Voter ID's

My final rebuttals and conclusion: In the opening paragraph of the final round, Pro contradicts herself. She states that "I don't claim to get rid of all fraud" by supporting IDs, yet she then states that IDs will "help to stop fraud". With the point having been conceded to me in round two that voter fraud is rare, this does not make much sense to cite as a benefit, with such a minimal impact. Pro repeatedly states throughout the entirety of the debate that voter IDs will protect the integrity of elections, but never states how the minimal amount of fraud that rarely ever affects elections is hurting the integrity; her only sources in this regard simply state that it does hurt that integrity. Cost: I did in fact quantify the argument. I stated that it could cost a single state "millions of dollars", and in the source I had linked, a more exact figure is given. It's interesting that Pro accuses me incorrectly of having not quantified the argument, when she drops a point due to not quantifying it. Pro states, "Con said, "Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source". Well here's my source . http://www.protectmyvote.com...;. Beside the fact that this source was added in late, the irony is that, with regards to cost, it simply says "investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly. " Pro does the very thing she accuses me of, dropping the point by not quantifying the argument. Discrimination: Pro did not rebut any of my factually backed up claims about discrimination with any sources. She simply dismisses the study and disparity of ethnic groups registered to vote that I cited last round, going on an tangent about registered voters not being relevant to the argument. The fact is that if legal Hispanic voters are disproportionately not registered to vote, they will also disproportionately not obtain voter IDs; therefore, that source is completely relevant; as well, Pro does not even respond to the study I cited, so Pro drops this point to me. My opponent then attempts to state that her arguments are better because I only made one argument against IDs and she made five arguments for it. I clearly have made more than one argument; in addition to discrimination, my argument about the cost of IDs is completely relevant and documented. More important than the quantity of arguments, however, is the quality. Pro has been completely unable to refute the two major premises of my argument, those of cost and discrimination. On the other hand, Pro's arguments have all been debunked. Pro has provided 5 points, as she said: A) "voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud thus providing voters with more assurance in their political system", B) "voter fraud is generally only detected after the fact, if at all and investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly", C) "people support voter ID's" D) "requiring a state-issued photo ID enables the use of common technology to further improve the integrity and efficiency of our election system", and E) "ID's will ensure integrity in our electoral system while reducing fraud". She dropped point B by not providing a source until a round later, which was also not quantified in any way. I rebutted point C by stating that popular support doesn't make a law necessarily right, and she didn't respond to that rebuttal. I've already illustrated repeatedly the fact that A is a non-issue. Point D was responded to with the Help America Vote Act. Point E is almost identical to point A, and was rebutted in the same way that Point A was. As such, Pro's arguments do not stand, while mine do. My final rebuttal is of Pro's hypothetical example. Voter fraud is nothing like a car crash. One fraudulent vote is nearly never the margin of victory. As well, I've shown that fraud is often successfully detected. As well, Pro already admitted in Round 2 that "even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud", yet now she makes a U-turn and states that, "Maybe voter fraud is rare, maybe it's common. We don't know. .. " Pro thus has demonstrated a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject; if she cannot trust herself to present the facts, no one else can trust her to present the facts. I have shown that voting is protected very well already, and that voter IDs are far more cumbersome than any minute benefits they might provide. Pro, on the other hand, has failed to back up many of her claims with specific, factual information, and has even admitted a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject.