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

My opponent has decided to repeat his last round. Not that I’m complaining, since I now have double the space to work with. I’d like to point out that Pro did not even attempt to address the two new arguments I presented. As rebuttal I is already fully explained, I will only be extending rebuttals II and III. Rebuttal II - Talent is useless. This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence. Rebuttal II extended: This is clearly a Red Herring fallacy. Allow me to break down exactly what went wrong in Pro’s rebuttal. Definition of Red Herring Fallacy-“A fallacious argument style in which an irrelevant or false topic is presented in an attempt to divert attention from the original issue, with the intention of "winning" an argument by leading attention away from the original argument and on to another, often unrelated topic.” 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. Point. Out. All. Flaws. And. Explain. Rebuttal III - Unqualified Presidents have not failed where qualified Presidents have succeeded in the past. This is false because Democracy is based on bias. Electocracy is not based on bias, so it is automatically superior. Rebuttal III Extended: Allow me to once again break down Pro’s mistakes. I presented the topic that basing votes purely on experience is flawed as exceptionally experienced presidents have failed in the past where inexperienced presidents have succeeded. Experience does not automatically mean that the person is skilled. Pro only counters this by stating my argument is based on bias without even explaining why bias invalidates the logic or how it directly relates to my argument. This is why this rebuttal is a Red Herring. Though since I have extra space, I will entertain this rebuttal. In this argument I reinforced the claim that experienced individuals are still potentially unskilled. While talented, yet inexperienced individuals are still potentially exceptionally skilled. I showed this to be evident by presenting an exceptionally experienced President who failed throughout his time as POTUS, Herbert Hoover and gave examples of his greatest failures. I also showed an example of an inexperienced, yet talented President Dwight Eisenhower and gave examples of how he succeeded throughout his time as POTUS. Pro labels this comparison as inherently flawed as he believes it is based in bias. There is a clear cut difference between pure bias and logical evaluation. Coming to a conclusion on whether a president was a failure or successful based on the culmination of their actions and the consequences of those actions is not in the slightest a biased evaluation. I implore Pro to explain how bias relates to my argument. How my evaluation is biased. How bias invalidates my reasoning. How Electocracy elections aren’t biased. And lastly, how lacking bias makes an Electocracy automatically superior to democracy. Oh, and don’t forget to address arguments III and V as well as Rebuttal I. Good luck.