. Introducing other arguments are not adhering to the debate rules because they qualify red herrings according to the definition I previously cited. CON introduced two new arguments that draw attention away from the original argument.
Therefore, they were RED HERRING arguments [1] and are banned under Rule 1.
VIOLATION OF RULE 6: ILLEGAL DEFINITIONS
Voters will also note CON has violated rule 6 by citing other Wikipedia pages as definitions of the logical fallacies as opposed to the specific Wikipedia webpage as stated in the rules.
PRO shall also remind voters that CON has engaged in ANOTHER Straw Man.
CON is wrongly arguing PRO states Trump won the 2020 election. PRO ask voters to search previous statements and you will find no such argument. PRO actually stated:
I will prove the 2020 election should be decertified because illegal election activities affected more votes than Biden's margin of victory.
This statement does NOT say President Trump won the election. In fact, PRO has not even stated President Trump's name at all until this current response. CON, therefore, is engaging in another Straw Man. [1]
Additionally, decerifying an election would inherently mean no winner is declared, as the election is not certified anymore. So CON's own statement is self-refuting, thus defaulting to PRO.
STRAW MAN 2: PRO did NOT "claim" CON must argue insufficiency. The debate rules mandate it.
CON inaccurately states:
PRO said "must argue" insufficiency and CON successfully proved insufficiency.No reasonable instigator would seek to define the contender's argument for them.No reasonable contender would accept such constriction.
This is what PRO stated:
The stance CON must take is not IF the election is decertifiable based on the U.S. Constitution, but that "there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
PRO ONLY REMINDED CON OF THE STANCES OUTLINED IN THE RULES THAT CON AND PRO AGREED TO TAKE.
CON has now stated he does not intend to keep his stance to the one outlined in the rules, which means CON must default due to RULE 8.
CON WRONGLY ASSERTS HIS RED HERRING ARGUMENTS ARE TRUE:
VOTERS will note that PRO does not deny that his plan is illegal,
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has stopped recounts and settled election disputes before. Most notable is Bush v. Gore, where SCOTUS halted a recount in Florida.
In the majority opinion:
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront. [2]
SCOTUS is part of the USFG according to the U.S. Constitution in article 3 Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court [3]
Additionally, the Supreme Court is tasked with all judicial power in law and equity arising under the Constitution, according to Article 3 Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [3]
This means that, if Donald Trump or Joseph Biden sued the United States Senate, or any state, for certifying an election or electoral votes with illegal election activities, then the Supreme Court could decertify the election by sole power of their branch according to Bush v. Gore and other pertinent rulings.
THEREFORE: THE SUPREME COURT PROVES THAT CON IS WRONG.
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT ONE:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: STRAW MAN
CON claims:
Clerks employed the same counting procedure in 2020 but only in 2020 have Republicans ever claimed that missing a zip or state should not be counted.
This is not what the WEC, or PRO stated.
WEC states in their report:
These ballots were rejected for a variety of reasons, including because the certificates were incomplete, the ballots were returned after Election Day, the individuals who cast the ballots died before Election Day, or individuals voted in person at polling places on Election Day after having returned absentee ballots. [4]
So CON is wrong that all ballots were rejected based on zip codes. WEC, and PRO, never stated this.
What PRO stated was:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission ... found in their audit of the 2020 Election in Wisconsin that roughly 6.9% of certificates out of a randomized sample of 14,710 absentee ballots contained information that disqualified these ballots from being counted in the election [2, pp.42-43].
On page 43, WEC states:
Our review of the 14,710 certificates found evidence that municipal clerks had corrected witness addresses on 66 certificates (0.4 percent). This evidence included clerk initials or pen marks in the ink colors that clerks had indicated were used to make corrections. [4]
Nowhere in this section does the WEC claim the address changes were just zip codes. CON has, yet again, asserted a patently false statement.
The Wisconsin Constitution, which both PRO and CON agree is relevant to crime 1, states that clerks must return the ballot to the voter if the certificate has wrong information on it:
If a municipal clerk receives an absentee ballot with an improperly completed certificate or with no certificate, the clerk may return the ballot to the elector, inside the sealed envelope when an envelope is received, together with a new envelope if necessary, whenever time permits the elector to correct the defect and return the ballot within the period authorized under sub. (6). [5]
There is nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution that tells clerks to change address information themselves. Therefore, the clerks violated Wisconsin Law by failing to return the ballots to the voters for correction. That means that Wisconsin Clerks violated 18 U.S. Code § 595.
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT 2:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF RULES 6 AND 1
CON claims:
In Federal Rules of Evidence, Hitchen's razor is known by the Latin term, Ipse Dixit
CON did not cite where in the Federal Rules of Evidence his so-called "Hitchen's Razor" is listed.
CON also went to an unapproved source for his definition of "Ipse Dixit." The WEX is not an approved source for legal definitions in this debate, according to the debate rules. Thus violating rule 6.
Voters should take note that CON has repeatedly violated Rule 6 and has still not forfeited.
CON wrongly claims:
the only crimes even vaguely mentioned in the article are Trump's frauds and Trump's corruption.
FACT CHECK: FALSE
The Time magazine article stated the following:
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. [6]
Furthermore, Time Magazine stated:
They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. [6]
PRO stated:
Crime 2 - A Conspiracy Group Solicited Illegal Advice to States that Accepted Election Infrastructure Funds From U.S. Congress And Therefore Caused State Election Officials To Violate 18 U.S. Code § 595
The Time Magazine article calls them a conspiracy group, says they got election infrastructure funds from Congress to the states. who accepted it, and proceeded to tell the states how to change their election administration, which caused state election officials to violate 18 U.S. Code § 595.
So CON, not PRO, has blatantly STRAW MANNED the Time Magazine article.
CON MAKES A NEW STRAW MAN POSITION:
CON states:
- "PRO must argue there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election.
- But Time does not fault a single election ballot in any State.
PRO must not prove that Time Magazine faulted any election ballots in any state. PRO stated that Time Magazine reported on a conspiracy group that caused state election officials to affect the outcome of the 2020 election. The Time Magazine article blatantly stated this information.
According to CON's admission above, PRO simply "must argue there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
Affect means:
To act upon; influence; change; enlarge or abridge [7]
These ballots were affected by illegal election activities, according to the agreed upon definition. Therefore PRO has argued "there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election." The Time Magazine article is EVIDENCE of this, not an indictment of it. All indictments are evidence but all evidence is not indictments. To think otherwise is Affirming the Consequent:
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. [1]
* * *
COUNTERARGUMENT 4:
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: VIOLATIONS OF RULES 6 AND 1
CON WRONGLY asserts:
- PRO dropped CON's complaints of multiple informal fallacies:
- BIG LIE repetition of a falsehood does not make it more true
- APPEAL to PREJUDICE and FEAR of illegal immigrants.
- PRO dropped CON's evidence, ever citing conservative sources.
CON has not, and never will, cite one instance where PRO engaged in either appeal to prejudice or appeal to fear. This is because PRO did not do either. Until CON can prove I prejudiced against illegal immigrants, his claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.
Prejudice means:
To decide beforehand; to lean in favor of one side of a cause for some reason or other than its justice. [8]
Fear means:
Dread, consciousness of approaching danger. [9]
PRO cited source material that showed Illegal aliens were registered to vote. PRO never engaged in prejudice or fear.
PRO stated:
Therefore, California's electoral college votes were affected by government-sponsored actions that affected the 2020 election, thus calling into question the validity of the 2020 election in California due to a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 595 and 18 U.S. Code § 611.
PRO need only prove illegal election activities affecting the outcome of the 2020 election. California passed election laws that directly violated Federal and State law, therefore California affected the 2020 election.
CON is engaging in SPECIAL PLEADING:
CON is repeatedly ignoring PRO's sources and demanding PRO, and voters, only look at his own. One instance:
- CON further objects to PRO's use of the New York Post as a factually questionable source of good reporting.
In addition to dismissing a source and asking for special recognition for his source, CON is also engaging in the GENETIC FALLACY. [1]
The New York Post article links to:
- A direct quote of the California Department of Transportation
- Drive California
- The National Conference Of State Legislatures
These are credible sources of information which satisfies burden of proof.
CON is engaging in CHERRY-PICKING:
CON cited two sources that are not audits of the California election and are not comprehensive datasets. The sources, therefore, are cherry-picked data according to the definition of cherry-picking. [1]
* * *
RESOLVED:
CON must forfeit due to repeatedly engaging in rule breaking.
CON has failed to debunk a single claim PRO has made due to endless STRAW MAN statements.
SOURCES in comments.
Con
#6
Thx, Public-Choice
The USFG should DECERTIFY the 2020 ELECTION
CON1/CON2:
The debate stances are specific. CON "must" argue one thing. And PRO "must" argue another.
- PRO was required to "argue there was a sufficient number of BALLOTS affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election"
- So far, PRO has not presented evidence for even a single illegal BALLOT.
- PRO has not claimed that even one vote was cast illegally in Wisconsin. Just that some honest BALLOTS should be ignored for incomplete witness forms, 78% are just missing zip code.
- PRO has not claimed that even one vote was cast illegally in Georgia, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Just that every honest BALLOT in those states should be ignored because TIME magazine used the word "conspiracy" to describe good faith efforts TIME also describes as working "to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President."
- PRO did claim in Round 1 that non-citizens voted illegally in 11 states in 2020 but when asked to show evidence in Round 2, PRO shifted his story to tens of thousands of illegal votes in California, citing an article for proof that only estimates that up to 1500 non-citizens were incorrectly registered and the mistake corrected and does not claim even one illegal BALLOT was cast.
- PRO has failed to document even one non-citizen vote in 2020.
- That is, PRO has shifted far away from his mandate to show sufficient BALLOTS, instead offering two very non-specific theories that fail to necessitate even a single illegal BALLOT.
- By contrast, CON has met his requirement to "argue there was not a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
- CON has pointed out that any ballots not challenged by the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December become irrelevant to the election process, since that is the day that electoral votes are cast and states certify those electoral votes. Even if PRO could show evidence that millions of Trump votes were crossed out and Biden's names written in lipstick across the top of each ballot, that ceased to be a LEGAL or CONSITUTIONAL argument on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December and even in the wildest hypothetical, those millions would NOT be "a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
- There is NO number that would be a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election after the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December because all ballots not successfully challenged by that date are official and unchallengeable thereafter
- There is NO number that would be a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election because decertification itself is not a legal or constitutional process
- PRO desperately wants to suppress these arguments because they sink his thesis but the fact that decertification is unconstitutional speaks directly to the questions of sufficiency and illegality that PRO assigned to CON.
- PRO absurdly asks VOTERS to interpret "must argue" to mean "must only argue," but no definition of MUST implies exclusivity.
- A driver MUST stop at a stop sign by law but that does not imply that the driver MUST ONLY stop and never drive forward.
CON is wrongly arguing PRO states Trump won the 2020 election. PRO ask voters to search previous statements and you will find no such argument.
- Nor will you find the statement PRO accuses CON of making. Nevertheless, only a Trump victory satisfies PRO's requirement to prove "sufficient to deny Biden." If PRO fails to argue that those votes would not have given the election to Trump, then what is the value or purpose of decertification? If PRO is arguing that some other candidate than Trump had a legitimate shot at the presidency, then he is going to have to show evidence of tens of millions of votes for Biden that would have gone third party
- As stated before, DECERTIFICATION of a presidential election is not a term defined by law. Rather, its use in the context of the 2020 election is grounded in Trump's instruction: "On January 2, 2021, Trump, Giuliani, Eastman and others held a conference call with 300 legislators of key states to provide them purported evidence of election fraud to justify calling special sessions of their legislatures in an attempt to decertify their electors."
- DECERTIFICATION in this context is an inherent claim of Trump victory
... if Donald Trump or Joseph Biden sued the United States Senate, or any state, for certifying an election or electoral votes with illegal election activities, then the Supreme Court could decertify the election by sole power of their branch according to Bush v. Gore and other pertinent rulings.
- In fact,
- "Trump's legal team sought a path to bring a case before the Supreme Court, but none of the 63 lawsuits they filed were successful. They especially pinned their hopes on Texas v. Pennsylvania, but on December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case"
- PRO cites Gore v. Bush as evidence that SCOTUS can overturn a State's constitutionally enforced certification but fails to comprehend that SCOTUS found in that very decision that neither SCOTUS nor the Supreme Court of Florida had the power to halt or even delay Florida's certification deadline of Dec 12, citing 3 U.S. Code § 5. SCOTUS acknowledged that inconsistent standards had denied some individual voters enfranchisement but the court could not override the State's absolute power to certify. If SCOTUS in fact had any power to DECERTIFY, then the power to delay certification would be implied but SCOTUS found no such power in the Constitution.
- No place in the Constitution gives the Judicial Branch any power to remove the Chief Executive in any circumstance. That power is reserved to the Legislative Branch and is called Impeachment.
decerifying an election would inherently mean no winner is declared, as the election is not certified anymore.
- PRO fails to consider the consequences and impacts of his plan.
- Would a decertified election decertify ALL results or just presidential results?
- Would the Presidency follow the line of succession or default back to the last elected President?
- Would PRO have the nation stage a new, unconstitutional election or simply abide until the next election with a non-constitutional Chief Executive?
- PRO's plan is a recipe for national discontent and potential civil war
COUNTERARGUMENT
PRO makes no new arguments and is mostly just repeating his wholly insufficient claims.
CRIME_1:
So CON is wrong that all ballots were rejected based on zip codes. WEC, and PRO, never stated this.
- CON never stated this either.
Nowhere in this section does the WEC claim the address changes were just zip codes. CON has, yet again, asserted a patently false statement
- In Round 1, CON claimed 78% were zip codes
- Page 42: "Our review of the 14,710 certificates found that:
- 1,022 certificates (6.9 percent) …had partial witness addresses because they did nothave one or more components of a witness address..., including
- 799 certificates thatdid not have a zip code...
- CON never claim "just zip codes"
- VOTERS will note that PRO accuses CON of falsehood because PRO failed to completely read his own source
- VOTERS should carefully note that PRO now switches his argument to a separate, much less impactful finding: "municipal clerks had corrected witness addresses on 66 certificates"
There is nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution that tells clerks to change address information themselves. Therefore, the clerks violated Wisconsin Law by failing to return the ballots to the voters for correction.
- As the WEC explains,
- Section 5.01 (1), Wis. Stats., indicates that elections-related requirementsshould be construed to give effect to the will of electors, even whenfull compliance with some statutory provisions does not occur
- (PRO has argued without explanation that CON misconstrues the meaning of the word EFFECT but lets recall that WEC's interpretation of that word is what's relevant here)
- Section 6.87, indicates absent connivance, fraud, or undue influence, substantial compliance with statutory voting procedures is sufficient
- WEC advises if an individualis able to correct an improperly completedcertificate and return the ballot in time for it to becounted on Election Day, statutes do nototherwise permit or prohibit clerks from correctingerrors in witness addresses or adding missingwitness address information. Since 2016 the WEC has mandated "clerks must take action to correct errors in the witnessaddresses on certificates"
- If WEC's interpretation had been unconstitutional or illegal, we would expect WI GOP to have sued the WEC. Instead, the GOP tried and failed to clarify the Constitution this term. Therefore, no laws were broken and PRO's only really specific complaint entirely disproved.
CRIME_2:
These ballots were affected by illegal election activities,
- Not a single specific illegal activity has been documented by PRO in any State
- Not one single ballot in any state has been identified as illegally cast
- PRO's entire argument amounts to mere vague assertion without evidence based on Time Magazine's use of the word "conspiracy" to describe laudable community efforts to preserve free and fair elections during a crisis.
CRIME_4:
- Not a single specific illegal activity has been documented by PRO in California
- Not one single ballot in California has been identified as illegally cast
- VOTERS will note that PRO's has failed to forfeit in spite of flagrant violation of RULES# 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8
- CON expects PRO to abide by his own excessive rulemaking and forfeit
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 4
Con
#8
Thx, Public-Choice!
The USFG should DECERTIFY the 2020 ELECTION
CON1/CON2:
- Extend all arguments
COUNTERARGUMENT:
CRIMES_1, 2, and 4:
- Extend all ROUND 3 arguments
REGARDING FORFEITURE:
- CON accepts PRO's forfeit as late compliance with RULE #8
- Disobeying these rules repeatedly results in immediate forfeiture of debate
- Ultimately, PRO's set of RULES was so unreasonable and pervasive that PRO could not fail to violate his own rules even before CON joined the debate.
- For example, RULE #8 by itself is a clear violation of RULE #4 prohibiting COMPLIANCE GAINING.
- PRO's sources describe one method of COMPLIANCE GAINING as:
- Threat: If you do not comply, I will punish you.
- For example, you threaten to forbid Dick to use the car if he doesn't start studying more.
- PRO threatened to demand forfeit if CON didn't follow his extensive list of rules, thereby breaking his own rules against compliance gaining
- That is, PRO's set of RULES were so draconian that the RULES themselves violated the RULES themselves.
- Furthermore, PRO violated his own rule set multiple times in ROUND1, necessitating his forfeiture before CON's argument even comes under consideration.
- For example, accusing Wisconsin ballot counters of committing a crime for faithfully counting honest absentee ballots in spite of minor omissions on the witness form (mostly just leaving off the zip code on a very short address line).
- FALSE ACCUSATION is a propaganda technique forbidden by PRO's rules
- For example, extrapolating that 5,662-27,056 ballots were impacted when the WEC explicitly cautions that the estimates used were entirely unrepresentative of statewide results.
- EXAGGERATION is a propaganda technique forbidden by PRO's rules
- For example, cherry picking and demanding strict enforcement of Chapter 6, section 6.87 subsection 6d " If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted" without paying any attention to
- The overarching rule, Section 6.87, which indicates absent connivance, fraud, or undue influence, substantial compliance with statutory voting procedures is sufficient
- longstanding, overarching instructions in the same statutes to overlook informalities and failures where the voters will can be ascertained
- Unchallenged WEC guidance to ballot counters regarding minor oversights discovered too close to the election to send back for correction.
- CHERRY PICKING overly strict interpretations of one line in a law while overlooking the totality of the law enforced (prohibiting overly strict interpretations) and context and precedent is a PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUE forbidden by PRO's rules
- For example, repeating Trump's big lies regarding election fraud and decertification even while failing to discover any convincing evidence
- Using the BIG LIE is another propaganda technique prohibited by PRO's rules
- For example, appealing to American prejudice and fear of undocumented immigrants by accusing that group of voting illegally when there is no documentation to support that accusation and that group is particularly unlikely to risk exposure by voting.
- Although undocumented immigrants represented a very tiny percentage of the 1500 voters who were improperly automatically registered to vote, with felons and documented immigrants making up the overwhelming majority of these, PRO chose to focus on the tiny, scarier group and misrepresent that as "tens of thousands"
- Using APPEAL to PREJUDICE and FEAR is another propaganda technique prohibited by PRO's rules
- For example, relying on sensationalist sources with a well-established bias for Trump to document election claims.
- Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
- "In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as “Cop cold-cocks unarmed man ‘acting irate’ at restaurant,” and “It’s time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.” The New York Post also republishes news from other sources, such as the least biased Associated Press. More stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly; however, many times, the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
Editorially, The Post has endorsed the Republican Presidential Candidate in every race since 1980. However, in 2016 they did not offer an endorsement for the Presidential election to either candidate.
According to an LA Times article, the New York Post is reported to be U.S. President Donald Trump’s preferred newspaper, which maintains frequent contact with Rupert Murdoch. The Post, According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, was rated the least credible major news outlet in New York. The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch’s ownership for “sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias.” - FAILED FACT CHECKS
- Mostly False: Ted Cruz ‘same senator who once supported a ban on sex toys’ – Mostly False
- Newly Discovered Planet Could Destroy Earth Any Day Now – False
- Hillary Clinton Regularly Had Her Maid Print Classified Documents – Unproven
- PS 169 Pledge of Allegiance and Holiday Ban Controversy – Mostly False
- ‘New York Post’ op-ed rebuts starving children claim that was never made – Pants on Fire
- Hours after signing an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden violated his own mask mandate. – False
- Migrant children being sheltered in Long Beach, California, were each given a copy of Vice President Kamala Harris’ children’s book by the Biden administration. – False
- In just ROUND1, CON documented PRO's reliance on numerous logical fallacies (mostly overlapping with propaganda and/or compliance techniques)
- FALSE ACCUSATION
- EXAGGERATION
- CHERRY PICKING
- BIG LIE
- NON-SEQUITUR
- BEGGING the QUESTION
- FAULTY GENERALIZATION
- POST HOC EGO PROPTER HOC
- PRO only bothered to deny a few of these and refuted none in detail
- So just in the description and first round on this debate, before CON even contributed a word, PRO violated his own long set of rules with sufficient frequency and disregard to merit forfeiture of this debate without any other consideration necessary.
- VOTERS should also note PRO's inconsistency in the application of these rules.
- For example, PRO requires in his rules that we rely on Wikipedia for our list of logical fallacies, but when CON follows that link the Wikipedia page explaining that logical fallacy in detail, PRO object to that link as an illegal source. This demonstrates PRO's bad faith- if Wikipedia is a sufficiently reliable source to list logical fallacies then it follows that Wikipedia is also sufficiently reliable to explain that logical fallacy. PRO demonstrates that he's not seeking to prevent logical fallacies themselves, he's just looking for a list of plausible accusations of fallacy while actively denying good faith efforts to describe why arguments are fallacious.
- For example, PRO objects to CON's reliance on Wikipedia and Cornell Law to define Hitchens's Razor/Ipse Dixit (in the absence of a good definition in PRO's preferred sources) and uses that objection as a rebuttal rather than actually producing the evidence demanded.
- For example, PRO relies on Wisconsin Law and Election rules in his very first argument is spite of making a rule that only US law will determine election standards.
- For example, inaccurately representing Supreme Court decisions as evidence while failing to cite those decisions.
DEBATEART.COM VOTING POLICY
- DebateArt's Code of Conduct offers the following advice regarding excessive rule made only to invalidate good faith arguments or the spirit of debate:
- "Absurd special rules. Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate. Obvious examples include: “no refutations,” “must waive all rounds,” etc. This tactic should never be rewarded. … Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start)."
- A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.
- CON asks VOTERS to consider whether PRO's repeated violations of his own high standard, even before CON ever joined the debate, require PRO to forfeit this debate or else demonstrate his application of a double standard. That is, all of PRO's many, many rules were only designed to trip up his opponent and PRO himself did not ever feel bound by those same rules.
- CON further asks VOTERS to consider whether PRO's overreliance on rules as substitute for providing any real concrete case might not merit a conduct violation.
- If PRO has not already forfeited this debate in compliance with his own RULE#8, CON extends that request for compliance here.
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 5
Pro
#9
Oromagi keeps repeating the same inaccurate facts thinking his Argument from Repetition will somehow make him right. (Let voters note that Argument from Repetition [3] is a banned argument tactic under Rule 1)
I did not forfeit the debate. I work two jobs and last week one of the employees quit while another went on vacation so I had to work extra hours, which caused me to mis-schedule my response and forfeit a single round. I pulled 13 days of straight work, meaning I had very little time to write a response. But, CON has mistakenly taken this to mean, without any evidence, that this meant I am somehow forfeiting the debate.
As commenters have already noticed, CON has failed to forfeit even though he was the first to commit serious infractions, namely not using the proper webpages for definitions, adding new tests of evidence not allowed according to debate rules, and committing blatant Straw Man arguments repeatedly, and he has not forfeited.
* * *
Ok, to get to the meat of the reply:
Claim 1: The prompt states that PRO must present evidence for even a single illegal BALLOT.
Status: REJECTED
Reason: STRAW MAN
The prompt specifically states, as CON stated in round 4, "argue there was a sufficient number of BALLOTS affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
Let the voters notice that I am not required to prove the ballots themselves are all illegal, just that illegal election activities affected a sufficient number of ballots. Between the conspiracy group I referenced that caused states to violate the Federal Laws I cited, which were all used to inflate the votes, and the fact that states took federal money and then proceeded to change how the election was run in violation of state constitutions, it is a blatant fact that, therefore, the ballots cast in these states were affected by illegal election activities.
Recall the definition of "affect" and "change" from round one and this is clear. The ballots were affected by a change in the laws. In Wisconsin this is most clear, but, as referenced from the press release from the Attorney General of Texas that I cited in round one, four other states changed their laws in ways that violated their own constitutions before the election. If ballots are cast in a way that is illegal according to the State Constitution, then they are illegal ballots regardless.
CON is likely trying to shift voters away from the currently accepted definition of illegal for this debate into one meaning a ballot cast by a bad actor. But this is not what an illegal ballot means. It also is not the only argument for illegal ballots I have made. In fact, the overwhelming majority of my argument is that voters acted in good faith while voting but the election clerks and state legislatures committed illegal actions that affected the voters' ballots, which made these peoples' good faith ballots illegal.
The crux of this came in Wisconsin, where the WEC themselves stated that tens of thousands of ballots were likely illegally cast due to clerks failing to follow election codes. I cited this, and it is CON who disputes that the WEC is saying what they blatantly stated themselves. The WEC also stated, themselves, as I cited earlier, that these actions violated the Wisconsin Constitution, which I also cited and used the proper dictionaries to interpret it in accordance with the debate rules.
- PRO absurdly asks VOTERS to interpret "must argue" to mean "must only argue," but no definition of MUST implies exclusivity.
Definition 3c of "must" in Merriam Webster's online dictionary: "be required by law, custom, or moral conscience (see CONSCIENCE sense 1) to" [2]
So let us unravel the illogical argument at play here in CON's response:
P1: CON must argue what is stated in the rules.
P2: all Red Herring arguments are banned
P3: a Red Herring is "introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic," according to the accepted definition in accordance with the debate rules
P4: CON introduced a second argument that is not relevant to the original topic of "The USFG should decertify the 2020 US Presidential Election due to illegal election activities sufficient to deny Biden's victory."
THEREFORE:
C1: CON committed a red herring.
C2: Any argument that does not focus on illegal election activities sufficient to deny Biden's victory is not relevant to the topic.
C3: CON must ONLY argue the stance he must take, because any other stance is a Red Herring in accordance with the definition from Wikipedia.
* * *
CLAIM 2: "Nor will you find the statement PRO accuses CON of making" a statement saying Trump won the election
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: FAILED FACT CHECK
Here are two examples where CON blatantly states he thinks PRO is arguing that Trump won:
- If there were no challenges and the states certified the election, how PRO justifies breaking Federal law now in the service of Trump's interest?
(Which, by the way, is false. [1]) PRO also never once said to do that. This is just another one of those straw man attacks. But here, CON is likely (difficult to tell for certain due to the missing words and bad grammar) stating that PRO would like the State Governments to break Federal Law to help Trump win.
Because changes were made, those change caused Trump to lose.
I did not argue any such thing. I merely stated that Biden did not win. Not that Trump lost. PRO already meticulously responded to this in previous rounds. CON has refused to accept that he is engaging in a straw man. But if you follow CON's logic here, now he is saying that PRO believes Trump won and Biden lost. The phraseology of the sentence dictates this interpretation. If PRO believes changes were made that caused Trump to lose, then it is necessarily argued that CON believes PRO is stating that Trump won.
In reality, as PRO has stated multiple times. PRO believes that it is impossible to determine who won the election because of illegal election activities that affected Biden's margin of victory. With so many illegal ballots, it is impossible to determine which side actually won the election. This is in accordance with PRO's stance he must take as outlined in the debate description.
PRO's argument has and will continue to be exactly what the prompt says PRO must argue. PRO shall not be like CON and engage in numerous Red Herrings and Straw Man attacks, add illegal tests of evidence, and use sources disallowed according to debate rules. PRO shall adhere to the debate rules in good faith.
* * *
CLAIM 3: Gore v. Bush does not allow SCOTUS to decertify an election
STATUS: REJECTED
REASON: FAILED FACT CHECK, STRAW MAN
CON stated:
SCOTUS found in that very decision that neither SCOTUS nor the Supreme Court of Florida had the power to halt or even delay Florida's certification deadline of Dec 12
Two things wrong with this:
1. It is Bush v. Gore, not Gore v. Bush
2. PRO did not argue that SCOTUS could delay a certification deadline. PRO stated:
the Supreme Court could decertify the election by sole power of their branch according to Bush v. Gore and other pertinent rulings.
CON argues the Supreme Court could not extend the certification date, but this has absolutely nothing to do with PRO's premise at all. Decertifying an election is not impeding a certification date. They are two completely different things. One is undoing a previous action, the other is preventing that action from occurring.
* * *
CONCLUSION:
Voters will notice a pathological pattern in CON's arguments that attempt to straw man, change definitions, and even go to illegal sources for evidence and definitions to win this debate. These are flagrant violations of the debate rules. CON has also failed to forfeit even though his violations are apparent even to the commenters reading the debate.
CON will likely say I dropped all his arguments but, in reality, he is mostly just repeating the same arguments over and over again and facts do not change simply because someone disagrees with them.
Argument from Repetition is not a replacement for proper counterarguments. CON has failed, repeatedly, to actually engage with what PRO is saying and instead has decided he would rather argue against illegal Straw Man positions and state outright falsehoods instead of argue against what these PRO is really saying, which is in accordance with what the authors themselves in these reports have stated.
Vote PRO because CON broke the rules multiple times and has failed to forfeit the debate as required by Rule 8.
SOURCES:
Con
#10
Thx, Public-Choice!
The USFG should DECERTIFY the 2020 ELECTION
CON1 and CON2:
- PRO inaccurately, unconstitutionally argues that the US Supreme Court has the power to reverse the electoral college decision
- PRO ignores Bush v. Gore's unwillingness to interfere with each State's constitutional and fundamental right to elect the President via appointed electors on the first Monday after the second Wednesday and simply insists without citation that SCOTUS can decertify. SCOTUS recognized that some individual voters were not getting equal protection under the law but ultimately no Federal power (which includes the Judicial branch) could override the State's constitutional duty to elect the President on the date appointed
- There is no such thing in Federal or Constitutional law as decertification of a Presidential election. PRO's plan is illegal, dangerous disinformation that is sourced exclusively in Trump's fake claims that such a plan should be carried out anyway so long as Trump is restored to office
- PRO calls this argument a RED HERRING but PRO clearly doesn't understand the meaning of that fallacy, since the unlawfulness of DECERTIFICATION could not be more central or relevant to PRO's argument
- PRO's repeated claims that CON was not allowed to make this argument do not comport with any of PRO's stated rules and VOTERS must disregard these fake claims
- CON asks VOTERS to find that decertification is not a constitutional, lawful, or viable option for the United States whatever PRO's evidence and so PRO's major premise is invalid and PRO's conclusion not justified under any circumstance
COUNTERARGUMENT:
PRO essentially concedes that the number of illegal ballots he has been able to document is zero by shifting away from his noun ( number of ballots) to his adjective (affected by illegal election activities). That's fine, the number of actual crimes PRO has documented is also zero.
Crime 1:
in Wisconsin, where the WEC themselves stated that tens of thousands of ballots were likely illegally cast due to clerks failing to follow election codes
- CON has devoted roughly half of his argument to demonstrating the falsity of these shifting claims, PRO has modified his evidence in each round but never comes close to proving this claim
- In Round1, PRO claimed:
- 6.9% of certificates out of a randomized sample of 14,710 absentee ballots contained information that disqualified these ballots
- The first falsehood here is that the WEC is talking about absentee ballots when in fact the WEC is talking about a separate narrow piece of paper called a certificate that a witness must fill out and submit with ballot
- The second falsehood is that the WEC suggested that these ballots contained any disqualifying aspects
- Our review of the 14,710 certificates found that: 1,022 certificates (6.9 percent) in 28 municipalities had partial witness addresses because they did not have one or more components of a witness address such as a street name, municipality, state, and zip code, including 799 certificates (5.4 percent) that did not have a zip code and 364 certificates(2.5 percent) that did not have a state
- The WEC went on to explain that they counted these ballots according to procedures legally established in 2016 and in full compliance with the brief, vague, self-contradictory State legislation
- The third falsehood was that PRO deceptively extrapolated a State estimate from these numbers when the WEC clearly stated:
- We reviewed a random sample of certificates from 20 municipalities, all or almost all certificates from8 municipalities, and a large number of certificates from 1 municipality. Because of the size of our random sample of certificates that were viewed in the 20 municipalities, we can reasonably expect that the results of our review for a given municipality are representative of all certificates in that municipality during the November 2020 General Election. However, because we did not examine certificates other than in the 29 municipalities, we cannot reasonably expect that the results of our review are representative of certificates in municipalities statewide
- Most of this sample came from 8 out 319 municipalities and none of this data came from the most populous metropolitan areas (which typically favor Democrats). Nevertheless, PRO dishonestly invented a number that conveniently covered Biden's margin of victory by assuming that every unsigned certificate was associated with a Biden voter
- In Round2, PRO ignored CON's corrections and tried:
The clerks were legally required to either completely disregard the ballot or mail it back to the absentee voter.
- False. Nothing in the WEC audit indicates how many incomplete certificates were received with enough time to mail back for correction or suggests that this was not done. The question was about what to do with honest ballots containing minor errors in the witness statement
- We contacted 21 municipal clerks about actions they took when they received certificates with missing information. All but one clerk indicated that they contacted the individuals who cast the ballots in order to allow them the opportunity to provide missing witness addresses.
- In Round3, PRO tried
Our review of the 14,710 certificates found evidence that municipal clerks had corrected witness addresses on 66 certificates (0.4 percent). This evidence included clerk initials or pen marks in the ink colors that clerks had indicated were used to make corrections.[followed by]There is nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution that tells clerks to change address information themselves. Therefore, the clerks violated Wisconsin Law by failing to return the ballots to the voters for correction.
- In fact, the only reference to absentee ballots in the Wisconsin Constitution is "Laws may be enacted… providing for absentee voting"
- Not much detail there
- CON explained again that's because Wisconsin Legislation only vaguely states: "If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted"
- The State fails to describe what to do if the address is present but the zip or state is missing
- So the WEC instructs:
- In October 2016, WEC approved written guidance indicating that municipal clerks must take action to correct errors in the witness addresses on certificates. This guidance indicated that clerks were not required to contact the individuals who cast the ballots but were required to include their initials next to any corrections they made to witness addresses. This guidance also indicated that a complete address must include at least a street name and number as well as a municipality
- For a fourth time let's note that PRO has not established a single illegal ballot cast. The ballots documented in the WEC audit were either simply counted in spite of minor omissions on the witness card like zip codes or else corrected and initialed in compliance with WEC guidance. It would have been illegal to ignore the State's instruction and fail to count these honest ballots submitted and corrected in good faith. All of PRO's claims stem entirely from a will to cherry pick and misunderstand WEC's audit
Crime 2
- PRO essentially concedes this claim saying only
- the conspiracy group I referenced that caused states to violate the Federal Laws I cited, which were all used to inflate the votes, and the fact that states took federal money and then proceeded to change how the election was run in violation of state constitutions, it is a blatant fact that, therefore, the ballots cast in these states were affected by illegal election activities
- The only evidence for this claim is that Time Magazine used the word "conspiracy" to describe an alliance of responsible corporations working to fortify the election in the face of Trump's promise to challenge the election and pandemic concerns
- VOTERS must find that such claim fails to support "there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities to decertify the election."
Crime 4
- PRO dropped this argument entirely, providing no evidence that any non-citizens voted in California or any other state in spite of initially claiming 12 States had voting by illegal immigrants. Not a single illegal vote by a non-citizen has been demonstrated
- Extend all arguments
CONCLUSION:
- In the big picture, decertification is just more of Trump's fake news surrounding the 2020 election. OSCE International monitors reported, "The 3 November general elections were competitive and well managed despite legal uncertainties and logistical challenges We feel that allegations of systemic wrongdoing in these elections have no solid ground. The system has held up well"
- PRO has tried hard to suppress the central fact of this debate: that decertification is not legal, constitutional, wise, or warranted
- PRO's job was to warrant decertification by proving that "there was a sufficient number of ballots affected by illegal election activities"
- Ultimately, PRO failed to prove even one dishonest or deceptive vote or any election activity that proves fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn the 2020 election
- CON successfully proved sufficiency by knocking down all of PRO's slight accusations and pointing out that Electoral College's vote is final and official
- CON asks VOTERS to award ARGUMENT points to CON
- Furthermore, CON asks VOTERS to review CON's complaints in ROUND4 regarding PRO's excessive rule-making and bad faith, double-standard enforcement of those rules and consider whether points should be awarded to CON for SOURCES for
- employing non-listed legal sources while challenging CON's use of unspecified portions of listed legal sources
- using biased SOURCES
- poor FALLACY comprehension
- and CONDUCT for
- failing to uphold his own high standard
- Thx to Public-Choice for this debate and thx to all VOTERS for their kind consideration!
- Please VOTE CON!
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Whew, almost ran out of time with this one. Here's my RFD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F1ZGIUycM3PjfPdcyWtWTyzn9YWLD7qGs8W7P6bAcxo/edit?usp=sharing
Long story short: the debate came down to Wisconsin, and the numbers just didn't add up in Pro's favor. There were many opportunities for both sides to win more concretely via other aspects of the debate that were little mentioned or misrepresented, but I still think this was a strong debate by both sides.
I understand
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.
Are you casting your vote?
**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
Thank you!
Take your time. I know this one is really long.
I am still planning on voting on this, guys, mainly just need to re-read those final rounds and get my thoughts together.
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.
**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************
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.
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.
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.
and yet that is precisely what every single right-wing shithole is experiencing for the majority of its population.
Kenya is a prime example.
Thanks!
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.
I’ll get to it.
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.
Understood. Thanks!
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.
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/
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.
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§ionNum=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
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.
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.
yup
damn thats a lot of rules