Are Democrats tired of losing against Trump?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
full forfeit
Forfeiture.
Full Forfeit.
Thank you for voting
Thanks for voting
Thank you.
No problem. I hope to see more of your insight in the future.
Thank you
References, round 3
1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
2 Law, Faux*, Faux Law, Amazon Books, 2019. *[a pseudonym]
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html
4 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 2, clause 5
5 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 5, clause 2
6 Clinton, Hillary, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8079693/Im-investigated-innocent-person-America-Hillary-Clinton-snaps-documentary.html
7 https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
8 Copyright credit to Ragni, Jerome and Rado, James, Hair, papp, Joe, producer, 1967, alterations by law, faux.
References, round 2
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/donald-trump-ad-hillary-clinton-50-points-ahead/index.html
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/upshot/why-trump-had-an-edge-in-the-electoral-college.html
[3] https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
[4] https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
[5] Reiner, Rob, The American President, Sony Pictures, 1995
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/democratic-candidates-race.html
[9] https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-only-two-delegates-isnt-first-candidate-stay-race-this-long-1491334
[10] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/02/super-tuesday-democrats-looking-consolidate-broad-coalition/4927159002/
[11] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-sanders-sit-down-debate-format-push-health-concerns
[12] https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/tom-perez-swearing-trump/index.html
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid.
So far*
References in argument 1
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[2] https://www.aiga.org/design-director-hillary-clinton-presidential-journey
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-road-to-victory/507203/
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press
[5] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/democrats-dont-want-to-nominate-another-white-man-for-president-226977
With three only rounds, you should be careful in defining your terms to minimize ambiguity right away.
Two resources you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_ambiguity
Orcs are a social construct!
Are the Riders of Rohan tired of fighting orcs? The question of fatigue is irrelevant: we shall endure until the dark lord is no more.