President Donald Trump should not be reelected in 2020
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I will be arguing that Trump should not be reelected in 2020. The time to argue is 2 weeks and the voting period is two weeks.
Debate Structure
R1: Opening Arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Defense
R4: Close
rfd in comments
Con trolled.
While I will not penalize conduct for the (hopefully) sincere attempt at being entertaining, pro's strong three contention opening was never challenged; and con never attempts to make any type of warranted case (the feelings of white snowflakes, were not even shown to be improved under Trump).
Sources strongly favor pro, with an immediate highlight of the report on dementia. It set the stage for a good debate on if Trump matched those signs, and the lack of any challenge to that hamstrung any potential con case. The YouTube video of Trump recounting that he remembers being nice to someone he doesn't remember having ever met, pretty much sealed the deal. Comparatively con's best source was on employment within one demographic, but he shot himself in the foot by immediately giving credit for it to a previous president from a different political party.
Con appeared to misunderstand the debate, and offered only a throw away accusation that pro challenged as unsupported, and low black unemployment.
Even if I accept these two points on their face - they still don’t address or refute the mental decline aspects that pro raised. Given that con offered no argument against these, they stand: and thus the impacts pro presented against Trumps reflection are far more substantial - thus arguments to pro.
Con drops all of Pro's arguments. Con seems to misunderstand what he's arguing for, he points out how bad Trump is and why he should leave office in 2020 which merely boosts Virt's case. Some points Bill makes that do prove Trump is good are unsubstantiated like his claim about how crazy the Democrats are, this could be a decent point if he gave me evidence to prove the Democrats are bad, but he fails to do so.
If you're going to drop all of your opponents points, at least substantiate your claims.
Only one person gave arguments for their side. That was Virtuoso. billbatard didn't realize he is supposed to state Trump should be re-elected in 2020. Instead of actually realizing it when Virtuoso did state it in Round 2 billbatard carried on making a case for Virtuoso
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 2 points to pro for conduct and S&G
>Reason for Decision:Billbatard ironically gave more convincing arguments for why Trump should not be re-elected than Virtuoso, even though he should have been arguing against that...
Both side's provided sources that were equally bad, and I actually addressed multiple of Virtuoso's sources in the comments.
I give spelling, grammar, and conduct to Virtuoso since Billbatard wasn't doing the debate right, nor spelling words correctly or using proper grammar.
Reason for Mod Action>None of these points are sufficient. Please require the code of conduct for more detail on what is required:
For arguments, it’s not sufficient to state which argument you found most convincing, you must show you have surveyed the main arguments and counter arguments and weigh them against each other to reach a conclusion.
For spelling, you must provide examples and reasoning as to why bad spelling or grammar significantly impacted the readability or understandability of the debate.
For conduct, you must give examples and reasoning as to why one side’s Conduct was excessively poor, unfair, or led to a toxic environment.
*******************************************************************
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: It is clear that CON misapprehended which side of the debate to take in R1 and then never made a serious job of contending against PRO's argument or defending POTUS (offering more args in support of PRO). PRO offered 3 solid arguments against POTUS fitness for office and CON seemed to agree. Args to PRO.
I finished my homework assignments and I have some free time on my hands before I get more to do later on, so let's re-do this debate, under the same Time for Arguments, same Voting System, same number of rounds, and same rules, but with me as the opponent this time, instead of Billbatard.
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
I suggest you two have a debate about the dementia angle sometime. If such is done, it might be a good idea to address him by an alibi within the debate rounds, to lower the amount emotional bias plays into voting.
Debate over. Please vote
You are stating arguments for your opponent.
I'm a bit busy with homework at the moment, but if you want to debate though, then sure, since billbatard doesn't seem to be taking this seriously anyways.
Want to debate me on this?
How is anythng about hilarry relavent, is she running for president, yesterdays day old bread
Be careful. That might be cheating.
I don't think Billbatard can win this on his own, so I'm gonna help 'em out, by refuting Viruoso's arguments for 'em.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190918050145/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OxfdlVsmDls4nTVTUPQ1o2BcvURHqhMJTnFDcVx1N7o/edit
Billbatard can just copy and paste this in the debate if necessary.
Don't forget about Bernie! That senile commie fiend!
:)
Good. I need some easy wins to bring up my win ratio!
You might as well restart this debate, bill is at troll
on the contrary
Rather irrelevant to the debate.
Have you seen the Democratic clown car?