Donald Trump Is a Good President
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
-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.
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
I did waive...your RFD for that category is inaccurate bc I did not extend any arguments
Of course not! Lol
Okay so then you're not conceding?
Busy and forgot. I also didn't get the email telling me I had an hour left 😑 if I had gotten that I would've done the round
I want to cast a vote, but I want to know why you forfeited the final round.
I hate everything
Suprising how you asked if I could finish but you never did lol
Arguments coming out today or tmrw
Yes I will continue this since it’s only 1 more round
Are you still doing this since you're off of Discord?
Great debate so far! Both sides are doing well!
lol
Yep I called it
I personally am a President Trump fan. It wasn't always that way and I used to be a "Never Trumper." I'm a one-issue voter. I vote Pro-Life and that was my one question about Trump, was he pro-Life? Now that he has been in office for most of his first term I can happily say President Trump is not only pro-Life, but he is arguably the most Pro-Life president we have ever had. Now if he would only stop his crazy tweeting and kowtowing to dictators!
Good is a broad definition is the main problem. I would hope to limit the spectrum to more political policies and such, but I do not think that is what this debate will come down too.
Precisely
How much Good is Good enough? That seems to be the critical question in this debate.
President Trump has done some good things and some and bad things. I think the burden will be on Pro to show enough convincing arguments that his good outweighs his bad.
Sure why not.
Kritik (or just K), is the German word for critique. They differ in that while we always critique each other's arguments, we do not always Kritik the foundations on which they’re built. Put simply, a Kritik sidesteps evidence offered, and makes a case around such being irrelevant or outright harmful due to greater concerns.
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
It's their job to read the debate before accepting
It's challenging assumptions in the resolution 😐
Donald is a good entertainer. He sure does make us chuckle.
And when they pull his strings. He does and says the funniest things.
Make it explicit that the one who accepts will be for the topic.
Put that you are Con in allcaps in the description outside and inside the debate. Otherwise, voters may side with a noob who falls into the trap.
How do you define "challenging assumptions in the resolution"?