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

Here are some more rebuttals."This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence."No, I didn't say that, the Pro said that."The topic of my rebuttal is that talent surpasses experience the majority of the time; therefore, talented yet non-experienced individuals should not be ignored when voting. The source I provided supports this notion. Now I ask Pro, how does stating that all who are experienced lack intelligence relate to the claim that talent should not be ignored? Short answer: It doesn’t and I never stated that. I already clarified how I did not intend that meaning in my original rebuttal above. Pro is not only committing a Red Herring by bringing up an irrelevant topic, but has also committed a Strawman fallacy by misrepresenting the intended meaning of my statements. Pro’s rebuttal is off topic and based on a misinterpretation of my words, therefore it is fundamentally flawed. Pro needs to present a different rebuttal. He needs to prove that experience alone beats talent the majority of the time. Pro can not refute my points by making bare assertions and simply stating that my arguments are flawed and treating that as self-evident."You said opposite about talented people, let me quote you as proof. "Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won"t pass any laws? The public won"t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence." You can't just lie about what you said before, that is committing a red herring fallacy. Experienced people should always be elected, not the ones who don't have experience who would lead our country to Debt, Corruption, and Dishonesty. "I would prefer Pro provide more reasoning for his claims, as I have spotted multiple bare assertions. Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. For example, in the latest election Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but still lost the election. The electoral vote system ensures that smaller states still have nearly as much of a voice in elections as much larger states. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over states as a whole, 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. This is the equivalent of a Professor giving an hour long lecture and one student at the end just plainly states, “That’s not true.” I implore Pro to further explain his reasoning." 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.There, I made new rebuttals.