Instigator / Con
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#910
Voter suppression in Georgia, does it exist?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
David
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
24
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Description
I believe that the voter suppression in Georgia simply does not exist. Good luck to my opponent.
Round 1
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.
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:
VI. Sources
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
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:
- 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]
- 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.
- Exists: have objective reality or being.
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
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.
1.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-under-scrutiny-for-alleged-voter-suppression-whats-going-on
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
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
extend
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:
- 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]
- 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.
- 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
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
Its no problem at all, a lot of people make a similar mistake :)
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.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
I can defend it.
Vote not properly explained
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.
I would like to think Pinkfreud08 for voting and encourage others to vote as well
I do understand my positions
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.
There is a difference between a political debate and whether the earth is flat or round
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.
You are ALWAYS wrong omar,in my opinion
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.
Just add "seeing" in between
Is ________ something
Missed it out.
Omar, Im sorry but his conversation is over, a debate is a battle of opinions. Supported by facts,statistics and other factors. No one is right.Bye
So do you have an example that you agree with then add it in the question?
Here is the question.
Is something like A different to saying something about B and tell me the difference?
It was a example.
Now tell me. Is seeing something like gun defense different to saying something about voter suppression and tell me the difference?
opinion: I think Voter suppression existed in the US
Fact: Guns stop 80k to 2 million violent crimes per year
Example of a fact.
What is a difference between an opinion and a fact?
Nothing except facts.
What do you consider to be right or wrong?
Example would be helpful.
I dont know, its a opinion, I think it is, but Its not wrong or right. What is murder too. Murdering yourself via Euthanasia
Is murder wrong?
No they don't once again, millions of people debate gun control. In one debate one side had better arguments, the other isn't right.
right-true or correct as a fact.
A opinion isn't right
When someone does something better. They have the right way of doing things. It might just be in that very narrow concept or might be the best way of doing things. Your example of gun control doesn't prove your point.
No, just because someone had better arguments they won the debate, not they were right. Millions of people debate gun control. Someone could win the debate but the loser isn't wrong either
Correct is another way of saying you are right.
Thinking both of you are right doesn't matter. It matters who made the best argument by being logically consistent. If one does not be logically consistent they are wrong.
If I disprove Virtuoso, then i am correct, we both think we are right so no one is objectively wrong.
What a joke. Making a non-sequitur comment doesn't address what I say. I'll apply it to the context of the debate because I know it is difficult for you to understand anything.
This debate is about whether or not voter suppression exists.
If Virtuoso proves it exists he is correct.
This is a debate not objective morality
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in objective morality?
If you do. You believe in right or wrong.
If not tell am I wrong about the sun being the moon?
when will you learn that neither side is wrong or right, they just disagree.
Easy win. Don't think I need to explain how to debunk his only good argument because even if it still goes unchallenged the argument for your side is much better and you did a really good job at laying it out. Don't expect your opponent to understand he is wrong. Take it from me he has a history of it.
Arguments coming soon. Sorry for the delay
Exactly what I was thinking!
Attack on two fronts!
Only run a k if there is a genuine harm.
Thanks. The question is whether or not I should run a k
You beat me to accepting by mere seconds! Anyway, best of luck to you.
The nation or part of the US?