CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
19
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:45
Arguments:36
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (11)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (18)

Debate Creator

jolie(9804) pic



Hillary did NOT get the popular vote.

The popular vote is defined as the majority of legible voters.  49% of legible voters did not vote for Hillary nor Trump.  If anything, the popular vote was a vote against Hillary AND Trump.  Hillary and Trump split almost 51% of legible voters (Gary Johnson got some of those votes too).  The electoral college protects the rights of legible voters from mob rule.

True.

Side Score: 26
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 19

All this acting out by the left is clearly astro-turfed by the agitators that be. They really have their minions right where they want them: hapless, clueless and blissfully unaware.

Side: True.
4 points

Hillary only got fanatics to vote for her. Only fanatics carry on like the libs have done since the end of the elections. Liberalism is a disease. Liberalism is a mental disorder ;)

Side: True.
4 points

Could not agree more.

Liberalism is like a humanist cult. The rabid Progressive followers of this cult hold to a philosophy that the ends justify the means.

They refuse to speak out against anarchy if it means their sect wins.

Side: True.
2 points

I see these revolts as a form of therapy that helps them come to terms with reality and accept their loss ;)

Side: True.
Izzer(3) Clarified
1 point

Liberalism is a conglomerate of Special Interest Groups, each determined to force millions of people to operate their lives revolved around the wants of a fraction of a percent of special interest. They band together with You-scratch-my-back-and-I'll scratch yours mentality, to overpower the majority. As time goes on, those born into this mentality are brainwashed since infancy and aren't even capable of rational thought. Liberals can't understand the concept of majority rule, their minds have not progressed since age two when everything is all about ME.

Side: True.
2 points

Also to be factored in: millions of illegal immigrants votes, enabled by the likes of California, Obama, and democrat voter fraud that was already well underway before Nov. 8. When all of that is accounted for, Hillary didn't even come close to getting the popular vote.

Side: True.
1 point

It is true that Hillary was not popular enough to win the electoral votes she needed to win the election. What is seen now is the Left attacking the election process when it does not work in their favor.

Side: True.
1 point

Correct. She got a plurality of votes, but it doesn't take a genius to realize people are just talking about how Hillary got more votes than Trump.

Side: True.
1 point

Yes.*

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I can accept that.

In fact with the outcome pretty close to 50/50 which ever way the vote fell it isn't really a mandate for the winner to come out swinging. But that's their right to do in our democracy.

Side: True.
1 point

That moment when no one realizes that this post was supposed to be a meme...

Side: True.

If anything, it means that you'd rather prefer to declare US as an anarchy. I doubt the founders would have ever wanted that. It is meant to be ruled; maximising decentralisation would result in an abusive democracy. It'd be better to have it ruled by a dictator than its people directly.

Well, enough against anarchy.

A majority in casted votes is enough to mean that you've chosen your rulers. Indifference does not count as an opinion.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

I am interpreting your last comment to mean that those who did not vote are indifferent to who rules.

Assuming that is a correct interpretation.... one way to prove that statement wrong is to have some dictator take over and you will see those who did not vote take to the streets with assault rifles (not protest signs)

If that is not a correct interpretation then.... never mind ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
JatinNagpal(2678) Clarified
1 point

That'd be the correct interpretation, somewhat, of my last sentence. But a bit stretched. Just enough indifference to not go and vote does not imply that they are a ready-to-rule population.

If that were my opinion, I'd be making it too easy for you by contradicting myself in the same comment.

Side: True.

Hillary didn't get the majority vote, but she did win the most votes, therefore meaning she won the popular vote. Even if people were voting anti-trump and anti-hillary, she still got the most votes, so she got the popular vote.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
AlofRI(2640) Clarified
1 point

You must be watching FOX News(?). By every other count I've seen she DID win the majority vote, AND the most states. Which means only one thing at this point, the conservatives DO NOT have a "mandate" of the American people.

Side: True.
1 point

Yes. Trump got roughly 25% of the legible votes. That is not a mandate.

Hillary got roughly 25% of the legible votes. That is not a popular vote.

The majority of voters (those that cast a vote and those that did not cast a vote) do NOT support Hillary.

Hmmm, maybe people don't understand legible votes. OK, different tact. Here's a quote from a liberal publication:

"Neither candidate got more than 50 percent of the votes that were cast: As of noon Wednesday, Clinton stood at 47.7 percent and Trump at 47.5 percent."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally

Yes. Trump got less than than 50% of the votes that were cast. That is not a mandate.

Hillary got less than than 50% of the votes that were cast. That is not a popular vote.

Yes, Hillary got the most votes that were cast. But that is not the definition of the popular vote.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

She didn't get the majority vote- she got 48%. That's not a majority. She did get the popular vote, the most votes. Two different things.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

What are you talking about? The "Popular Vote" is defined by the number of legible voters. She did NOT get the most number of legible voters. She got roughly 25% of legible voters. By definition, that is not a popular vote. If you want to change the definition, send a letter to your congress person. ;)

Supporting Evidence: https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg (imgflip.com)
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

The popular vote is defined by the votes that were cast, not by the possible eligible votes.

Illegible means can't be read by the way.

Side: True.
1 point

Yes she did...................................................................

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

This is how a dictionary defines popular vote:

the vote for a U.S. presidential candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to that made by the electoral college.

What you are referring to is the electoral vote. Indeed Trump won that one, but he did not win the popular vote.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!