EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That voting third party is worth it in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

0 points
0 points
5 points
0 points
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (OG)
I would first of all like to thank participants in this debate for accepting and wish them good luck. 
In this debate, I am going to be arguing that in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a third-party candidate is actually worth the vote.

"Worth it"

The word "worth" in the title is going to be the most important and controversial word in this debate. I think it is important that I make it clear what I believe makes voting third party "worth it" in an election. Since democracy is about voters choosing their leaders, any choice is worth it if it truly represents your interests. The "worth" of votes are based on choice. Also, the U.S. is two-party rather than multi-party, and third-party votes can influence the system towards a multi-party system.

Dislike for both candidates of the major parties

In the United States, the two-party system has been dominate for over a century with third-party candidates running, but with no success when it comes to presidential elections. The voters have been influenced to choose one of the two-party candidates. In presidential elections, one of the candidates from both major parties are always voted in without much of a chance for third-party candidates. However, there is something different about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. 
"Among all adults, 56 percent now view Clinton unfavorably, up 6 percentage points in three weeks, compared with 63 percent who say the same about Trump.

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 (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. 


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. 


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.

(1) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050
(2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/24/more-americans-consider-third-party-options/
(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/05/third-party-candidates-lose-legal-fight-to-get-into-debates/

The YouTube video: https://represent.us/action/theproblem-3/

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-16 10:33:13
| Speak Round
FamousdebaterFamousdebater (OO)

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.


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.



Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-21 08:27:05
| Speak Round
FamousdebaterFamousdebater (OO)
In this round I will refute arguments used in favor of the affirmative cases burden. This includes (but is not limited to) OG's case. 

Dislike for both Major Candidates 

This means nothing. This debate is about whether it is worth voting for other candidates. Not about whether people want to vote for the major candidates. If you don't like both major candidates and you agree with a third party candidate then it's completely logical for you to vote for a third party candidate (it is not under my BOP to contest this), however it isn't necessarily worth it which is something that the affirmative case must prove. This argument does not advance my opponent's burden and therefore the impact on the resolution is nonexistent. 

Third party Influence

This debate is about the 2016 US presidential election not any presidential election. In my case I analyzed the chances of a third party victory. There are two third party candidates that are receiving more than 1% of the vote. These are the libertarians (receiving 4.7% of the vote) [1] and the Green party (receiving 2.1% of the vote) [1]. The two major candidates are the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats have 45.4% of the vote as of now [1]. The Republicans have 42.6% [1]. In order for the largest third party candidate (the Libertarians) to win they'd need to climb over 40.7% more of the vote from 4.7%. Considering that the US presidential election starts in roughly a week it is incredibly unlikely for the largest third party candidate to win [2] (it would require roughly an 800% increase in vote quantity over an 8 day period). 


This is also irrelevant as I highlighted in my case. The debate is about whether it's "worth" voting for a third party candidate. Not about the legality of it. I do not propose that we prevent people from voting for a third party candidate. That would be an infringement on democracy. I merely propose the notion that it isn't "worth" it.  

Influence on the Major parties

This isn't an argument that was raised by OG however it is one that I will preemptively refute. This is the argument that if enough people vote for a third party candidate then it will have influence on how other parties introduce policies (ie. the logic is that if enough people vote libertarian, for example, the other major parties may choose to adopt some libertarian policies so that they can gain some of the libertarian vote). 

The problem with this is that: 

A) This is a 2016 US presidential election related debate. All major policies have already been announced their policies so voting 3rd party during the actual vote will change nothing about your vote being "worth it" - at least not in this particular election (which is what this debate is about, see: resolution). 

B) The number of third party votes per third party candidate are minuscule. 2.1% and 4.7% for the two largest third parties. The weight of an additional 2.1%-4.7% is incredibly minor - especially when considering that the percentage increase from the absolute maximum amount of third party votes gained requires an 800% increase in votes. If you look at the amount of influence gained by the green party a 2000% increase is required for them to win the election. This shows how small the amount of votes they have really is when compared to the major candidates. It's under my opponent's burden to demonstrate that the third parties will have an influence - which is going to be virtually impossible considering point A (even without consideration to point B). 

The resolution is negated. Please vote OO! 


[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
[2] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=when+does+the+us+election+start&oq=when+does+the+us+election+start&aqs=chrome..69i57.5106j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-31 07:23:30
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CG)
I'd like to thank both opening sides for starting this debate.

So far the debate has centered on some abstraction of the philosophical underpinnings of democracy - whilst OG has argued a multi-party system would be great, OO has largely rebutted that this benefit does not accrue from the model. What's missed in all that is what I believe to be the central issue in this debate, something I like to call my "extension". My extension is that Jill Stein is the best candidate for president 2016. To win this debate, my extension argument needs to be the most substantive at the end - it is not necessary for me to address every one of the arguments that has come before.

Value isn't measured by who wins
By the logic we've heard so far from the opposition, everyone who doesn't conform to the majority opinion is casting a wasted vote. The reason why relatively unknown politicians, like Obama in the 2008 election and Trump or Bernie in this one, have done well is precisely because people have had the courage to stand up to the establishment. And even then the movement generated by a failed campaign can even be more powerful than a successful campaign. Even now the failed campaigns of Ron Paul are in the memories of many, or Mitt Romney. And Clinton's previous failed campaign no doubt set her on the right course this time around.

You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything
The immortal words of Aaron Tippin are never more true. Third party votes are more an issue of morality than public policy. By standing up for what we believe is right, we might not have the best or most desirable outcome in a political sense, but we have still stood up for what we believe in, and crucially, against something we don't believe in. That's called having a conscience, and it affirms the inalienable democratic right of self-governance even more than defeatist thinking ever could, because it sets people on the right side of history who have the courage to stand up for what's good.

The Greens only need 5% to win
Winning is relative. Should the Greens get 5% of the popular vote, that unlocks all sorts of cool bonuses for them like more ballot access and more public funding. Stein's 5% goal is realistic in this context and is about more than just the presidency. This in and of itself has some measure of worth.

The election is rigged anyway
Even if all that doesn't convince you, consider Donald Trump's eloquent claim that the election is rigged against him. He should know because everybody agrees he's in cahoots with Russian hackers who have infiltrated the inner workings of the US government. Therefore no votes have any value in the sense that we've heard it used so far - a better standard is our moral compass.

So what makes Jill Stein so great?
Jill Stein's 2016 campaign is fueled by the Power to the People plan, a visionary re-imagining of American economics, politics and society. The broad idea is that American people are too shackled by the burdens of exploitation and greed. In Stein's view, the government's role should be to pursue peace, protect the planet, and put people over profit. This immediately sets Jill Stein apart from other candidates, as her plan is aspirational more than policy-focused. That's not to say that she doesn't have some great ideas, but her mission is to change the broken system, not build on it.

Things she believes in
  • 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/

This debate should be about whether the sort of vision espoused by great leaders like Jill Stein is right for America, or at least better than those delusions the front-running criminals were told to say. I think my opening side did a good job in explaining why the major parties were bad, but not enough on why Jill Stein should be president. Given that premise, of course, voting for her is worth it. I challenge the closing opposition side to tell me which closing party candidate they consider to be superior to the amazing Jill Stein.

Why are those things so great?
Because they align with the issues and challenges America faces today, and will face in the coming years. We all know that climate change is a major risk, and we need to do our part to prevent it. We know there is corporate greed and corruption. We know the election system is open to abuse with all manner of dodgy donations. We know there is an unjustifiable amount of racial discrimination. And so many other issues! These are things Americans put up with, believing them to the price of a fair economy or government.

When a better way is offered, or at least a pathway towards a better way, then we must not be afraid of where that leads us. In particular, being a visionary campaign, the Green Party have the only candidate not taking donations from corporations or lobbyists. They are based exclusively on the Green Party vision.

But admin, what about all those crazy things Stein believes?
Awesome question, because now we're talking about what third party voting is REALLY about - who has the best policy for America. Voting for the party with the best policy is always worth it on so many more levels than simply achieving a plurality in some broken, biased and now apparently rigged electoral college.

It's also worth considering that some of Stein's beliefs do not invalidate her public policy agenda - the same is true of her party and her running mate. The selling point of the Green party ticket is the vision that the Green party are promoting for America. At the same time it's also important to assess the moral credibility of candidates, as we have seen in cases like Hillary's email scandals and Trump's women scandals. I think Stein is well placed in that respect.

Early in the campaign Trump openly claimed vaccines make people sick, while Stein's crime has been only to say that there's "no evidence" that they do rather than flat out "they don't". This is, in fact, the scientifically honest answer. All science is self-correcting. As a doctor she'd be better placed than Trump or Hillary to lead the CDC.

Stein does oppose building many new nuclear plants and favors other renewables instead. Which is cool because currently, nuclear is heavily subsidized above renewables. In the context of Stein's overall vision, a 4-year freeze on nuclear construction (insofar as the president has that power) is hardly a problem.

There are likely other objections but they fall into one of these categories.

So to summarize...
This isn't about democracy, because the USA is a democracy already, at least ostensibly. It's about making the right choice for the country. The whole social, political, legal and moral underpinning of American society is grounded in people doing what's right for them and for America. And I believe Jill Stein is the right choice for president. Therefore it is totally worth it to vote with a conscience and to vote for Jill Stein.

The resolution is affirmed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-31 20:37:36
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CG)
What can I say? XD

As the whip speech for side government, there isn't much for me to reflect on. We've heard no extension from closing opposition - I even practically handed them one by inviting them to defend another candidate - but nope. So anything they say now can't be responded to in the debate, making it moot at best and, for all intents and purposes, practically irrelevant.

What remains, then, is two key elements of analysis. On the one hand you have the opening, which questioned the motion from a simplistic view of worth. I rebutted the opposition perspective on this as both factually wrong and irrelevant to the debate. Indeed the opposition did little to extend on the analysis offered by opening government, despite some through rebuttals to their substantive. These have hardly stood up to the enduring scrutiny of my logic.

More crucially, the focus of the debate has shifted to a more holistic notion, taking into account that there is at least a moral value in third party candidacy. I extended the debate by means of the case study of Jill Stein, the right choice for president in this election. I even went so far as to rebut preemptively a few attacks on her. None of this was challenged by closing opposition.

At the end of this debate, the narrative is one of determining what kind of party Americans should vote for. And if it's a third party, I have conclusively shown third party votes are worth it. Given that everyone in this debate has practically conceded the main candidates are terrible, and that Jill Stein is objectively the best possible leader for the USA right now, I think this conclusion should be fairly self-evident.

Thank you and good luck to all other participants.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-11-06 05:18:10
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
@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 ;)
Posted 2016-11-22 04:09:27
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
No, but it works in a debate
Posted 2016-11-21 16:43:11
"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 effect
Posted 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 @admin
Posted 2016-11-16 08:02:16
Bug *should* be fixed now.

Good luck @Famousdebater :)
Posted 2016-11-16 05:26:44
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

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 :D
Posted 2016-10-26 08:41:24
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
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
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
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 XD
Posted 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 first
Posted 2016-10-12 07:41:56
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 hi
Posted 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. :)
Posted 2016-10-11 10:19:02
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
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 @BioHazard
Posted 2016-10-11 09:03:27
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-11-20 10:44:58
KohaiJudge: Kohai
Win awarded to: admin
Test vote

Forfeiting two rounds in a row is never good!
2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2016-11-21 08:56:05
brandon.the.debaterJudge: brandon.the.debater
Win awarded to: admin
Hello, and before I start my reasoning I would like to congratulate all that took part of this debate. Although my ultimate decision was Admin, it was very difficult to make a clear decision. Once again, great job y'all!
Now, this debate is obviously, at least in my opinion, inclined towards Government, although Opposition still had a solid framework that could have been put into place. The Government had a fabulous starting argument, which really provoked a win for BioHazard. Next, OO presented a good and solid argument, but not as strong as OG. Unfortunately, BioHazard could have gotten my vote, but unfortunately, failed to continue onwards with the second round. Then OO once again presented a weak but solid argument.
CG continued, and they persuaded me with a great, solid, easy-to-understand case which ultimately, with the OG as well, led them to victory, since CO, forfeited both rounds afterward.
So, on terms of forfeits and arguments, and maybe even biased thoughts, the Government won this resolution. Now, when it came to forfeits, Admin won, but case and arguments were all for BioHazard. But, since Admin had strong case development, he won.

BioHazard -
Congrats, you totally rocked your argument. It was simple, but it really was strong and defended your side very easily. It was indestructible, a nearly impossible argument to refute, but yet you dropped at second round leading me to feel disappointment. You would have won this easily with at lead a paragraph of strong and solid refutations.
Famousdebater -
This was a very well constructed case. It was organized well and it was ultimately easy to read and understand. But, the arguments were weak and unstable, simple and not as intriguing and convincing as OG. You rebuttals also weak, work on that, but other than that you did a good job.
Admin -
Good arguments, very easy to understand, but could have been better. Kinda biased, and not as strong as it could have been. You did not forfeit, which was great and it showed your confidence.
Cooldudebro -
You did not do anything at all and showed lack of confidence.

2 comments on this judgement
Thanks for the vote. This was an unfamiliar topic for me so I didn't really expect to win this one.
Posted 2016-11-22 03:55:34
Your statements are quite general though. Could you be more specific as to what I could have improved upon or changed in my case?
Posted 2016-11-22 03:58:48

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None