Instigator / Pro
28
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#1805

Are Democrats tired of losing against Trump?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
1
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Democrats said Trump's candidacy was a publicity stunt to boost ratings of 'The Apprentice,' that he would not win a primary, the nomination, or the election. He did. They said he would not last six months, one year, midterms. He did. They said that Russia, Russia, Russia, urine tapes, Stormy, Avenatti, Cohen, Manafort would bury him. He's still here. They said the Mueller Report would take him down. He's still here. Who's Mueller? A has-been war hero. So was Benedict Arnold. Now they have had impeachment. He's still here.
Are they tired of losing, yet? Have they put up a candidate who at least can best his popularity rating, low as it is. No, After four years [this began long before his inauguration], Democrats can't even do that outside of margin of error.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The con did not truelly raise an argument. Merely presented an unsourced opinion, which could possibly be construed as biased, and using just a few sentences which appeared to lack any type of effort, and while one or two grammar errors are forgivable, i felt given how short and to the point cons argument was, he certainly had more time to at least check for grammar errors, and typos, such as "cery opposite".
I felt Cons response at times appeared more like "text talk", than formal debate. "read mg and kickikg the ego of a wounded creature while it's down."

And regarding sources, i would say that "4 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 2, clause 5" and "5 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 5, clause 2" Is a reliable source, so long as it is being produced in an appropriate context, and as the Con forfeited the round and did not raise any objections, it would be unfair for me to raise any objections, and Pros sources were certainly better than anything Con provided.

And i also believe that Pro had the better conduct. He at least respected the nature of debate, and put in a good amount of effort.

I feel regardless of which participants argument i personally would have debated in favour of, and agreed with, is invalidated by the fact that there was such a huge gulf in both quality and quantity of argument.

If nothing else, fauxlaw wins overwhelmingly on scholarship alone.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeiture.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full Forfeit.