
I would first of all like to thank participants in this debate for accepting and wish them good luck.
Among registered voters, the two candidates have nearly identical unfavorable ratings: 59 percent for Clinton versus 60 percent for Trump." (1)
It turns out that both of the candidates from the two major parties in the U.S. presidential election are highly disliked. If people from both sides of the spectrum dislike the candidates, the two party choices may not be enough in this election.
If there is enough dissatisfied, the third party option will be more appealing.
"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 47% of registered voters would consider a generic third-party nominee, up from previous years in WSJ/NBC News polling. In 2012, 40% said they would consider a third-party candidate; in 2008, 38% did." (2)
Since more voters dislike both of the two party candidates and more likely consider a third party candidate instead, the chances for a third party candidate rises.
Third party influence
Obviously, enough individuals voting can influence an election. In the 2016 election, third-party alternatives are stronger than before. Throughout our elections, third-party candidates seem to be gaining popularity. Eventually, there is a possibility that the two-party system will wither away. Every third-party vote goes to more support against the limiting two-party system in the U.S. Even if the chances are much too low for a third-party candidate, the votes are still worth it due to the protest influence against the two-party system.
Democracy
Democracy (republic) is a rule by the people through votes in elections. Voting is about choice. Every vote has the same worth. Votes will go to different people, but each vote represents the will of the individual. If an individual wants government to be a certain way, it is their right to have a say in our government. This is what democracies are about. Whether someone is voting outside of the party oligopolies doesn't make their vote any more worthless.
Multi-party
A two-party system is when two political parties have a monopoly on political influence and power in our government. A two-party monopoly is limiting in a democracy, but democracy is about choice in our government. Voting third-party is protesting against the two-party oligopoly, which exists in the U.S. because of the mass influence. Mass money from donors and the Commission on Presidential Debates has a joint sponsorship with the Republican and Democratic parties. The third-party candidates are not allowed to join these debates, keeping the Republican and Democratic party as the only mass supported parties.
"A long-shot lawsuit by the Libertarian and Green Party candidates for president has been tossed out by a federal judge, lowering the odds of a third-party candidate making it into this year's televised debates. (3)
This oligopoly needs to stop, it is allowing the corporations and money to control politics. The peoples votes can work against it, even if their chances are low. If we continue to support third party candidates, we are protesting against this two-party oligopoly, which is always worth it.
It is time that we vote against this control that isn't a true democracy.
Conclusion
My arguments:
Every vote represents the will of a single individual and are therefore all worth the same regardless of the choice.
Third-party choices are gaining popularity and there is high dislike for both of the two-party major candidates.
The multi-party system is preferable and the two-party oligopoly is not a democracy.
Thanks for reading.
Return To Top | Posted:

The Resolution
That voting third party is worth it in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Meaning Behind The Resolution
I’ll begin by establishing some key points before moving on to my case. Firstly, it should be made clear that we are simply stating that it isn’t worth it to vote for a third party candidate, we aren’t saying that the third party option shouldn’t exist (this is not under our burden). So contentions regarding freedom of choice, democracy and democratic principles are irrelevant to the debate.
TL;DR - This debate is not about democracy. I’m a huge supporter of democracy and freedom of expression as well as the right to vote. It’s about whether or not voting for a third party candidate is worth it and whether people should (to put it informally), bother.
Secondly, worth is an interesting point of discussion. For something to be “worth doing” it has to be something that will be positive overall for the person/people doing that thing. If it is negative, negligible or neutral in its effects then it isn’t worth doing [1].
Likelihood of a Third party president
After the 3rd debate between Hillary and Trump between both of them they received 91% of the vote [2]. That means that between all 3rd party candidates and those that aren’t voting there is only 9% of the vote. And this is between all 3rd party candidates and the no vote. If you just worked it out for one party it would be >9% compared to the 52% that the democrats posses. [2]
The chances are incredibly small considering the fact that the two major parties are so far ahead of the others. This significantly reduces how “worth[while]” voting for a third party candidate actually is since the overall aim cannot be achieved of appointing a president.
What if you support a third party candidate?
If you support a third party candidate then you can vote them, like I said at the beginning of my case, you can vote for them but it won’t be worthwhile.
A clear winner?
There will probably be a clear winner in this election. As of today, after the third debate Hillary Clinton is leading of Donald Trump by 13% of the vote. That is a significant proportion of the vote leading on Hillary Clinton. All 3 polls on the debate concluded that Hillary Clinton won. The evidence clearly suggests that in 2016 presidential election (which is what the resolution talks about) there will probably be a clear winner without the need of a two party system.
Conclusion
There isn’t really much to this debate. There is clearly very little evidence showing that voting for a third party candidate is worth anything. A third party candidate almost certainly won’t win the presidential election, voting third party isn’t exercising your right to vote any more than voting for any other candidate is, this debate is only about how worthwhile it is not about whether it should be allowed so there are no democratic or UDHR advantages to the debate.
The resolution is clearly negated.
Sources
[1]http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic257.html
[2]http://www.theweek.co.uk/us-election-2016/74067/us-election-polls-is-there-any-way-donald-trump-can-winReturn To Top | Posted:

Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:

Return To Top | Posted:

I'd like to thank both opening sides for starting this debate.
- Ending poverty by mass redistribution, to ensure that all Americans may have the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness
- Right to healthcare to reduce premiums through a single-payer program
- Right to work ensuring that all who genuinely want to work, get a job
- Right to education ensuring all children have the best possible start in life regardless of their background
- Making peace not war by diplomacy and reducing military investment significantly
- A fair justice system restoring constitutional rights for all etc
- Promoting civil liberty like anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ and respecting indigenous rights
- Protecting the planet because we kinda need it - and make jobs in doing so (the "Green New Deal")
- A better government including an overhaul of the electoral system
- And lots of other stuff too. Peeps should check out http://www.jill2016.com/
Return To Top | Posted:

Just extending the round so I don't forfeit.
Return To Top | Posted:

Return To Top | Posted:

Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
@BioHazard Well it's 4-way and in absence of judgments it goes in order. So I beat you beat Famous beat cooldudebro. I beat 3 people, you beat 2 etc.
Actually in hindsight I wrote the Elo code there before I wrote the auto-forfeit code lol ... this goes way back to when the site first started so IDK if this is the right way to do it considering auto-forfeits.Posted 2016-11-30 09:04:15
Weird, after I lost this debate, I got bumped up to rank #9. Posted 2016-11-30 09:00:57
It was mostly about whether a vote that is worth it is based on what others are voting for, or if the worth of your vote based on what you believe in.Posted 2016-11-22 07:38:05
It's certainly more strategic this way. I like it. CG is one of my favorite positions too. CO is super hard, OG can be hard if you have limited prep on a hard aff. OO's fun too.Posted 2016-11-22 04:10:22
@Famousdebater that's why it's so important to anticipate extensions and stay in the debate
I really wish I was able to refute admins case (which is why I prefer 1v1 and longer debates). Posted 2016-11-22 03:57:26
@BioHazard
No, but it works in a debatePosted 2016-11-21 16:43:11
@admin
"and that Jill Stein is objectively the best possible leader for the USA right now"
Is there even a way to determine the "objectively best" changes to our modern society?Posted 2016-11-21 16:40:16
@admin - makes sense. I'll finish up my RFD later this evening. Posted 2016-11-21 02:23:16
@Kohai you can edit a vote and you can't vote for others as autoforfeit rules are in effectPosted 2016-11-20 15:38:28
Just added in a test vote. Posted 2016-11-20 10:45:19
The only people I can actually vote for are admin and famous. Posted 2016-11-20 10:43:55
Can I edit a vote? Posted 2016-11-20 10:43:27
@Kohai - in a 4-way debate, there's a difference between sides and teams. You're just voting for the individual team (ie CG or OG) not the side (ie Government or Opposition).Posted 2016-11-20 08:33:53
@admin - so I vote for the individual as well as the team?Posted 2016-11-20 08:29:57
@Kohai you also need to determine which of us won, usually (in this case it's only different because of the ff)Posted 2016-11-20 07:54:17
IMHO, the OG/CG side won. I will give a detailed RFD and vote when I can.Posted 2016-11-20 07:44:19
I guess this is just between me and you. Good luck @adminPosted 2016-11-16 08:02:16
Bug *should* be fixed now.
Good luck @Famousdebater
Actually I have no idea why THIS debate isn't done. Something weird is going on. Will keep investigating.Posted 2016-11-15 06:03:40
Thanks Kohai.Posted 2016-10-31 18:53:09
I'll be sure to vote on this debate when it is done. Posted 2016-10-31 12:21:30
Thanks. I have not done a BP debate before. I will have to read about it. Posted 2016-10-31 10:50:29
@Kohai Opening government, opening opposition, closing government and closing opposition.
You might want to read up on British Parliamentary format at some point.Posted 2016-10-31 08:48:24
What is OG, OO, CG, and CO?Posted 2016-10-31 08:46:10
Few. Just got that one in on time. Posted 2016-10-31 07:24:27
That's weird. It said I had a few moments left when I was on my phone. I'll post something quick but I've got a little over an hour left. Posted 2016-10-31 05:46:35
You've got a day. Just post something.Posted 2016-10-30 11:26:58
I think I may end up forfeiting. I've been away over the weekend and it appears that I only have 'a few moments left'. Posted 2016-10-30 10:16:25
Okay, thanks. Posted 2016-10-26 23:35:28
Absolutely.
Not to help you too much but your goal is to worry about the closing teams at this point. OG has already lost by forfeit so you need to preempt my extension argument, and close off arguments that CO might make so strongly that you remain relevant. If you just rebut OG's material you'll probably fall out of the debate since we already know OG has lost.Posted 2016-10-26 23:33:52
Alright, but I can use this round for rebuttals only if I wanted to? Posted 2016-10-26 23:30:42
In general parliamentary debate doesn't enforce a substantive/rebuttal round distinction.Posted 2016-10-26 23:29:06
This round is for rebuttals, right? Posted 2016-10-26 23:24:33
Lol, I'd been wondering if you were working on something... that should teach you not to leave debate arguments to the last minute
What?! I was planning on finishing the next day and when I come on it says that I forfeited a few seconds ago.
Too bad, I was busy with other things, but at least the debate still continues.Posted 2016-10-26 08:33:57
@admin
Now that you say that, I know why. I lost power at my house because of a storm and had to reset the time on my computer. My computer is 12 hours off because I made a mistake on the AM and PM.
Daylights savings doesn't come until November 6 here.Posted 2016-10-15 09:04:10
@BioHazard Not for me. It may be a timezone issue related to daylight savings which came recently and periodically seems to screw some computers up. Usually that corrects itself within a day.
Debates and stuff are timed based on a number of seconds, so daylight savings doesn't affect it. It's just a cosmetic thing.Posted 2016-10-15 08:44:15
@admin
It said it under the comment and a post I made.
Where it says, "Posted a day ago".Posted 2016-10-15 05:13:25
@BioHazard Where does it say that?Posted 2016-10-14 19:04:01
@admin
Yeah, it is official. There is a bug.
It says you and I posted 13 hours ago, when we obviously really didn't.Posted 2016-10-14 16:32:45
@BioHazard time extensions do not apply in 4-way debates because you may get situations where 50% of debaters want to grant a time extension. They're a 2-way only thing.Posted 2016-10-14 15:55:06
For some reason, there is no time extension option.Posted 2016-10-14 15:53:08
The irony is that American debate uses totally different conventions from both of the worlds formats XDPosted 2016-10-12 08:08:53
Well I haven't heard of that terminology being used before. It's probably just uncommon, like you said. Posted 2016-10-12 08:06:05
Really? I'm pretty sure for BP format this is universal.
To be clear though, most places don't start doing formats like BP until university level, and even there it's uncommon in many places / reserved for only the elite debaters. I think it's because of WS that people want to prepare high schoolers for that before anything.Posted 2016-10-12 07:59:51
Thanks.
The terminology used on here is slightly different to UK debate and the terminology used on DDO. Posted 2016-10-12 07:54:53
Con and that you go firstPosted 2016-10-12 07:41:56
@Famousdebater
It basically means you are CON in this debate.
Me and @admin are PRO and you and @cooldudebro are CON. You are the one doing your two rounds first in this debate.Posted 2016-10-12 07:37:46
@Famousdebater - OO = Opening Opposition. It's a BP term for the sides - Opening/Closing Government/Opposition.Posted 2016-10-12 07:33:35
What's OO? Posted 2016-10-12 06:00:45
@admin @BioHazard @Famousdebater
Yo yo yo it's your boi Vegita reviews 69- I mean hiPosted 2016-10-11 15:19:42
Now, we just have to wait for @cooldudebro Posted 2016-10-11 11:08:25
Opening teams can pretty much run it like in any other regular debate.Posted 2016-10-11 10:24:56
I'm not entirely sure how this format of debate works but I'll see how it goes.
It's nice to do different formats from time to time for sure. BP is something I miss from my uni days.Posted 2016-10-11 09:06:55
@admin
Did you want one?
I am pretty sure the views match, so no one is playing devils advocate here.Posted 2016-10-11 09:06:01
Sweet, a BP debate. Thanks @BioHazardPosted 2016-10-11 09:03:27