Artem Shypulya impeachment vs inauguration 🇩🇪
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
both ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct!
Pro argued that Zelensky does not have adequate experience do be president. Con's counter that Zelensky was a lawyer is weak, but sufficient to rebut Pro's argument. Arguments to Con. All other points are tied.
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.
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.
rfd in comments
It was a tie. Also need to get my votes up.
No extensive dialogue took place.
Agreed Tie
Seems like and agreed tie to me. If wrong then both technically FF'd so...
stay young
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: It was a tie. Also need to get my votes up.
>Reason for Mod Action: The debate qualifies as a FF as more than half of the rounds have been forfeited. Therefore, this debate's votes are mostly un-moderated.
************************************************************************
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
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.
I urge the judges to not judge grammar points since this gentleman is not a native english speaker.
I changed the Charakter and Time per and for Argument. If I can so Something Else please inform. wishes can come true.
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.
Time will tell
Unlike traditional politicians in that region he is neither. He is pro Ukraine.
Is he Pro Russia or Pro EU?
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
What does the title mean?