Voter suppression in Georgia, does it exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
I believe that the voter suppression in Georgia simply does not exist. Good luck to my opponent.
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 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.
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."
VI. Sources
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
- 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.
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.
Conduct to con for the forfeits.
Arguments.
The ballot tossing argument wins this alone. Pros source noted a federal judge agreed with the argument that the actions were illegal voter suppression, the description seems like voter suppression, and con had no substantive reply to it. The important aspect is the burden pro mentions on voters to re-vote, to which con did not reply.
Cons rebuttal was primarily that this was okay, not that it was voter suppression: and on those grounds I have to accept pros argument.
The second point, relates to exact match. Pro points out that out of rejected matches, 70% were for black voters. Pro also cites sources indicating that this had an undue burden on the individuals involved, and that it disproportionally affected minorities.
Cons rebuttal was mostly a non rebuttal; demanding proof that a disproportionate number of minorities being removed is due to racism. This is not relevant to the resolution: the reason does not have to be explicitly racist to be voter suppression, and as con offers no reason why this is not suppression, I have to accept this too. The only defence is that individuals could still vote if they can prove a substantial match: while I may buy the technicalities, the burden that inherent burden pro pointed out in his sources isn’t undermined simply by cons say-so. Con has to reasonably demonstrate that there is minimum or no burden to refute it.
So from these I have two ways I can vote to uphold pro arguments and none for con. Arguments to pro.
Sources:
The prop publica source, the WaPo source (neatly quoted for cons benefit), and the NPR link upheld pros burden here and substantially added to pros warrant by demonstrating inherent suppression. Without these sources, this argument would have been substantially weaker. Cons few sources weren’t as well targeted and were mostly used to bolster facts that he then used to draw inferences from - which doesn’t increase his warrant in this case. Worse, as pro pointed out, the Fox News post was linked to support one premise but appeared to nominally support pros position. Because of this pros usage of sources was superior and helped his case much more and warrants awarding a source point. Sources to pro.
Note: for anyone wondering this was almost a textbook example of how to use sources well in a debate by pro.
I really dislike voting with this many points toward one side when the other made a solid effort... I wish I could balance by awarding say 1 point for arguments instead of 3 (can't be done, but I can daydream)
Conduct (Fran.):
Virt. forfeited a round… And no, the dropping of another round does not hurt conduct (it still hurts arguments, but that’s a whole other thing).
Oh and Fran. did not forfeit (it still annoys me that this needs to be listed).
S&G (Virt.):
Fran., I strongly advise writing your future arguments in MS Word or another smart text editor.
1. Missing characters (most often apostrophes), problems with your/you’re distinctions, capitalization abuse, missing spaces between words, etc. Examples “NO CANT” “he didn’t won fairly” “COMBINED. No race here. Just nonsense for democrats.” (that one doesn’t make sense as separate sentences, nor if the periods were changed to commas). “impending?But” even were the periods fixed, this just doesn’t make sense as the separate sentences there that one doesn’t make sense
2. The commonality of these errors kept pulling me from the debate.
3. In comparison: the other side used great formatting to make the debate easy to follow.
Sources (Virt.):
Fran. started this on a low note. Sources should never be a strawperson fallacy video, it hurts the credibility of the side using it especially when a point is made that it is the only source needed.
Virt. Started with giving definitions (honestly those should have been in the description), setting himself as a voice of reason (it’s not that he necessarily is, but he postured himself as such given that neither side’s arguments make sense without this). Then repeated source after source to support the presence of voter suppression. The 6th was of particular weight, given that a real judge ruled against what was happening (they’re more knowledgeable than any of us on this, so great and valid appeal to authority). I also do give extra credit when someone is able to call back to their same sources between rounds (it speaks of the reliability of sources, and avoids source spamming).
Arguments (Virt.):
So here’s the big thing, if the tactic was used but did not really impact anything, it was still used. It need not even be done by race (it’s more likely to be done by education and income levels… it’s not like white people write in white ink and black people in black… we should all fear the unseen blue people!). It was however proven to be done against people who vote by mail, and the resolution is written as an absolute.
note 1: Given how the rest of this vote has turned out, I kind of want to leave arguments a tie, but it is the one thing that absolutely has to be graded to grade anything else.
note 2: I suspect the resolution may have been written to address a different premise than what Fran intended it to be.
C1 (Fran.): “A democrat Lost.”
This goes to Fran., but has no impacts. That either side lost does not mean anything about the topic, as one side was guaranteed to lose (okay technically in a billion such elections there might be a tie, but that is getting into an absurd area of consideration).
C2 (Virt.): Conflict of interest (AKA “Observations about the Election”)
This went unchallenged. Virt set this up successfully as a premise to use for later arguments, but by itself it does not gain ground. Things can be sketch as hell, but not in itself prove much. … I do give credit to Fran for using my favorite rebuttal “irrelevant.”
C3 (Virt.): MAIL Ballot Tossing
Virt. proved it was done to massive levels, coming to about 10% of votes that were mailed in, on an election that was narrow to only 1.5%. Fear of criminal aliens did not undo what was done. Interestingly Fran’s source could have been used to explain what was expressly pointed out as unexplained and suspicious, but what I read in the source does not matter, what is cited from it is all that does.
Had that 10% been proven to be a normal amount of rejected votes, this would not be such a decisive argument.
C4 (tie): Exact Match Rule
Over 50k voters suppressed. A judge had to intervene against it… It feels wrong, but I can’t say if it was or was not voter suppression given that neither debater advanced it after their original comments on the subject.
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.
Arguments:
Ballot Tossing:
Pro contends that 1 in 10 ballots are inexplicably thrown out and this creates a burden upon those who must cast new ballots. Con responds that ballots may be resubmitted or voted by in person. This is a weak rebuttal because it does not address the contention where a burden has been unduly placed (and hence by agreed definition under less convenient voting, voter fraud). Pro further cites authoritative figures to reinforce his claim that this is an example of voter suppression. Con doesn't seem to have made a case why these authoritative figures should not be considered, despite the obvious appeal to authority. In general, Con's rebuttals to this point were weak, however Pro has critically failed to demonstrate that these thrown out ballots were those of a specific groups. I can only assume that these ballots were thrown out in some sort of random distribution which fails to meet the established definition in which specific groups should be impacted.
Exact Match:
Pro contends that the exact match law places unfair burden on groups of individuals, specifically blacks. Con counters by stating that there were no provably racist intentions. As Pro correctly points out, racist intentions have little bearing. To meet definition, there only need be some sort of impact towards a group of people (which just so happened to be black in this case). Con also makes a similar argument as before, where he contends that those affected by the exact match law may still vote. Again however, this does not address the point that Con makes in that it places unfair burden.
Pro's arguments were unimpressive. However I thought Con's rebuttals were particularly ill-conceived. Hence points to Pro.
Conduct:
Pretty clear here. Dropping two rounds is pretty atrocious
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?