Instigator / Con
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#910

Voter suppression in Georgia, does it exist?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
24
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

I believe that the voter suppression in Georgia simply does not exist. Good luck to my opponent.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct to con for the forfeits.

Arguments.

The ballot tossing argument wins this alone. Pros source noted a federal judge agreed with the argument that the actions were illegal voter suppression, the description seems like voter suppression, and con had no substantive reply to it. The important aspect is the burden pro mentions on voters to re-vote, to which con did not reply.

Cons rebuttal was primarily that this was okay, not that it was voter suppression: and on those grounds I have to accept pros argument.

The second point, relates to exact match. Pro points out that out of rejected matches, 70% were for black voters. Pro also cites sources indicating that this had an undue burden on the individuals involved, and that it disproportionally affected minorities.

Cons rebuttal was mostly a non rebuttal; demanding proof that a disproportionate number of minorities being removed is due to racism. This is not relevant to the resolution: the reason does not have to be explicitly racist to be voter suppression, and as con offers no reason why this is not suppression, I have to accept this too. The only defence is that individuals could still vote if they can prove a substantial match: while I may buy the technicalities, the burden that inherent burden pro pointed out in his sources isn’t undermined simply by cons say-so. Con has to reasonably demonstrate that there is minimum or no burden to refute it.

So from these I have two ways I can vote to uphold pro arguments and none for con. Arguments to pro.

Sources:

The prop publica source, the WaPo source (neatly quoted for cons benefit), and the NPR link upheld pros burden here and substantially added to pros warrant by demonstrating inherent suppression. Without these sources, this argument would have been substantially weaker. Cons few sources weren’t as well targeted and were mostly used to bolster facts that he then used to draw inferences from - which doesn’t increase his warrant in this case. Worse, as pro pointed out, the Fox News post was linked to support one premise but appeared to nominally support pros position. Because of this pros usage of sources was superior and helped his case much more and warrants awarding a source point. Sources to pro.

Note: for anyone wondering this was almost a textbook example of how to use sources well in a debate by pro.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I really dislike voting with this many points toward one side when the other made a solid effort... I wish I could balance by awarding say 1 point for arguments instead of 3 (can't be done, but I can daydream)

Conduct (Fran.):
Virt. forfeited a round… And no, the dropping of another round does not hurt conduct (it still hurts arguments, but that’s a whole other thing).
Oh and Fran. did not forfeit (it still annoys me that this needs to be listed).

S&G (Virt.):
Fran., I strongly advise writing your future arguments in MS Word or another smart text editor.

1. Missing characters (most often apostrophes), problems with your/you’re distinctions, capitalization abuse, missing spaces between words, etc. Examples “NO CANT” “he didn’t won fairly” “COMBINED. No race here. Just nonsense for democrats.” (that one doesn’t make sense as separate sentences, nor if the periods were changed to commas). “impending?But” even were the periods fixed, this just doesn’t make sense as the separate sentences there that one doesn’t make sense
2. The commonality of these errors kept pulling me from the debate.
3. In comparison: the other side used great formatting to make the debate easy to follow.

Sources (Virt.):
Fran. started this on a low note. Sources should never be a strawperson fallacy video, it hurts the credibility of the side using it especially when a point is made that it is the only source needed.
Virt. Started with giving definitions (honestly those should have been in the description), setting himself as a voice of reason (it’s not that he necessarily is, but he postured himself as such given that neither side’s arguments make sense without this). Then repeated source after source to support the presence of voter suppression. The 6th was of particular weight, given that a real judge ruled against what was happening (they’re more knowledgeable than any of us on this, so great and valid appeal to authority). I also do give extra credit when someone is able to call back to their same sources between rounds (it speaks of the reliability of sources, and avoids source spamming).

Arguments (Virt.):
So here’s the big thing, if the tactic was used but did not really impact anything, it was still used. It need not even be done by race (it’s more likely to be done by education and income levels… it’s not like white people write in white ink and black people in black… we should all fear the unseen blue people!). It was however proven to be done against people who vote by mail, and the resolution is written as an absolute.

note 1: Given how the rest of this vote has turned out, I kind of want to leave arguments a tie, but it is the one thing that absolutely has to be graded to grade anything else.
note 2: I suspect the resolution may have been written to address a different premise than what Fran intended it to be.

C1 (Fran.): “A democrat Lost.”
This goes to Fran., but has no impacts. That either side lost does not mean anything about the topic, as one side was guaranteed to lose (okay technically in a billion such elections there might be a tie, but that is getting into an absurd area of consideration).

C2 (Virt.): Conflict of interest (AKA “Observations about the Election”)
This went unchallenged. Virt set this up successfully as a premise to use for later arguments, but by itself it does not gain ground. Things can be sketch as hell, but not in itself prove much. … I do give credit to Fran for using my favorite rebuttal “irrelevant.”

C3 (Virt.): MAIL Ballot Tossing
Virt. proved it was done to massive levels, coming to about 10% of votes that were mailed in, on an election that was narrow to only 1.5%. Fear of criminal aliens did not undo what was done. Interestingly Fran’s source could have been used to explain what was expressly pointed out as unexplained and suspicious, but what I read in the source does not matter, what is cited from it is all that does.

Had that 10% been proven to be a normal amount of rejected votes, this would not be such a decisive argument.

C4 (tie): Exact Match Rule
Over 50k voters suppressed. A judge had to intervene against it… It feels wrong, but I can’t say if it was or was not voter suppression given that neither debater advanced it after their original comments on the subject.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate

POOR CONDUCT

Pro has FF 2 of the 4 rounds, that's poor conduct.

I'd like for other voters to also consider this when voting as well.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

Ballot Tossing:

Pro contends that 1 in 10 ballots are inexplicably thrown out and this creates a burden upon those who must cast new ballots. Con responds that ballots may be resubmitted or voted by in person. This is a weak rebuttal because it does not address the contention where a burden has been unduly placed (and hence by agreed definition under less convenient voting, voter fraud). Pro further cites authoritative figures to reinforce his claim that this is an example of voter suppression. Con doesn't seem to have made a case why these authoritative figures should not be considered, despite the obvious appeal to authority. In general, Con's rebuttals to this point were weak, however Pro has critically failed to demonstrate that these thrown out ballots were those of a specific groups. I can only assume that these ballots were thrown out in some sort of random distribution which fails to meet the established definition in which specific groups should be impacted.

Exact Match:

Pro contends that the exact match law places unfair burden on groups of individuals, specifically blacks. Con counters by stating that there were no provably racist intentions. As Pro correctly points out, racist intentions have little bearing. To meet definition, there only need be some sort of impact towards a group of people (which just so happened to be black in this case). Con also makes a similar argument as before, where he contends that those affected by the exact match law may still vote. Again however, this does not address the point that Con makes in that it places unfair burden.

Pro's arguments were unimpressive. However I thought Con's rebuttals were particularly ill-conceived. Hence points to Pro.

Conduct:

Pretty clear here. Dropping two rounds is pretty atrocious