The 2020 ELECTION was not STOLEN
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The 2020 ELECTION was not STOLEN from DONALD TRUMP
DEFINITIONS:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election]
The 2020 ELECTION was "the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and the junior U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the incumbent Republican president Donald Trump and incumbent vice president Mike Pence The election took place against the backdrop of the global COVID-19 pandemic and related recession. It was the first election since 1992, the first in the 21st century, and the fifth in the past 100 years, in which the incumbent president failed to win a second term. The election saw the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900, with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008. Biden received more than 81 million votes, the most votes ever cast for a candidate in a U.S. presidential election.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stolen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal
STOLEN [VERB] is the past participle of
STEAL [VERB] is "to take illegally; To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully"
BURDEN of PROOF
Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
Burden of Proof is shared.
PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America.
PRO will be obligated to demonstrate electoral fraud by Democrats on a scale sufficient to overturn the published result
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new args in R3
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
- The 2020 US Presidential Election enjoyed the highest voter participation in US history, with both candidates breaking Barack Obama's previous record of 69.5 million votes.
- BIDEN/HARRIS garnered 81,268,924 votes .
- That's a decisive 51.31% margin
- 17 out of 59 previous Presidential elections were decided by a smaller margin of advantage in the popular vote.
- That is, 2020 was not even in the top 20% of close Presidential races by popular vote.
- BIDEN/HARRIS won by a even larger margin in the Electoral College, garnering 306 out of 538 state electoral votes,
- That's a 56.8% margin.
- 13 out of 59 previous Presidential elections were decided by a smaller advantage in electoral college votes.
- That is, 2020 was not even in the top 20% of close Presidential races by electoral college vote.
- Pursuant to the Electoral Count Act, presidential electors met in the state capitol of each state and in the District of Columbia on December 14, 2020, and formalized Biden's victory
- In six States that voted for Biden, some Republicans met on the same day to unlawfully appoint themselves "alternate electors."
- None of these 6 outlaw slates received support from any State legislature
- None of these 6 outlaw slates received a Governor's signature as required by law.
- None of these 6 slates enjoyed any legal standing according to any State or Federal statute.
- Pursuant to Title 3, section 15 of the US Code, The 117th United States Congress convened in Joint Session on January 6, 2021, counted and officially certified the Electoral College's decision.
- The certification of two States' results met with legal objections but both objections were overwhelmingly voted down
- The certification was interrupted for 7 hours by an armed militia assembled by the sitting President for the purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power by disruption or assassination.
- Political scientists and data scientists working for news organizations project a winner in a Presidential race once there is a a high mathematical confidence that the uncounted vote in insufficient to alter the apparent result.
- On Nov 6th, 2020, Decision Desk HQ projected Biden's win after determining that Biden's lead in Pennsylvania was insurmountable and with those 20 electoral votes, Biden's 273 votes made him the inevitable winner, whatever the remaining count.
- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & the AP all called the election the next morning based on Biden's lead in Pennsylvania.
- The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) described the 2020 election as"the most secure in American history there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
- “To date, [DOJ investigators] have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” – Attorney General William Barr, December 1, 2020,
- The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has monitored U.S. elections since 2002 , and dispatched 102 observers from 39 countries to observe the 2020 Election. On Nov 4th the ODIHR issued the following statement:
- "The 3 November general elections were competitive and well managed despite legal uncertainties and logistical challenges. In a highly polarized political environment, harsh campaign rhetoric fueled tensions. Measures intended to secure the elections during the pandemic triggered protracted litigation driven by partisan interests. The uncertainty caused by late legal challenges and evidence-deficient claims about election fraud created confusion and concern among election officials and voters. Voter registration and identification rules in some states are unduly restrictive for certain groups of citizens. The media, although sharply polarized, provided comprehensive coverage of the campaign and made efforts to provide accurate information on the organization of elections."
- Biden's victory is a well-established fact.
- There's literally hundreds more authoritative sources validating the lawfulness and accuracy of the 2020 Election results but the object of interest to the question is the weak, even outrageous nature of the evidence brought those claiming fraud.
- I look forward to CON's R1.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
- https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2008pres.pdf
- https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020presgeresults.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin#List
- https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020presgeresults.pdf
- https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/STATUTE-24-Pg373.pdf
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
- https://www.vox.com/21552641/joe-biden-wins-pennsylvania-decision-desk
- https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secur
- https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/6/469437.pdf
- I'll remind VOTERS that PRO set a rule in this debate's DESCRIPTION, making any forfeit the equivalent of automatic loss.
- PRO asks VOTERS to consider CON's forfeit an automatic loss.
- Please extend all ROUND 1 arguments.
- Biden's victory is a well-established fact.
- I look forward to CON's R2.
- I'll remind VOTERS that PRO set a rule in this debate's DESCRIPTION, making any forfeit the equivalent of automatic loss.
- PRO asks VOTERS to consider CON's forfeit an automatic loss.
- Please extend all ROUND 1 arguments.
- Biden's victory is a well-established fact
- Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration, and
- Please VOTE PRO!
1 day left for easy FF's
less than a week for voting
"there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so"
You are a sucker to think so. Donald Trump inherited one/tenth of all rental properties in New York City and lost it all in twenty years. If he had done absolutely nothing but held on to what he inherited he'd be worth $200 billion today and easily the richest man on Earth. But still, after losing it all, the media let him publish books about his financial genius and then the media actually paid him to play a guy on TV who knows about money, the media knew he was pocketing all that money he claimed to give to charity on his tv show and they let him get away with it, the media knew all those people calling into radio shows to talk about how much they loved Donald Trump was actually just Donald Trump and they let him get away with it, the media knew he'd ripped off nearly every bank and lawyer he'd ever done business with but they let him get away with it, the media knew Jeff Epstein threw parties for Trump where it was just the two of them alone with 30 girls and they let him get away with it. Nobody in the history of mankind has gotten a better break from the media than Donald Trump.
"You basically only argue truisms."
Since you disagree with everything I say isn't that your admission that not only are you wrong about everything but you know that you are wrong about everything?
I have been working on being less cynical and you are sucking into defending some argument I don't agree with because Ii enjoy defending the position.
I did want to state there is no way Trump is an insider when the insiders and media were going after him so hard and are still doing so. That's just a bad take.
Instead of taking a reasonable take by pointing out people like pol pot, mao and Hitler were also outsiders you take the take of "derp Trump was an establishment insider despite the establishment going after him like rabbis dogs"
You win debates because your opponent is arguing on unequal ground. I suggested a far more interesting debate. One about the ethics of overthrowing a Democratic government if election tampering went through.
Still an argument that is a bit on unequal grounds, because there are processes to challenge injustices such as courts, but because the resolution only slightly favors you, you puss out of taking it.
You basically only argue truisms.
seems like a delaying tactic but fine,
Should I go ahead and set up the forum post?
"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.
Good, that should be your claim.
"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."
That would be insane.
"I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden.
Good, that should be your claim.
"I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate."
That would be insane.
Well if your definition of stolen is that all votes were illegitimate then that is obviously a given that the election was not stolen.
I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden. I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate.
I used "stolen" because this was the wording used in the title of this debate. So I was just using the language that was already in use.
Maybe we should do a forum post where we both come to terms with what we would like to debate. That way it will speed up the process, and it will also provide context to the potential voters.
"Stolen" is your claim not mine. I would encourage you to set up the debate as a positive assertion and define all of your terms maximally in the DESCRIPTION so that I can review them and accept/reject. You must prove that Biden only won through fraud not just that there was some fraud. Much of Trump's fraud was more or less out in the open.
Oh, especially in regard to things like "stolen" and such. Does a stolen election mean it was simply rigged or that Trump actually won and the left stole it?
We would need to define these terms. This is why I prefer the legal definitions as set out in the U.S. Code. Or at minimum the closest we can get to them.
If I accept, we would need to start with a commonly-held set of definitions or at least a common dictionary.
Ideally, I'd want to use the U.S. Federal Government's terms and the U.S. Code to determine the ground rules and such for what we are debating.
Without doing this then there is really no point in debating it, right? There's no common ground and we could just make up our own arguments, definitions, and sources at that point.
"P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
Agreed. In 2020, the govt was run by Trump who was only out for his own best interest
"P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders"
Objectively false. Trump's entire career has been schmoozing political insiders. If the Bush and Clinton families are the dominant political insiders of the past 30 years, then few Americans have given more money, attending more parties, invited them to more of his parties than Trump. Trump best friends were Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein, both introduced to him by Roy Cohn in the 1980s, both of whom spent every waking hour schmoozing Republican insiders. When the time came to write his political platform for the 2016 election, Trump took Romney's platform word for word except for dropping US support for Ukraine and dropping condemnation of Russia's invasion of Crimea. In 2020, he made zero changes to the Republican platform at all. Trump put it in writing that he thought that Republican principles in 2012 were just fine for 2020. No previous presidential candidate or president has ever been so well satisfied with the status quo.
"P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected."
Trump was the ultimate insider from 2016 to 2020 and his many treasons were both super detectable and now starting to be referenced to our criminal justice system.
:C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election."
Your syllogism game really sucks.
A does B
C hates B
A does B
therefore
A does B
There's little doubt Trump did everything he could to steal the election but he was thwarted by the honest democratic participation of many good citizens.
"I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations."
Let's recall that Paul Manafort ran that election for the Russo-Ukrainian faction too. Manafort now admits that he gave Trump's election insider info to Putin in exchange for $30 million.
"The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud." "Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?"
post-facto non-sequitur. The ease with which Trump followers were duped after the election has no impact on the facts of the election itself.
"Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?"
Obviously you haven't studied the Orange Revolution yourself or you would know that it was a bloodless revolution. You'll remember that that Yushchenko survived an attempted assassination by Russian agents, which united the fractured opposition against Putin/Manafort's candidate. The election day results were so obviously fake because the majority of election officials complained about fraud, all international observers complained about fraud, the exit polls were way off from the results. The majority of parliament refused to attend the swearing in ceremony. After two months of non-violent but economically devastating general strikes, the Supreme Court ruled the election was rigged and ordered a re-vote under much more free and fair conditions, which Yushenko won handily.
In other words, the exact opposite of 2020.
P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders
P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected.
C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election.
I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations.
The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud.
Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?
Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?
Just looking for somebody with the guts to explain why they believe the 2020 election was stolen. What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence and ALL of the evidence presented to claim fraud boils down to mentally ill conspiracy theories.
I have no reason to respect critiques from people unwilling or unable to stand up for the counterargument.
Of course you are correct. As I stated previously, "I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism." Despite the forfeits, the instigator did not even deliver a valid argument that supports his position, and in my view, he conveyed it to a much weaker degree than perceived in the mainstream.
Be happy to remake this debate for either of you.
I'm unsure why CON forfeited when all Oromagi did was appeal to authority.
Basic burden of proof requires that the person who makes the claim must cite evidence for their claim.
The problem is, state and city governments DO NOT publicly reveal the vote tally. Not even to the people who cast their vote. So there is no way to know if the governing officials are lying or not. We are not allowed to see that data.
Additionally, the CISA document does not actually show any evidence for why they make their assertion. They simply make a claim without evidence, which violates basic burdens of proof and also constitutes as an appeal to authority.
Those in favor of voter fraud have brought forth 900 fact witnesses, hundreds of news articles, and mathematical analyses that purportedly show voter fraud. This evidence was conveniently ignored.
It's a shame. Because I really wanted to read a good debate on this.
There isn't enough evidence available to know if it is fraud. He had available Access to classified documents I don't. Knowing what I do about the oligarchy, I would say yes
I think I'd recommend that you summon the courage to complete one debate without forfeiting before calling other debaters cowards.
So you admit that Trump's "stolen election: claims are fraud?
This is the type of cowardly debate I am talking about. The far more interesting debate is, assuming the election was stolen, would the actions on January 6th be justified.
Thanks for voting!
Please remove my vote here, it appears I voted for the wrong side.
Thanks for voting!
Mike says you are welcome.
Thanks for voting, FLRW!
I can re-issue this if you'd like
wrong debate, ignore last comment
3 days left to vote!
They stole votes, not the election, if anything.
It is stolen from the democratic people voting actually. :)
You just got semantically bodied, troll.
That is your opinion. You can’t own an election. Nor did any election just announce a change of its date after it has happened. No election has disappeared all of a sudden. What is stolen, if anything, is electoral votes. The election itself because it is there Is not stolen no matter what.
@TWS1405 probably best to find unbiased news sources as a source. No?
The election could have been stolen, and it could have not been. If con is able to present reasonable uncertainty, I would argue that the resolution defaults to the Pakistani gentleman. I don't consider the instigator particularly potent in deliberation concerning specific empiricism.
Confirmation bias.
And still not one shred of "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election." For some reason, you decided to tell lies in the comments of this debate and now you are desperately trying to change the subject rather than try to prove those lies.
With each post that you fail to offer anything that looks like "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election" you lose credibility.
>>retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:<<
Easy to claim, so easy an amoeba can do it. Much harder to prove. Takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence to do so. The latter you clearly are deficient in. But you are abundant in denialism regarding the last part of that statement. Genetic fallacy 100x
retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:
"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."
>>The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.>>
My links cited in the previous comment were in direct response to the above nonsense.
Unsurprisingly, none of these links seem to be about the 2020 Election or offer any proof that the election was fixed as you have claimed. On this debate site, linking to somebody else's argument instead of formulating your own opinion is the same thing as making no argument at all.
Says you...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/levin-post-constitutional-america
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/josh-hawleys-humiliation-by-jan-6-committee-unconstitutional-mark-levin/ar-AAZVRsP
https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-host-mark-levin-i-hope-you-dont-watch-january-6-committee-hearing
https://uproxx.com/viral/mark-levin-josh-hawley-jan-6-committee/
https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/mark-levin-jan-6-committee
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jan-6-hearings-abomination-american-system-mark-levin
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/28/sean-davis-pelosis-jan-6-committee-is-a-farce-run-by-shameless-dishonest-partisans/
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/28/january-6th-emergency-hearing-delivers-laughably-absurd-bombshells-n585732
https://www.freepressfail.com/2022/06/12/its-morbin-time-the-jan-6-committee-is-officially-a-joke/
I can go on and on and on...
"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."
That's not only quite false but also the opposite of true. The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.
I continue to refrain from giving any opinion on this matter, as new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election. But I will wait for more affirming and damning evidence that will expose the truth we all have known all along.
"You can't steal an election, it will always be there."
As a citizen of China, I must say you're one of the only people on the website who could make that statement sound more ironic and off-topic than it already is.
Welcome to the site!
You must be new here
You can't steal an election, it will always be there.
trying to farm an easy win lol
But what about Bill Clinton?