Instigator / Con
Points: 14

Voter suppression in Georgia, does it exist?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Virtuoso
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 24
Description
I believe that the voter suppression in Georgia simply does not exist. Good luck to my opponent.
Round 1
Published:
A democrat Lost. NO CANT be we have to make excuses like what we did to Trump that he didn’t won fairly. Lets go to Georgia. Stacey Abrams Lost, NAH can't be, there was voter suppression,right, a democrat can't lose.She claims Kemp deprived Georgian citizens,particularly people of color to their right to vote.Well sorry your wrong.

Well,well,well. How can blacks have historic number of voter turnout while being oppressed.

Basically, a law was passed by state DEMS in 1997 which stated that the voter list had to be maintained and updated.It goes like this: If you don't vote for 3 years, you get a postcard in the mail  saying that you still want to be a registered voter. If you don't send back the postcard then you are on a waitlist where after 4 years you finally get taken off the list. You can get back on the list at ANY time. This has been a law for 2 decades, but only a problem when a democrat loses in a red state.huh.

Targeting blacks,huh. WRONG. Between 2010-2017 Whites were purged more than any other race COMBINED. No race here. Just nonsense for democrats.

DEMS also claim that in a voter page, if your name and social security number didn’t match up you were put on a waitlist. They claim they government caused this. Nope, no evidence but rather people showing mismatches and the workers making mistakes. And you can change the information and get back on the list. Also, the voter ballots they were referring to included dead people, fake addresses,convicted felons or already registered.

If your on a waitlist,you can still vote.

They also claim that voter areas were shutdown. However, this is because early voting and absentee ballots made up 59% of the vote. So with less demand on election day, they don't need so many polling stations.


My ONLY source which was amazing. 10/10 video and channel. Would totally recommend taking a look at if you conservative.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQECBBrua3Q

Why was there no outrage when Doug Jones won? Because Republicans don't make excuses.

Published:
I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I'm very much looking forward to it! With that said, let's begin.

I. Definitions

My opponent failed to provide definitions for the resolution and as such, I will do so here. In order to understand the resolution, definitions are required here:

  1. Voter Suppression: a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting; The tactics of voter suppression range from minor changes to make voting less convenient, to physically intimidating and even physically attacking prospective voters, which is illegal. Voter suppression can be effective if a significant number of voters are intimidated or disenfranchised. [1]
  2. Georgia: It is not clear from the title whether Con means the State of Georgia or the Country of Georgia. This is evident as blamonkey, who is currently no 3 on the debate ranks, had to ask in the comment section for Con to clarify. As such, I will be defining "Georgia" as the State of Georgia in the Southern United States. 
  3. Exists: have objective reality or being.
II. Observations about the Election 

The 2018 Gubernatorial election in Georgia was between Brian Kemp and Stacy Abrams. The vote percent was 50.2% R to 48.8% D, a margin of less than 1.5 % [2]. Brian Kemp was the secretary of state who oversaw voter registration and oversaw which ballots to 'throw out", thus creating a huge conflict of interest. 

III. Ballot Tossing

Nearly 1 in 10 mail-in ballots were thrown out yet election officials could not explain why [3]. This creates a huge burden on the voter who would have to come back, appeal, or correct any "mistake" on the ballot. It got so bad that a judge had to go in and stop it. The Washington Post notes [4] 

The ACLU argued that allowing nonexpert election officials to judge the validity of signatures without giving voters the chance to contest the decisions amounted to unconstitutional voter suppression.

U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May agreed, and she ordered Secretary of State Brian Kemp to instruct all local election officials to stop rejecting absentee ballots over the mismatched signatures. Instead, such ballots will be marked “provisional,” and the voter will be given the right to appeal the decision or confirm his or her identity. Kemp and the Gwinnett County election board were named as defendants in the suit.

IV. Exact Match Rule

In 2017, Georgia passed an "exact match" law that would require an exact match between the voter's signature and documents. Over 53,000 voter applications were blocked and nearly 70% of those blocked applications were black [5]. A judge ruled that it does, in fact, pose a severe burden and is often prone to error. NPR reports [6]

The "exact match" law flags voter registrations that have discrepancies with other official identification documents used by the state. Mismatches can occur under the law for such reasons as missing hyphens, accent marks and middle initials. Those who are flagged can still vote if they settle the discrepancy by providing proof of identity.

In her ruling, Ross said the requirements raised "grave concerns for the Court about the differential treatment inflicted on a group of individuals who are predominantly minorities. ... The election scheme here places a severe burden on these individuals."

"Prior to the court's issuance of relief, these citizens, many of whom provided proof of citizenship with their registration form, would have had to physically track down a Deputy Registrar in the county to provide proof of their citizenship," said Clarke. "Tracking this one individual down was a fatal requirement that would have been impossible for many to meet."

Corey Goldston writes [7]: The failed exact match program put voters’ registrations in jeopardy for reasons as benign as hyphenated last names, minor typos or data entry errors. Voters will no longer have their registration canceled because of such minor discrepancies; they will be fully registered and treated exactly the same as other voters." 

V. Conclusion

I will probably provide more arguments in the next round or expand on these if necessary. I have less than 10 minutes remaining. Suffice it to say, this is pretty much a textbook case of voter suppression. Indeed "Kemp’s actions during the election were textbook voter suppression. His actions were strategic, careless and aimed at silencing the voting power of communities of color in the state."  [8] 


VI. Sources
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression 
Round 2
Published:
I have grouped my opponents arguments into two points

1.Ballot Tossing
2.Exact Match Rule

REBUTTAL

1.So unfortunately I can not access your source on Washington Post because my story limit is up and Im not paying for democratic news. But you do receive a letter in the mail where you can change your ballot."Voters who are notified of a problem can request a new ballot or vote in person"{1}. This ruling by the judge makes it easier that illegals can vote and criminals with multiple ID's cant be traced as easily. 


2.So unless you have proof of whether blacks were Targeted, it is not racist. Yes 70% of the votes were black but why does that matter when there are no proven racist intentions. So what happens when you are on the 53k voter waitlist. Well, you can STILL VOTE. How is that voter suppression when you can still vote when you are impending?But someone with a pending status would still be able to vote as long as they can prove a “substantial match” between their voter registration and ID, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. And under state law, voters must bring a valid photo ID with them to the polls anyway.


So in conclusion, simply you can still vote on a waitlist and simply can change your voter registration and these laws make it so criminals and illegals cant vote as easily which is good. 

I await a response
Published:
I’m working overtime today and don’t have time to post. I thought this was a 3 day debate. Therefore I will waive this round 
Round 3
Published:
extend
Published:
Thank you for that. Let's begin.

Rebuttals to Con's R1

Let us first remember the definitions that I provided. Because Con failed to challenge these definitions, these are the definitions we ought to use in determining the resolution:

  1. Voter Suppression: a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting; The tactics of voter suppression range from minor changes to make voting less convenient, to physically intimidating and even physically attacking prospective voters, which is illegal. Voter suppression can be effective if a significant number of voters are intimidated or disenfranchised. [1]
  2. Georgia: It is not clear from the title whether Con means the State of Georgia or the Country of Georgia. This is evident as blamonkey, who is currently no 3 on the debate ranks, had to ask in the comment section for Con to clarify. As such, I will be defining "Georgia" as the State of Georgia in the Southern United States. 
  3. Exists: have objective reality or being.
My opponent's arguments in r1 are entirely irrelevant. Just because Democrats passed the law doesn't mean that it is not voter suppression. Furthermore, just because the laws target white voters as well is also irrelevant. The white vote could still be suppressed. 

Let's move on to my defense. 

Defense of My Arguments

I presented several arguments in my affirmative case. My opponent completely drops my observation of Brian Kemp's conflict of interest. Please extend this across the board. 

I. Ballot tossing

My opponent never offers anything substansive response to this argument. The judge that was cited ruled that it was voter suppression. Whether or not this tactic was good or bad is not relevant. The resolution is whether or not voter suppression exists, not whether or not it is good or bad. My opponent's Fox News source gives further evidence on my side. I'll quote the relevant paragraphs:

But claims of alleged voter suppression has been a recurring theme throughout the gubernatorial race – from senior citizens kicked off a bus taking them to vote to lawsuits filed over Georgia’s so-called “exact match” law.

You could say Georgia has been a leader in the field of voter suppression,” Bruce Mallard, an assistant professor of political science at Savannah State University, told Fox News.
II. Exact Match 

Nothing in the definition of voter suppression mentions race. Please extend this argument across the board. 
Round 4
Published:
I feel like you misunderstood some of my arguments. My first argument was to debunk some of the most common arguments for the topic. I also included the race figures to debunk the claim that voter suppression was racist.

My first rebuttal was not whether it was good or bad, whether ot was voter suppression. Well I proved both, when you mess up on your ballot you get notified and easily change your ballot. I used the point on where I said “This ruling by the judge makes it easier that illegals can vote and criminals with multiple ID's cannot be traced as easily.” Was to explain why the rule was out in for the first place. Your Brian Kemp conflict of interests is irrelevant because it is not important to the debate. The debate title is “ Voter suppression in Georgia,does it exist?” This argument states Brian Kemp’s conflict of interests. Irrelevant.

The Exact Match argument you COMPLETELY avoided. It's not in the definition I said this:”So what happens when you are on the 53k voter waitlist. Well, you can STILL VOTE. How is that voter suppression when you can still vote when you are impending?But someone with a pending status would still be able to vote as long as they can prove a “substantial match” between their voter registration and ID, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. And under state law, voters must bring a valid photo ID with them to the polls anyway.” Nothing to do with your response,I proved that this wasn’t voter suppression.

This is the last round and I have done my job. I have provided insight on the most common arguments for the topic and debunked my opponents points. Thank you for accepting, I had fun!


Forfeited
Added:
--> @DarthVader1
Its no problem at all, a lot of people make a similar mistake :)
#43
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Oh sorry,I did not know that I have to read the rules of conduct to vote on a debate that intrigues me. Thanks for telling that.
#42
Added:
--> @DarthVader1
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DarthVader1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “The conduct point goes to Con since Pro forfeited not just one but two rounds.
The spelling and grammar was both reasonably good for both participants.
The sources were also convincing for both sides.
Pro's arguments were not impressive. I was particularly confused at the ballot tossing. Can he prove that the ballots tossed out all belonged to a specific group,or were just randomly thrown out?”
>Reason for Mod Action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote.
Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
#41
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “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.”
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
#40
Added:
--> @Kitty_Slay_Dragons
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: kitty_slay_dragons // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and S&G
>Reason for Decision: Pro had better grammar, sources and spelling.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is insufficient on all three counts; as well as the voter being ineligible to vote (the voter must have 2 non troll debates or 100 posts in order to vote)
The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The voter completes just one of these steps.
************************************************************************
#39
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I can defend it.
Instigator
#38
Added:
--> @Kitty_Slay_Dragons
Vote not properly explained
Instigator
#37
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
If you did understand your positions you would be able to defend it but guess that is not the case because you can't even answer simple questions and rebuttals to your position. You just provide comments which show how little you thought about what you believe.
#36
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
I would like to think Pinkfreud08 for voting and encourage others to vote as well
Instigator
#35
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I do understand my positions
Instigator
#34
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Yet you can mention it. Wonder why and failed to even try to understand your own positions. Really makes me think how little you have actually understood your own positions instead of just parroting from people you watch.
#33
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
There is a difference between a political debate and whether the earth is flat or round
Instigator
#32
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Clearly don't know what you are talking about and it shows.
Am I wrong about the existence about gravity? Okay so by the statement you just made you are wrong.
It also pretty much states someone can believe in flat Earth and say after their false information in my opinion for you to not have a problem with it.
This is all on top of you not understanding your positions correctly. When I get to that stage you either give non-sequitur comments or give up because you are too much of a coward to delve into why you actually hold the stances and if you actually agree with what you say.
#31
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
You are ALWAYS wrong omar,in my opinion
Instigator
#30
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
This is the problem with you. When I ask you to think outside or actually think about the position you hold. You give up or move back to non-sequitur comments. If you actually answered my questions it would help you understand your side better but guess you don't care about that. I take it as that your stance is faulty and actually understanding your positions would show how bad it is but maybe I am wrong.
#29
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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