Instigator / Pro
3
1485
rating
19
debates
44.74%
won
Topic
#5554

I am pro-rank choice voting

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

WyIted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1498
rating
34
debates
66.18%
won
Description

Rank Choice Voting means that instead of picking person a or person b or person c, you would award a, b, and c all ranked top down points rather than 1 - 0 -0, it would be 1 - .5 -.25. Ultimately, the favored candidate would win and not the “lesser of two evils”. We would have more favorable presidents and really anyone who we elect using this system.

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

This is just a Foregone Conclusion, and I could easily leave it at that, but I am going to give a little bit of feedback to Pro.

First of all, you just waived the first round completely unnecessarily and let your opponent have a free extra round. Why?

Second of all, you didn't actually do anything to prove your case. As the one arguing the affirmative position regarding the resolution, you have the Burden of Proof, meaning that you have to try and prove that RCV should be enacted. However, the only thing you did to try and prove this was to simply state that we would get better candidates elected rather than just the lesser of two evils. That sounds good, but you didn't actually do anything to PROVE that this is true. You can't just state your conclusions and leave the work you did to get there as an exercise for the reader. This is a competitive debate. You actually have to substantiate your case! But you didn't even bother to do that here.

On the other hand, Con clearly did put some actual effort in and described some actual downsides to RCV, such as lower turnout and delayed election results. Con wins this one in a landslide.

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

The proponent did not provide a substantial argument or any sources. Additionally, I found their conduct to be somewhat unprofessional.