Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

It seems that pro has given up on making rebuttals. In his last round, Pro simply reiterated points he's already brought up, and did not present any new rebuttals. Argument I - Con is lying about not claiming all experienced individuals are lacking intelligence. Rebuttal: Firstly, I have spotted a Fallacy Fallacy. Even if I was lying, (which I am not) that alone will not invalidate my points. Definition of a Fallacy Fallacy - "Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy." Example: Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight. Sidney: If you really think that, you’re an idiot. Ivan: That is an ad hominem fallacy; therefore, I can’t be an idiot. Sidney: I beg to differ. The paragraph that Pro got the idea that I stated this from clearly said, and I quote, ". . . whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making." If you haven't noticed yet, the key word in this sentence is purely. I stated that voting purely on experience and dismissing every other factor is a flawed way to vote. This statement in no way means or implies that all experienced individuals are unintelligent. It only states that experienced persons are potentially unintelligent/unskilled. I made this point because Pro speaks as if being experience will certainly lead to exceptional skill in every area of a profession. I've already shown this to be false with the first source I provided. Now that this point is clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt, I do hope that Pro will create a valid refutation to this point. Argument II - “Democracy is flawed. Democracy is nothing more than a popularity contest. Voting based purely on experience is not flawed.”Rebuttal I - Yes indeed, this rebuttal is the exact same argument Pro brought up in round two and just worded slightly differently that I have already refuted. Pro simply added another off topic bare assertion to it. Let's compare both times Pro introduced this argument. "The polls predicting the 2016 election were completely wrong. That's one Democratic flaw. Also, like I said before, It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey.""It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey."Since this is the exact same argument I can simply extend my original rebuttal. A poll being wrong is not at all significant in the slightest as to how democracy functions. Shortened Original Rebuttal: Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over all states, rather than the majority of the country’s population. It seems Pro has misinterpreted my statements. I am aware that Electocracy is not the election of multiple Presidents. President Elect is just another term for Presidential Candidate. I have already explained why voting purely on experience is flawed, yet Pro counters this only by plainly stating this practice is not flawed.