Points: 40

Artem Shypulya impeachment vs inauguration 🇩🇪

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
3,000
Contender
Points: 49
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Dear wylted. Thank you for your Statement. In my opinion I m trying to say that IT was A Bad Idea to elect Mr zelensky AS President of Ukraine because He is an actor in the past and doesn t have poltitician experience in the presence. There are Two different things The First Thing is being President and the Second Thing is playing Somebody or Something what He isn t in practice. Yours sincerely
Published:
My opponent has sent me a message asking him for another 2 weeks to extend his argument, so I will decline debating this round and save most of it for the next round, but I wanted to point out that the leader he is referring to studied local politics a lot, for his role as president in the series. He is also a Lawyer by training so is well versed in the local laws. The president of the Ukraine is also highly esteemed by his European allies who all say he will do an excellent job leading the country. I want to point out that Ronald Reagan was one of the top 5 U.S. presidents and he was also an actor. Lincoln was also an actor and he is highly regarded. It is a civilian position in the Ukraine as well, and if anything since politicians all become dirty when they politic for too long, it is probably better to have inexperienced candidates in that regard.
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: not much engagement here. Both sides forfeit second half of debate. PRO argues that playing a politician on TV does not count as political experience. CON correctly points out that the Ukrainian President is a civilian position, that actors have successfully led nations in the past, that Zelensky's experience is superior to most civilians in that he has researched the job for his acting role and has training as a lawyer. Some evidence backing CON's case ought to have been presented but CON's arguments soundly refuted PRO single assertion. Args to CON
#10
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com, @bsh1, @Artemshypulya
I highly recommend asking the mods (Bsh1 and Virtuoso) and admin (DebateArt.Com is the site's admin) to help change your account's name ASAP.
You should not use your full real name and stuff on a site like this, your employer can and basically will read all your stuff here etc. from a simple Google search.
#9
Added:
I urge the judges to not judge grammar points since this gentleman is not a native english speaker.
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Wylted
I changed the Charakter and Time per and for Argument. If I can so Something Else please inform. wishes can come true.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Artemshypulya
Take the character count down to 3000 and give me 7 days to argue and I will accept this debate. I need these concessions because I don't speak Russian and this is an unfamiliar topic, which will make research harder for me.
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @Alec
Time will tell
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Alec
Unlike traditional politicians in that region he is neither. He is pro Ukraine.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Artemshypulya
Is he Pro Russia or Pro EU?
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
Dear alec. Thank you for your Statement. In my opinion I m trying to say that IT was A Bad Idea to elect Mr zelensky AS President of Ukraine because He is an actor in the past and doesn t have poltitician experience in the presence. There are Two different things The First Thing is being President and the Second Thing is playing Somebody or Something what He isn t in practice. Yours sincerely
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Artemshypulya
What does the title mean?
#1
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This has to go to con unfortunately; pros main argument is that a comedian should not be president as he has no political experience. Con points out that Lincoln and Reagan were actors and were good presidents, and Zelensky is a trained lawyer and has interest in local politics. These cast significantly doubt on the resolution and in the absence of a clear rebuttal should stand.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con points out the guy in question is not just an actor but also a lawyer, giving him insight into the legal problems of the job he is undertaking (or trying to undertake), and of course that it hasn't stopped success before. They seem agreed on the evidence, and logically showed that the evidence favors him.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
rfd in comments
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
It was a tie. Also need to get my votes up.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No extensive dialogue took place.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Agreed Tie
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Seems like and agreed tie to me. If wrong then both technically FF'd so...