Instigator / Con
Points: 10

Donald Trump Is a Good President

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
SupaDudz
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Contender / Pro
Points: 11
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
Waiving
Published:

I thank Speed for the Debate ahead!
Definitions
Good: WELL-FOUNDED, COGENT (Source Meriam Webster)

Introduction
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.

[A1]: North Korea
President Trump has done remarkable success to try to cooperate with North Korea to denuclearize the country and provide a safer area. He has shown the bravery, toughness, and courage to stand in front of Kim Jung Un and try to work out policies with him. 

Summits have been never successful in the past with enemies far more reliable and cooperative than North Korea[1]. A summit will not simply solve the North Korean nuclear crisis at all. Multiple meetings are needed in order to work out true deals. The article sited states a brilliant reference to how North Korea/US in the 2010s has been extremely similar to the ‘86 case of Soviet Union

“Like the Singapore summit, Ronald Reagan’s 1986 summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, was hastily arranged in response to Gorbachev’s sudden willingness to ban all ballistic missiles. The actor-turned-president engaged in remarkably free-form negotiations and nearly came to a far-reaching agreement. But Reagan ultimately balked, unwilling to give up his “Star Wars” missile defense program.”

This shows that both countries ended up with the same policy and outcome as the two countries of NK and USA. Another quote from the article states that.
“What at the time appeared to be a diplomatic failure is now seen as a success, as the talks allowed both countries to realize their shared desire to avoid a war and better understand the concessions each was willing to make. The following year, the U.S. and Soviet Union agreed on an arms reduction treaty. Now, historians view the meeting in Reykjavik as the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union itself.”

The article speaks for herself. Under a conservative agenda, we managed to reduce their arms and collapse the threat of a Soviet Union, are the greatest enemy at the time, just like most Americans believe that North Korea is our greatest enemy of the modern day. We also see the similarities in the policy and actions. Just like Reagan was the first to visit the Soviet Union in the time, Trump is the first to step foot in the country of North Korea[2]. Look at the replication of history. If we can befriend the mortal enemy of the USA, we can pull off a victory over North Korea. North Korea has even wanted to denuclearize and has destroyed a nuclear test zone[3]. Their willingness to cooperate is proof that they can snap just like the Soviet Union did and are open for treaties and such. This is a huge deal
If Trump manages to denuclearize North Korea and made key strides in doing so for 2020-2024, he can be credited for breaking the barrier just like Kennedy did at the time his summit, the first ever. This would make a good president simply alone, for cracking the code that Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc., could not. 

[A2] Middle Class
I want to point out the graphic sited in [4]. The Middle Class is rising higher in income than any other president in the 2000’s. It was not even that high when the economy was in a good state with Bush. Trumped has helped the middle class reach its max potential under Trump. Revenue is boosting for the middle class and is as high as it’s been. In a time of economic boom, a president with a strong financial record that can give the country the largest boom is good for the nation. The cycle continues. Look at Hoover before the crash. He was boosting the economy just like Coolidge did in the roaring 20s [5] 

If this decade and time with we are living replicate one of the booming 20s under Coolidge, the United States should have no fear at all. The Coolidge Era was the PRIME OF AMERICA with the biggest boom in American history. One of the best times for the economy, Coolidge replicated a lot of Trump's policies of tax cuts for middle class. This era caused a society to flourish just now we are seeing with the middle class.

My opponent could make a turn using my 5 as the turn of the Great Depression. I counter that by saying that Hoover was not using the right policies in the right time. Lassiez fair only works when the cycle is that the top and where we are booming. This process caused Hoover to turn horrible and crash the economy more

[A3]: Toughness
President Trump is a tough president on his stances and policies. [6] His tough on terror policy follows his policy around so much that it is a trademark of his government. Tough presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and FDR have been the most successful Presidents of all time.

A great example is his holdout [7]. Trump’s tough stances on policies force Congress and legislation to negotiate to get his policies done that he wants. He forces a biased and rude liberal agenda to work with him and he will work back. We know he is a compromiser, for his profession needed him to be a good compromise and a deal maker. A weaker opponent and being held to surrender in not a good way to be president. You need to assert confidence in your tone. 

He is so tough that many presidents from other countries admire his toughness [8]. Finland’s president even says behind the conservative shell, he is a tough-minded president. This toughness is good with foreign leaders overall as he earns respect from many of those leaders that look to work with him

Concluding Statements
With the combined presence of Donald Trump's foreign leadership in NK, his increase in revenue within the middle class, and his toughness on political issues, the combination in which great presidents have done and have been admired for, is proof that Trump is a GOOD president in the technical side of spectrum

Awaiting con!
-------------------




Round 2
Published:
I propose a different definition of "good."
 
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
To be considered a "good" president, I think it's fair to say that Trump must possess at least two-thirds, or 6, of these qualities, the same ratio used to determine votes in Congress.
 
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/

Published:
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.

Counter Interpretation 

My opponent established a criteria that he believes is the correct criteria in an Ethics based argument. 
  • Honest
  • Kind
  • Intelligent
  • Ability to effectively communicate
  • Accepting of all demographics
  • Tough
  • Ability to lead well
  • Humble
My opponent believes these factors themselves are equal and should be assessed in a qualitative point scale. I refuse to believe this is true, because some character traits are more fit for a presidency job than some on the list themselves. I can contest this point easily and say there is more value to some than there is to others. In a Presidency where being honest is key vs being KIND/NICE, being NICE is ineffective as a leader of the country. Studies[1] have even shown the drawbacks to being the kind/nice person in this scenario, being easily manipulated. This is not a quality we need in a president.

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]

My opponent makes the 4 arguments on the ones he relives he has not achieved and he struggles at, HONESTY, ACCEPTING TO ALL DEMOGRAPHICS, LEAD WELL, AND KIND. I will be making direct responses to each.

[Ethics K AT]

Honesty
My opponent makes a case that the President is not honest and lies every 20 minutes when he speaks. This is not true at all. The article you referenced states that he either lied or is misguided. Misguided does not =/= mean lying. Lying is blatantly saying things that are not true with knowledge they are not true. Misguided is acting out on error[3]. This means the error is accidental. That does not discredit his honesty

Some of the things Trump says that are false or extremely false are extremely party favored or pure opinionated at rallies to entice the NRC.[4] His important speeches with key facts and such. His false facts are motives toward Dems, and in this divided nation, rilling up the NRC is key to getting the votes to win. He is honest when he needs to be honest. It's the strategy to win. He is a winner.

Kind
I explained kind in the CI

Demographics
My opponent says that Trump does not appeal to the demographic. I have two contentions to argue in this case

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]

2) The argument is the same case for the Democratic Party as they do not understand the demographics of white people and what there belief is. Liberal started there whole movement on White Racist America[7]. This theory has been DEBUNKED

"But it won’t. Leftists have too much at stake to confront the truth about conservatives. Everything the Left has ever believed has depended upon lying about opponents. From the day Stalin labeled Trotsky — who served as the head of the Red Army and who, along with Lenin, founded the Bolshevik Party — a “fascist,” leftists have lied about their opponents."

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.

Leadership
My opponent argues here that he can not lead by saying that people have left his office. My opponent does not offer a BoP in the debate about why that makes them him unable to lead a country and has no link to his uniqueness claim in this debate. Without a link or BoP, there is nothing to evaluate in the debate for leadership, but to simply not believe what my opponent Speedrace is saying, this should be taken into considered

My opponent debates no policies that make him a bad president and how he can not lead a country. This means without deductive examples of bad policies that prove his inability to lead. 

Inability is define as: "lack of sufficient power, resources, or capacity." The claim made by my opponent does not demonstrate why he can't lead, but can show his effectiveness in leading, trying to be efficient as possible and get stuff done in the white house without distraction 

[AT R1 ARGS]

My opponent fails to contest any of my round 1 arguments I made about the policy side in Trump at all in this debate and fails to contest this info. Therefore judges should rule this style as full concession of PRO R1 ARGS and should be used to sway

-Extend all BoP made by R1
-Extend all Links, Impact, UQ, and IL to the fact that Trump is good president
-Extend all sites and sources made

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

Round 3
Published:
I will be rebutting my opponent's R1 case in this round. However, I would like to address one thing first.

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.
A Kritik is defined as "challenging assumptions in the resolution," as outlined in the description. Nothing about my argument challenged assumptions in the resolution, and therefore is not a Kritik.

Now onto my opponent's case.

North Korea

My opponent says that we can negotiate with North Korea because we did it with the Soviet Union. Firstly, this is no proof that Trump can do it, only that it can be done. Secondly, it took “1,000 hours or more of negotiations where you had teams of Soviet and American experts who were living in Geneva, meeting every day,” and churning out hundreds of pages of text. “Presidents don’t negotiate 100-page documents." [1] This is months of effort just to negotiate with ONE country. Simply setting foot into the country does nothing.
Beyond this, Trump is not succeeding with North Korea. The supposed destruction of a nuclear test site is unverified [1] and no American or European reporters were present at the alleged destruction. In fact, North Korea refused to meet with anyone except Donald Trump [2], and if Presidents don't negotiate 100 page documents, as I've just shown, then how will this do anything? There is no progress on stopping North Korea's nuclear weapons program [2], and even after announcing talks, they tested their missiles just hours later! This violates UN Security Council resolutions, and Trump himself downplayed the significance of these tests.

Later, after an attempt at talks, North Korea walked out and said the talks were "sickening" and "nauseating" and that the US did not negotiate anything new. Kim Myong Gil refused to meet again two weeks later. [2]

So, clearly, no traction is being gained with North Korea. Also, the claim that this alone would make Trump a good president is false. You need multiple attributes in order to be considered a good president.

Middle Class

My opponent cites a graphic at a wesbite, but that website is restricted to subscribers. Therefore, I think it should be discounted since I can't access it and properly rebut it.

However, this claim is untrue. Wage growth has been flat for a long time [3], Trump has hurt hundreds of thousands over a border wall issue that he eventually lost [3], and his administration even suggested getting rid of various welfare programs to get rid of deficits. Trump's tariffs cost american families on average $831 per year [4], which is clearly a disadvantage! Trump is clearly not doing anything for the middle class.

Toughness

Trump is not tough. He shut down the government for weeks and hurt American families for the border wall [3], but he didn't even get the deal that he wanted! How is that tough? My opponent himself cites this, but Trump eventually gave up, proving that he is NOT tough. And since toughness was one of the qualities in my evaluation of what a good president is, this actually doubly benefits Con!
Also, one president saying Trump is tough in no way shows that MULTIPLE presidents have endorsed him. In fact, there were at least 7 who hated him [5]!

Concluding

Pro has shown little than certain circumstantial evidence that Trump has done anything, and in the end, none of his arguments hold any water. Therefore, voters should vote for Con. Thank you.

On to Pro!

Sources

Published:
INTRODUCTION/NOTE
This the last argumentation round before as stated, will waive the R4. So I will be rebutting using evidence, and giving my concluding thoughts, as R4 for CON will make his case, and I will waive the round

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. 

NOTE ON K: Responding to K arg, it does. It challenges his moral aspect and how that should outweigh the policy that the PRO states, but it does not matter

-------------
NK
While there is no proof we can do it, we can analyze these things based off trends that occurred in different centuries. My opponent claims there is no proof and therefore it can not be done, but my opponent does not realize that there was no statistics in the 1960s proving we can do it. 30yr later, the feat was accomplished under a different administration. While Reagan is credited for ending the Cold War, no one credits Kennedy or any of the leaders for first initiating the talks as well, where the real credit is due.

If Kennedy did not start talks and try to work with USSR, then this would never happen.

My opponent claims that I stated stepping in a country solves a 100 page document agreement. This is simply false. I claimed that little steps are key to filling up that document. Stepping into that country is a big step in the right direction. It took the Americans 20 years to do that since the talks occurred and when conflict arose, and it has only taken us 2yrs to step foot in a country with more isolated borders than the Soviet's did.

My opponent also claims that talks were horrendus. That is simply false. Talks have been tame and the most recent one [1] went "good". There has been talks that USA is helping NK with their tourism and boosting it [2]

Collaboration is there and we have had way more strides than we did in Russia in 5x the amount of time, this is a win for Trump, and proof that he is a good president indeed. I would like judge to vote CON in this category

-We have made more strides than we did with USSR in faster time, making up more capable to peace
-Opponent misinterprets arguments I make in R1 of my case
-Progress is being done and North Korean collaboration is wanted 
------------
Middle Class

The graphic depicted come from the WSJ, which sadly, I used my free trial of it to view the article, and therefore can not access the image and graphic depicted. However, it should the average revenue made by a house increasing to a record high in his president, to about $58,000 dollars. I do not want to subscribe to the WSJ, since they hate PewDiePie, so take the PRO's word.

My opponent is extremely wrong about the wage growth being flat because it was EXTREMELY MORE FLAT during the Obama Administration

This graphic is a deceptive of the wage growth in his presidency, an increase of 4.0%. My opponent is lying in this case, and this turns his entire point that he made in this case. YIKES

The graphic I showed (which sadly is not displayed unless you have the WSJ subscribe :() shows that the average wage of Middle Class is simply not true. It has been increasing. 

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.

My opponent states false facts and lies in this statement, and then skews my argument to make out government employees as middle class, which is not the case. Government employee jobs are used to put people in middle class, not to remain in there.

------------
Toughness

While shutting the down the border wall did inherently more bad than good, he was fighting for something he believed in and was strong on his word of doing it, something you need as a President. He did not just make promises and promises and never fulfill on promises, like Obama in 2nd term, he promised to do stuff, but ultimately sucked in the 2nd term and in all practicality, a meme. He has persisted on his act to build a wall and be tough on illegal immigration.

He has been true and tough on his word, fighting for it and not dropping it. This is a clear example of a good leader and what a good leader does. He is strong by his word and follow through. Action would have been done if Congress was not at a gridlock. It also proves to what length he will do to enact policy

He will shutdown the government just to do policy and promote policy. He has been tough on his stances, not bending to the over party.

The presidents that were tough we're
---JFK
---Reagan
---Lincoln
---FDR
---GWB (while he was a terrible president overall, he can be accredited for increasing security to prevent terrorist attacks and creating domestic affairs chamber to promote the safety, one positive in his tenure) 

These president we're either A) Successful and regarded as good presidents or B) We're so good in one policy/field.

Presidents that were not tough
---Buchanan
---Taylor
---Hoover
---J. Adams

These presidents are not regarded as good presidents overall, even the worse for some of these lenient presidents. They are bad.

Trump is tough and strict on what he wants to do, and overall is successful at doing so. His toughness is a quality that considers him a good president

Concluding Statement

Media skews Trump president into a train of bias and bad thoughts. While he tends to be controversial, there have been many controversial presidents that have turned off to be some of the greatest we have seen. Trump has not done anything terrible to regard himself as a bad president. While he may not be a Top 10 president, he is good enough to were we can he label him as good

I did not use much sources in these arguments, since these are rebuttals/concluding thoughts/remarks, I see no reason to site pure sources. 

Judges should vote PRO due to CON's misunderstanding of arguments... and misinterpretation of evidence
------------


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
My opponent forfeited his concluding statements. Boohoo:(

Since i was supposed to waive anyway, it is a wave
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Ditto? Pokemon? where
Contender
#57
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Ditto!
Instigator
#56
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Thank you for the debate!
Contender
#55
Added:
drained the swamp and installed a septic tank, a very leaky septic tank
#54
Added:
has the whole world gone mad?
#53
Added:
--> @OoDart
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
#52
Added:
--> @Patmos
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
#51
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
#50
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
no problem
#49
Added:
we need honest people in government
#48
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
There aren't enough people voting on debates that aren't full forfeits. We need more of these people!
#47
Added:
--> @OoDart, @dormouse
Thank you for taking the time to vote
Contender
#46
Added:
--> @855h01E
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
#45
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
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.
#44
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
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.
#43
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
-Args
Pro and Con both provide arguments for their points, sufficiently substantiating their claims within the confines of the definitions they were using. The problem here is that both debaters were operating on a different understanding of "good," which ought to have been laid out/defined in the framework. This resulted in both debaters operating on different definitions of "good" depending on what issue they were addressing, which is not only sloppy, but also plausibly causes confusion on the reader. Another issue: neither Pro nor Con sufficiently justified why their definition of good was preferable, nor did they sufficiently address the other's use of the word, rather choosing to co-opt both uses, only muddying the assumption off which to address each point because one could feasibly argue that, yes, Donald Trump's insistence regarding, say, the wall, despite his intermittent failure, is a signal of toughness and committedness to his ideals, which is desirable in a leader. Alternatively, it could also be argued that his insistence on building the wall -- and through so doing, alienating a large demographic of people/restricting them from entering the country -- is not good. Most argumentation in this debate reduces to this exact issue: any specific issue can be called good since the debaters were operating on both definitions. I, therefore, am reduced to a state where I ultimately cannot decide a victor based on arguments from the basis of substance alone, and have to resort to how well-sourced they are. So, then, regarding sources:
-Sources
Both debaters used relatively mainstream but also not-fundamentally-unreliable sources. Sources from both debaters were, overall, of the same quality and generally factual, with them serving to substantiate the claims of both; on this basis in addition to the one considered above, I will regard the arguments point as a tie. Besides this, the only issue here was one of Pro's sources being inaccessible, which, though substantiable through other just-as-reliable sources, was not here in this debate. It is on this grounds, I will reward the sources point to Con.
-S&G
Both sides committed their errors with regards to this; however, there were times when I was reading Pro's case when I had to reread a sentence or two, and this occurred several times, much more than when reading Con's. Though neither case was unreadable/unintelligible, I will have to reward S&G to Con as well.
-Conduct
Both debaters equally composed themselves.