Do you believe in our electoral process? - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons! is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.

Do you believe in our electoral process?

Debate Information


Interestingly, Larry Elder doesn't.  He concedes BEFORE the election even happened.. Truly, Republicans SEE fraud in an election that has NOT happened yet.  Voting day is TODAY.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Post Argument Now Debate Details +


  • Argument Topic: Do I believe in a voting process?

    Yes, our voting process does not hold a constitutional burden of representation by taxation. It clearly is not part of any voting process I contribute to by constitutional right. This is a republican issue of those people who see democracy as a supreme power to bear the legal burdens of misrepresentation or total lack of representation at a basic levle.

    People who pay sales tax can vote at one level.
    People who pay property tax can vote at an additional level.
    People who pay Federal Income tax can vote at even an additional level.
    People who pay tax as it is described as a cost of preserving Consitutional rights have an additional right to vote at certain levels of representation.

    If made before the court, the preservation of a state of the Union as united state can be identified as a second Amendment violation due to a well-regulated militia has not taken place formed by our use of a general principle of political vote by placing together all voting with simply agreement of democracy. Not the pre-noted principles of taxation based on representation. 
  • excon said:

    Interestingly, Larry Elder doesn't.  He concedes BEFORE the election even happened.. Truly, Republicans SEE fraud in an election that has NOT happened yet.  Voting day is TODAY.



    The key here is to keep in mind that no voting process is beyond correction as it grows and matures if it is guided by a quest for a more perfect union of representation to those who take part.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 15
    The next election in North Korea has not happened yet. Does it mean that one should give it the benefit of doubt and say, "The fraud has not happened yet, so there is nothing to talk about"?

    It is natural to question the integrity of elections in a state dominated by one party, with the governor (who directs the election process) being accused of corruption and incompetence. Democrats do it all the time as well, pointing at things Republicans do in states dominated by them. Just a couple of days ago someone here accused Republicans of changing the rules in Georgia so as to prevent "black people" from voting. Which, again, is a valid suspicion (if not supported by evidence). There is no evidence of any voter fraud anywhere in the US; it is just a partisan talking point.

    Now, I used to live in a country where in some states the ruling president obtained more than 100% votes (officially). And his supporters, of course, kept dismissing the accusations of a fraud, saying, "It is natural for people to love such an amazing leader so strongly!" I wish my love for someone was so strong that it overrode the rules of mathematics. :)
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  

    Perhaps allowing the entire public to have a say in politics has proven to be a bad idea.
  •  Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

    There is no evidence of any voter fraud anywhere in the US; it is just a partisan talking point.
    I have already admitted to taking part in perjury by voting on certain questions asked on state election ballots if found guilty my right to vote would be negated for a period of time as a result of my negligence. To ensure the limitation of time allowed to act on this crime is reduced to reasonable limits I was forced to admit to the crime publicly. Otherwise, it would linger over any choices I made as a voter indefinitely.

    The argument to be clear in the debate is over a taxed-based judicial system's ability to watch over and well regulated the size of a voter base within its jurisdiction. Otherwise easier to prove crimes such as murder and drug offenses force harder to convert crimes such as perjury out of the courts. This in turn does have an influence on voting as voters themselves do not associate risk in participation in a certain type " crime."

    If to speculate
    Let's say half of all voters unwittingly commit perjury by intentional deceit against other voters by an answer provided to a question that has been asked on a voting ballot? How does a court system deal with the possible backlog of this type of criminal organization when it is created? Can it deal with this type of backlog?

  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 15
    Argument Topic: Faith or Fact

    We can listen to the conspiracy theorists who want Trump to be POTUS, maybe for life.. they don't say, or we can listen to reasoned arguments based on facts.

    Trumpists don't like the outcome of the 2020 election, so want us to believe, without a shred of evidence that it was "rigged".

    This is wishful thinking based on faith.
    The 2020 was the most reliable election ever. Period.

    We are suffering from an epistemic crisis. It's faith vs fact. Faith cannot be the grounds of knowledge. We need to look at the cold, hard facts.

    I sure didn't like that Trump won the 2016 election. In fact, he lost the popular vote by at least 2 million votes. That's because the election process in the USA is actually rigged to favour the Republican party. But just because I didn't like the outcome, I did not presume a vast voter fraud happened. That's Trump's big lie and big lies work. Propaganda works. However, propaganda or just asserting things into existence, are not facts.

    We either have a democracy and vote and pay attention to what the people actually vote for or we have something else. We could have dictatorship or theocracy, instead.

    My vote is that we vote, and pay attention to the actual outcomes. Now, it's fine to have recounts. But ten months after an election is not the time for a recount. Recounts have been made, lawsuits have been advanced by the Trump re-election committee and lost. The only thing that Republicans CAN do to stay in power is to cast doubt on the process itself or attempt to suppress the votes of people who oppose their policies.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 15

    I honestly do not understand your comment. I will just say that voter fraud is a very serious accusation, and there better be very damning evidence going beyond "I think that this is what these guys really had in mind when passing this law...", or "Illegal immigrants vote for Democrats" without a single demonstrable case of that happening. So far, there has been none.

    I know what a real voter fraud looks like; I have witnessed it. Buses with the same group of people circulating between multiple voting points and throwing in their ballots - everything recorded from multiple angles, with the government weakly saying, "Well, what do you want, we are a large country, we cannot make sure that absolutely everything happens fairly". Happens in many illusory democracies.
    The US is (yet, at least) not an illusory democracy.

    My take on what happened in California is, Larry lost not because of some kind of "fraud". Larry lost simply because the Californian voter base does not support his platform. Now, I see his platform as far superior to Newsom's; Newsom is an abomination, the worst governor of California in 30 years (and that is quite a competition to partake in; being worse than Gray, Arny or Edmund - you have to be a Frankenstein for that). But the majority of Californians do not. They think that the $5 per gallon gas prices, homeless tents on the streets of San-Francisco and high-tech companies fleeing en masse to Texas - are a result of the economy not being regulated enough. Hence they are not voting for the people who point out the obvious contradiction here; they are voting for the same thing as before, on steroids.

    I love California; have been there multiple times and enjoyed my stay every time. But the state's economy is in tatters; you have to be blind to not see that. When things are that dire, pretty much no matter what your political views, you have to give a chance to someone who offers the opposite of what the current administration is doing. But that would mean allying with someone who says that "systemic racism" in the US does not exist... And in California, it would seem, feelings trump reason.
    Sad to see such a beautiful land, that was once a magnet of investments and free thinkers, turn into the opposite of all of that. But such is life. There is plenty of amazing states in the US; few people outside California will weep if the state falls apart.

    And Republicans, as always, fail to capitalize on it. It would be very easy for them to win California. Ditch the religious stuff, agree that there are real problems minorities face - and focus on the economy. But at this point Republicans themselves are turning their back on free markets. Where Democrats propose redistribution of wealth, Republicans propose subsidies and tariffs. Choosing between the two, it is no wonder that people choose what they feel is morally more sound.
  • @MayCaesar
    I honestly do not understand your comment. 

    In theory, all an educated person would do is find a fraud that involved perjury as these are hard-to-prove crimes in court that are very rarely prosecuted on large scales due to the time and cost of the crime. The crime is even less likely to be prosecuted when it is the voter who is taking part in the " false representation of a matter of fact." 

    I know what real voter fraud looks like; I have witnessed it.
    Voter fraud is a union held as united state, are you saying you have witnessed all type of voter fraud there is or will be? Type (a), (b), and (c)? Not very likely is it? I am addressing the overall state of the union made by voting and registration of voters

    And Republicans, as always, fail to capitalize on it. 
    Um... The major point I have you do not understand is everyone who votes is a republican, every citizen is a republican they do not have a choice in the matter. Adopting an alias for one reason or another does not matter.
  • @Blastcat
     That's because the election process in the USA is actually rigged to favour the Republican party. 

    It is set by law to be in favor of the republican as everyone is by basic principle a republican who votes in American politics. 
    Something basic to keep in mind Blastcat is that in American politics a voter has a Consitutional duty to hold certain unions as true they do not hold themselves true and popularity do not hold this in politics as true.
  • @MayCaesar
    I might make myself more clear if I say voting might create a better connection to the people if based more on taxation paid at different levels of governing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  

    For many reasons, voting based on taxation is a terrible idea. One of the most obvious one is the creation of a perverse incentive: the government will pay its own employees exorbitant sums of money, tax them heavily, and then allow them to vote for themselves.

    Ideally, the government should be completely separated from the economy, and coercive taxation should be abolished. This is the only practical way to avoid some variation of a win-to-pay-to-win system arising.
  • @Blastcat

    Everyone who votes in America is a republican even if it is not a registered political vote. Joining a group that shares an alias does not mean the people are legally separated from the republic and are no longer republican. The process of denouncing the union which holds the voter made as a member of the republic means the group in basic principle would not be allowed to vote in the political area within that republic.

    Here again, we would need to argue basic constitutional legal precedent and how it is held as a state of connection to the binding principles that govern a republic that is in search of the perfect union-made by basic explanation.
  • @MayCaesar

    For many reasons, voting based on taxation is a terrible idea.
    It is the reason of choice for one reason it is directed at taxation without representation. The voiced concern is well noted and I cannot see how it cannot be easily addressed underheld by basic easy to understand limits.

     the government will pay its own employees exorbitant sums of money, tax them heavily, and then allow them to vote for themselves.
    You are not addressing the Constitutional union made by representation based on taxation. Why would there be any basic connection on the amount of income reflecting the value of vote allowed by taxation. That is not a basic principle and therefore is unconstitutional. There are several levels of taxation and not just Federal income tax so there are rather large areas taxation can grant the right to vote in, without fool access to vote everywhere. The more concerning issue that draws my attention as we speak is our use of tariffs.

    Ideally, the government should be completely separated from the economy, and coercive taxation should be abolished.
    I understand there to be a cost that you do not consider as an economic fracture that must be used as diversifying taxation for judicial representation. The government is a legal part of the economy and has an economic burden of service it must supply for taxation.

    For many reasons, voting based on taxation is a terrible idea.
    I am concerned greatly by this statement as it is a belief English Parliament shared over America becoming an Independent Nation in the first place which is bound by a series of legal obstacles created by the Consitutional states of the union. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021, all rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Terms of Service

Get In Touch