Donald Trump Is a Good President
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Politics
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
INTRO
We are debating over whether Donald Trump is a good president or not.
-- TOPIC --
Donald Trump Is A Good President
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Con Waives/Pro Opens
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Close/Pro Waives
Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
9. Violation of these rules merits either a loss or a certain point loss, at voters' discretion.
Definitions
Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House has been revolutionizing and unique in its own way. The shift in politics has changed a lot. Many opponents would argue here today, like Speed, that Trump’s tenure has been negative. I would like to disagree with the claim and prove to my viewers why Trump has not been a bad president, but a good one.
Good: having the qualities required for a particular role. [1]
Presidential Roles
So, to meet the definition, we must first outline some qualities that are required to be the President of the United States. Don't confuse these with qualifications or criteria.
- Honest
- Kind
- Intelligent
- Ability to effectively communicate
- Accepting of all demographics
- Tough
- Ability to lead well
- Humble
This means I only need to outline four that the President doesn’t meet to win the resolution.
Let's break them down.
Honest
Donald Trump has been accused of lying quite a lot. How many you ask? 10 times maybe? 100? In fact, it is over 10,000 times. [2] NRDC and PolitiFact document just a few [3] [4]. And that number was measured in April. What's even worse is that Trump hit 12,000 in August. [5] That's 5 months, multiplied by about 30 days per month gives you 150, which multiplied by 24 gives you about 3,600 hours in between the two months. 12,000/3,600 is 3.33, meaning Trump lies about once every twenty minutes! He by no means can be considered honest.
Kind
After the events of Hurricane Florence, Trump said “At least you got a nice boat out of the deal. Have a good time!” [6] This is clearly insensitive and extremely unkind towards the people affected by this tragedy.
Intelligent
There are many ways a lack of intelligence could be demonstrated. However, one is one of Trump’s most recent gaffs. He made a phone call to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. [7] Following this, he allowed the transcript, which clearly outlined a quid pro quo, to be released. This indicates a lack of intelligence.
Accepting Of All Demographics
Trump held racist housing policies that discriminated against black people. [8]
Trump said “"I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." [9]
Trump has limited LGBTQ rights. [10]
Clearly, in light of being racist, a misogynist, and homophobic, Trump is not accepting of all demographics.
Ability To Lead Well
Trump is not a good leader. Why? He has lost 39 people from his administration. [11] 33 of them resigned. Besides that, he has two whistleblowers going behind his back to change the administration. [12] This is clearly a lack of leadership.
Conclusion
In light of these facts, it is quite reasonable to believe that Trump is not a good president.
Sources:
[1] http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/good
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/politics/donald-trump-lies-washington-post/index.html
[3] https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
[4] https://www.nrdc.org/trump-lies
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/12/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBE5V_kwW_M
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/white-house-review-ukraine.html
[8] https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
[9] https://theweek.com/articles/655770/61-things-donald-trump-said-about-women
[10] https://www.hrc.org/resources/trumps-administrative-abuse-and-the-lgbtq-community
[11] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-trump-fired-so-far-james-comey-sean-spicer-michael-flynn-2017-7
[12] https://time.com/5693833/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/
- Honest
- Kind
- Intelligent
- Ability to effectively communicate
- Accepting of all demographics
- Tough
- Ability to lead well
- Humble
If we were to go by value in a president, each one would be a varying value based on the job. You don't need to know World History when doing Chemistry, and you don't need to know Woodworking when doing an SAT test. Each situation and occupation has it's own character traits you need, and equating them as a whole equal is just a fallacy[2]
1) Turn: Trump is a genius of capitalizing on the demographic and giving confidence in his party supporters to elect him. He was elected for a reason. He appealed enough to his demographic enough to win[5]. He knew that his target demographic would not be the Latino and African American Communities, it would be blue collar, middle class working people. He appealed to enough of the Latino's to take Michigan and win the election[6]
Leftists equally do not understand the white hard working demographic the same way republicans do. It is best for Trump not even to focus about them in the first place. There is no point in trying to appeal to Liberals anymore[8]. America is so divided as a nation, a liberal will not listen to a conservative view on certain issues at all in 2019 America. Appealing to your party and swinging fence voters is key and swinging votes too. Trump won because he swung votes from Obama to his side for on the fence people[9]. There is another case where a men gave Trump a shot because he was on the fence, going for the non ideal candidate.
[AT R1 ARGS]
My opponent labelled R2 as rebuttal, therefore by default, he should have rebutted to the R1 point made by PRO in this case, therefore he can not bring up topic again, and this should be a conduct point to PRO if CON brings up case made in R1 PRO
Awaiting my opponents response!
My opponent may not have known...but the argument he makes is an Ethics K, which the ethics of someone should outweigh the policies he has presented. While my opponent probably did not know this was a K, I will not ask the judges to take off conduct point here.
I will take the time to thank the con for the debate ahead. This is my first real debate I have finished in a while, and it was a honor to do so.
My opponent also states the federal jobs lost. My argument is that federal jobs do not consider someone into middle class at all anymore, and could consider someone a lower class[3]. The Middle Class =/= the Lower Income Class. Low income class is usually based for government employed jobs, which is why the criticism is there in the first place, but to relate this argument to the Middle Class is misguided and skewed.
Judges should vote PRO due to CON's misunderstanding of arguments... and misinterpretation of evidence
Since i was supposed to waive anyway, it is a wave
Ditto? Pokemon? where
Ditto!
Thank you for the debate!
drained the swamp and installed a septic tank, a very leaky septic tank
has the whole world gone mad?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision: Con and pro seemed to have different ideas of what "good" meant. Despite this, after R2, pro did not seem to object to con's new definition, so I must assume that pro agreed with con's new definition.
Arguments:
Con dropped many of pro's rebuttals including: Trump's Honesty, the lack of need for Trump to be kind, Trump's stance on demographics.
Con claimed Trump is not a good leader. His evidence is that many people have resigned under his leadership. People leaving does not automatically make someone a bad leader. Pro points this out. Pro failed to prove Trump is intelligent or that he does not need to be intelligent, but at this point, according to con's rule ("This means I only need to outline four that the President doesn’t meet to win the resolution."), pro failing to represent only one point is not enough for con to win the debate. Con rebuts pro's claims regarding NK well. Con disregards pro's graphic behind a paywall rather than addressing the points provided in the debate by pro. Con also claims that because Trump eventually gave up on something, he is not tough. This is an unsubstantiated opinion.
It was a close one, but due to con dropping several of pro's rebuttals, the rebuttals stand. Since it seems con only successfully rebutted one of pro's 3 claims in R1 (NK, but not Middle Class or Toughness), pro seems to win this debate.
Sources: Both used reputable sources.
S&G: No major errors
Conduct: Con forfeited.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter meets the minimum requirements under the Voting Guidelines.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to SupaDudz
>Reason for Decision:
"Con didn't dispute pro's new definition of good leaving it the definition in the debate.
Con dropped several of pro's arguments including Trump being an honest person or that Trump doesn't need to be kind in order to be a good president.
Con forfeited round 4."
>Reason for Mod Action: To fulfill the minimum voting requirements, the voter must:
"Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points"
While some arguments were mentioned, the bulk of them remained unaddressed. The conduct point due to the forfeit was fine insofar as an argument point was awarded, so I recommend voting again and addressing the other arguments.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tied
>Reason for Decision: "T"
>Reason for Mod Action: Under the extended mod guidelines for passing tied votes, the voter must:
"...clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718."
Posting "T" is not sufficient under these standards because none of the arguments were addressed. Additionally, there was no justification given for the tie.
************************************************************************
no problem
we need honest people in government
There aren't enough people voting on debates that aren't full forfeits. We need more of these people!
Thank you for taking the time to vote
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: 855h01E // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision:
supa dudz completley destroyed his opponent
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
No worries. I could have elaborated more on the S&G, but limited it due to space. Con only had one violation on S&G that I found. Since I am to pick which side was better on S&G it clearly was Con. As far as an excessive violation of S&G I am unaware of where that line is? At any rate, I'll try to do better in the future.
I humbly submit my vote.
Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
-It appears that neither side agreed to the other side's definition of "Good." Pro started out with a definition, but Con proposed a different definition, but neither confirmed the others. The BoP appears to be on Pro, but without an agreed-upon definition for "Good" I, as a voter, am left to wonder which definition to use for judging.
-I thought Pro had some good Round 1 arguments. Con's Round 2 arguments were equally as good but did neglect to rebut Pro's first-round arguments.
-Con FF the final round.
-Based on Con's Round 4 FF and their lack of rebuttal in Round 2, Pro wins this criterion.
Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
- Both sides provided sources.
- One of Pro's sources was invalid. Con calls them on it. Pro did not respond with a better source for said point.
- Con wins this criterion.
Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
- Both sides made spelling errors, but one side did worse than the other on spelling and grammar.
- Pro's spelling and grammar errors are bad enough to flip the switch to Con's favor.
- In the interest of brevity, I will state only a few errors out of many that Pro made (One from each Round)...
---Round 1 - [A1} P2. "Summits have been never successful...." should have been, "Summits have never been successful..."
---Round 2 - Demographics 2) P1. "...white people and what there belief is. Liberal started there whole movement..." -- "There" should have been "Their"
---Round 3 - Concluding Statement P2 "I did not use much sources in these arguments,..." "Much" should be "Many"
- Con wins this criterion.
Which participant had better conduct?
- In Round 4, Pro should have waived, but instead used the Round 4 argument section to make disparaging remarks against Con, "My opponent forfeited his concluding statements. Boohoo:("
- Con wins this Criterion.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sigmaphil// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments 4 points to con for all other categories
>Reason for Decision: see above.
Reason for Mod Action> S&G is borderline (what makes it borderline is that the voter doesn’t explain what makes the errors excessive - however this is implicit in the vote). Conduct is borderline (you have to compare behaviours, and as one side forfeited and the other was rude - according to the vote, I could have viewed this as insufficient too - but given the nature of the conduct mentioned I need to give the benefit of the doubt)
Sources are insufficient: the key point in sources is that you must compare the specific impact of the sources on the debate, using an example to show how the argument is bolstered or harmed by the source.
Arguments are also insufficient. As a voter you have to show you have gone through the main arguments and counter arguments from both sides, and weigh them all to reach a decision: the voter doesn’t do this.
*******************************************************************
Ask moderation then
Well done to both debaters. While there is room for growth in both of you, and even though this topic doesn't particularly interest me, i enjoyed reading it and subsequently voting.
Unfortunately, it does not give me the option to edit or delete the vote.
Can't you just delete votes? C&P RFD and just type a new conduct
I did not know that you and @Speedrace were pals and you were just kidding around. I guess it was my bad, maybe I should have checked with @Speedrace first and asked him about it. Is it possible to appeal to the moderators and ask for the conduct point to go as a tie?
It was sarcasm, me and Speed are homies like that lol
No way was meant to offend.
You're RFD was fine, but the one issue is the conduct part..which could have been misintrepreted. Plus conduct only goes if I extend args, I did not extend
I was actually rooting on you to win, because I am secretly (or not) a President Trump fan. I do think he has been a good president. I go out of my way among my family and friends though to keep it to myself since most of them hate President Trump. It's a cross I bear I guess, lol.
I was specifically not judging you on waiving Round 4 but on using it to be nasty to your opponent. I did give you the win on the argument rounds. At any rate, isn't customary when waiving a round to simply type the word waive?
I did say “extend”, just side comments with are not prohibited, just sayin