We Need More Representatives In The House Of Representatives

"The Republicans have not held a majority in the House for the last 10 elections. Con’s statement is not true."That is the last time I ever trust CNN..... "Con said that states cannot award electors on any other basis except a winner-take-all basis. But, I provided evidence to show that both Kansas & Maine currently award their electors on a proportional basis. Con’s statement is not true."I didnt say that states CANT award electors on a proportional basis, I said that states DONT award electors on a proportional basis.... This means that more representatives in the House wont change anything since an overwhelming number of states award electors by a winner take all system, meaning the final results wont change. "Con’s statements about Senate approvals would not have any bearing on the House of Representatives as they are a separate house of legislature. "For what must be the fifteenth time, Pro is once again using semantics to cower his way out of the argument. The people like their own Congressmen, but disapprove of Congress overall because of its overall and because they also disapprove of who other people elect to Congress. The argument that adding more representatives to the House wont improve Congress's ratings now remains unchallenged. "In the last round, Con said that “Senators serve the exact same role as Representatives, just on a larger scale.” Con’s statement is not true. "Meant to say almost, my bad. Its a shame though that the Pro would rather focus on semantics then focus on the actual debate at this point...."I believe that Con’s incorrect statement about the.... have created a foundation upon which Con has based a woefully inaccurate analysis of this debate topic."Im sorry, how many arguments have you dropped so far Pro? 6? Try to keep up before claiming that Im the one who has no idea what hes even arguing. "Con does not take into consideration the effects of gerrymandering which would create districts that are drawn to favor an incumbent by cherry picking the voting pool."Gerrymandering occurs once every ten years because thats when states reorganize district lines, House elections though happen every two years, meaning that Gerrymandering have an effect on who gets elected one out of every five elections. "Con moved away from the argument that smaller Congressional districts would reduce the effect of gerrymandering"Because gerrymandering is something you introduced in your last round.... Its kind of hard for me to respond to your 'arguments' (I use that term loosely here) when you havent made them yet.... Also Gerrymandering is something controlled by state legislators, not Congress. "How does Con know that all new members would automatically both be “a bunch of old white men” and that “a bunch of old white men”, or any group of new Representatives, would all vote the same way?"Pro for the last time, the dominant party in the House has grown rapidly less diverse from the past election to this one, its easy to conclude that adding more spots for the dominant party that grows less diverse over time, and not more, will most likely have those seats filled with typical Republican congressmen, who typically vote Republican. Also, anybody who isnt an idiot knows that Republicans and Democrats always vote according to party lines http://www.opencongress.org...http://www.opencongress.org...http://www.opencongress.org...Congress has long been faction vs faction when it comes down to voting on bills, its not a free and open society where people routinely express diverse views contrary to those from their party, its always just one side slinging sh*t towards the other side while that side returns fire. Hence why Congress has such low approval ratings, because "bipartisian" is a word rarely associated with Congress these days. "But those who have first-hand experience in a debate on DDO know that more voters will settle gridlock, and that more voters do not always vote in lock-step with each other."Then why is it that evidence shows the exact opposite is true?http://www.opencongress.org...http://www.opencongress.org...Congress is in gridlock, and adding more people to both sides of the equation isnt going to solve anything. "We should have more opinions in the House of Representatives and more Representatives will accomplish what we already set out to do in DDO."But evidence, (That thing we give to prove our arguments instead of our own opinions like what pro has been doing this whole time) suggests that this isnt the case and wont be the case. "Why would Con be against having more viewpoints in Congress, when we often ask for more viewpoints on a DDO debate?"Im not saying there shouldnt be more viewpoints in Congress a**hole, Im saying that adding more people to Congress wont change anything because Republicans dont have differing views from other Republicans and Democrats dont have differing views from other Democrats. Thats politics 1-0-no-sh*t-sherlock-1. ==========================================================================List of dropped/ignored/unsubstantiated arguments: - 1 - Pro continues to ignore how the dominant party in Congress grew drastically less diverse from the previous election - 2 - Pro completely drops the fact that incumbents get re-elected for numerous other reasons other then money and fundraising. - 3 - Pro completely drops that a vast majority of the electoral college is a winner take all system, meaning that adding more members to the House wont make the E.C. reflect the popular vote more - 4 - Pro drops his original argument that adding more representatives would change campaign finance laws - 5 - Pro continues to ignore how gridlocked and polarized Congress is and will continue to be - 6 - Pro continues to ignore the fact that Congress does not operate anything like DDO, yet 90% of his arguments are based off of that claim. Congress never votes on whether or not Utilitarianism is preferable like DDO does, Congress only votes on political issues, the one subject where you get close to zero compromise or deviation. - 7 - Pro fails to provide any evidence suggesting that more seats will lead to more diversity when the exact opposite is being observed - 8 - Pro fails to provide any evidence that more representatives will end gridlock - 9 - Pro fails to provide any evidence showing that more representatives would make the electoral college reflect the popular vote better - 10 - Pro fails to provide any evidence suggesting that more representatives would somehow reduce the effect of gerrymandering, which is something controlled by state legislatures and not the House or any part of Congress for that matterSummary: Of the three original arguments the Pro used, 1 of them was completely dropped while the other two have been refuted. A large majority of Pro's arguments are based on nothing more then his own warped opinions and not on actual evidence. When he wasnt doing that he was either 1) Putting words in my mouth and responding to claims I never made instead of the actual arguments Ive presented, or 2) Focusing a large majority of his arguments on pointing out irrelevant slip ups I made rather then respond to the main arguments. The fact is that increasing the number of people in the House doesnt produce an observable improvement in how Congress operates. Arguments: Vote either wayConduct: Pro put a ton of false words in my mouth but I havent exactly been nice either, so vote either wayGrammar: I personally didnt have a problem reading Pro's arguments so again, vote either waySources: I am going to ask for this one since a large portion of Pro's arguments are based on his own opinions and not much else.... The sources he did provide were mostly in response to claims I never actually made (See round 3), or on largely irrelevant points (what the Senate actually does), whereas my sources were actually related to the resolution....Thanks for reading :D