Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Background - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-warren-million-offer-dna/ ----- Full resolution - Honor demands that Trump pay 1 million to Warren's favorite charity upon demand by Warren ----- Rules:- Round 1: Opening cases only (no rebuttals)----- Round 2: Rebuttals only
At a rally on July 5th, 2018, Trump stated the following: "Lets say I'm debating Pocahontas, right? I promise you I'll do this. I will take - You know those little kits they sell on television for two dollars? 'Learn Your Heritage!' Guy says 'I was born in Scotland!' Turns out he was born in Puerto Rico and that's OK. That's good. You know. Guy says 'I was born in Germany' well he wasn't born in Germany he was born someplace else. I'm gonna get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate when she proclaims that she's of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That's her only evidence - That her mother said that she has high cheek bones. We will take that little kit and say - But we have to do it gently because we're in the 'me too' generation so we have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm even though it only weighs probably two ounces. And we will say 'I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.' You know. And lets see what she does, right?"
https://goo.gl/RFf2tu (Video of the rally)
On October 15th, 2018, Warren released the results of a DNA test which indicated that she has Native American Heritage. Warren further demanded that Trump send a million dollars to NIWRC, a nonprofit working to protect Native American women from violence.
The DNA test results indicated the following: "While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."
https://goo.gl/Mhmxb7 (AP article)
https://goo.gl/DJNpJv (DNA test results)
On that same day, a reporter questioned Trump in Warner Robins, GA regarding the issue. The dialogue was as follows:
Reporter: "Senator Warren released some of her DNA results that show a strong likelihood that she does have native American roots."
Trump: "How much? 1/1000th?"
Reporter: "Do you owe her an apology?"
Trump: "No, I don't. Absolutely. Do I owe her? She owes the country an apology. What's the percentage? 1/1000th?"
Reporter: "I don't have the exact numbers."
Trump: "OK. Tell me when you have the percentage. When you have the percentage tell me what the percentage is."
Reporter: "What about the money that you told her you would ... "
Trump: "You mean if she gets the nomination, in a debate where I was gonna have her test it? I'll only do it if I can test her personally. OK? That will not be something I enjoy doing either."
https://goo.gl/CfFRdW (Video of Trump / Reporter dialogue)
1. The DNA test results do not show that Warren is an Indian
Trump's "challenge" was clear: "take the test and it shows you're an Indian." The DNA test results provided by Warren do not show that Warran is an Indian. Rather, the DNA test results show "the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor [...] likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."
DNA test results showing a Native American ancestor 6-10 generations ago aren't sufficient to show that Warren is an Indian. For simplicity's sake, assume for the moment that each generation going back reduces the content of an individual's heritage by 50% (half from mother, half from father). An ancestor six generations ago would then mean that Warren is approximately 1.56% (1 / 2^6) Indian, and going back 10 generations would be approximately ~0.01% Indian (1 / 2^10).
Would you say that someone is a Korean because he is 1.56% Korean? Or that someone is an Arab because he is 1.56% Arab? No, you wouldn't. In common parlance, the meaning of "an Indian" means someone who is substantially more Indian than Warren's test results show.
Trump brought this up when questioned by the reporter. Trump said "What's the percentage? 1/1000th?"
2. Warren failed to comply with the terms of Trump's "challenge"
Trump's "challenge" contemplated that Trump would collect the DNA sample, choose the DNA test provider and otherwise exercise control over the testing. It matters who collects the DNA, who choose the provider and who exercises control over the testing process. It matters because there's an obvious opportunity for fraud and Trump doesn't trust Warren. The only way Trump can be satisfied that the results are legitimate is by exercising control over the testing process.
This did not happen. What did happen was that Warren apparently exercised full control over testing process and Trump was consequently unable to verify the legitimacy of the results. Trump brought this up when questioned by the reporter. Trump said "I'll only do it if I can test her personally. OK?"
Trump did not specify what percent Warren had to be. Therefore, he owes her a million dollars. Secondly, Trump is not a geneticist. He probably doesn't know how to conduct a test, it would scew it and make it seem like Warren isn't Indian, when in fact she is a percentage. A real geneticist conducted the test, and it showed Indian heritage. Trump is keep gonna backtrack until he is satisfied with his own scewed results. He has no real intention of giving her a million dollars. This is just another lie among so many. My opponent is wrong, and is biased because doesn't like Warren or her Indian heritage.
Trump did not specify what percent Warren had to be. Therefore, he owes her a million dollars.
This is the only argument offered by Pro in support of the resolution. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
Secondly, Trump is not a geneticist. He probably doesn't know how to conduct a test, it would scew it and make it seem like Warren isn't Indian, when in fact she is a percentage. A real geneticist conducted the test, and it showed Indian heritage. Trump is keep gonna backtrack until he is satisfied with his own scewed results. He has no real intention of giving her a million dollars. This is just another lie among so many. My opponent is wrong, and is biased because doesn't like Warren or her Indian heritage.
These are rebuttals to arguments which formed part of my case. Per the debate rules, round 1 was for presenting a case, not for rebuttals. Rebuttals should have been presented in round 2. Nonetheless, I will respond.
Pro, while pointing out that Trump isn't a geneticist, is ignoring a more reasonable interpretation of Trump's statements - Namely that Trump contemplated that he would contract with a third party to have the tests conducted. This was what Trump originally referred to at the Trump rally - Using a test kit which would be mailed off to a lab. This does involve Trump personally handling it.
With respect to honor, it doesn't matter that a real geneticist conducted the tests. The terms of Trump's "challenge" are what matter. Trump's "challenge" required Trump to exercise control over the testing. The fact that Warren didn't permit to exercise control over the testing means that Warren failed to comply with the terms of Trump's challenge in that respect. That failure alone is an independently sufficient and honorable reason for Trump to refuse to pay. Whether or not Trump had any real intention of paying in the first place has no impact on whether or not Trump is honor bound to pay now.
I'm not wrong. I do like Warren. I don't care for her Indian heritage. I don't like Trump. I'm a godless commie.
I understand. The vote was wrong so it should have been deleted.
(It also didn't help me that Pro and Con seemed to have revered roles for this debate. The guy who is usually Conservative was arguing the liberal position and vice versa, which made it hard to keep track of who was on which side.)
Ah I gotcha. I'm sorry. But since you voted for the other person, I still had to delete the vote.
What happened was that I got Pro and Con confused, because this was one of the very first debates I voted on after joining this site.
I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?
I did read the debate and nothing is "obvious" based on my vote. If you want to delete my vote because it violates the rules, fine. I would appreciate you not hurling unsubstantiated false claims.
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Convincing arguments: I got convinced by Con.
Most reliable sources: Con cited. Pro did not.
Better conduct: I think Pro's account got hacked, because I don't think this is like Our Boat is Right. However, I still award Con conduct points. Pro called Con a racist in round 1 and forfeit round 2. I quote from Round 1 what Pro said: "My opponent is wrong, and is biased because doesn't like Warren or her Indian heritage.". What happened Boat Right?
>Reason for Mod Action: Failure to explain all points
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for decision: Pro provided valid sources and used them effectively to prove his point. It seems something went awry in regards to Con's response, and I personally think the larger issue was ignored here..
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to properly explain this point.
Death23 knows that you didn't want to debate him on this position, and accordingly, your argument was half-assed. Despite this, he made a fairly complete reply. This is respectful because:
1. He's acknowledged your attempt to debate him on a topic despite your reluctance.
2. He's made a high-effort reply in response to a comparatively low-effort argument when he needn't of done so.
Do you have anymore misunderstandings about my original comment?
yes, of course. How has he respected me? He has not done anything but be a complete deush about it.
Your original comment does not make any sense.
Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the issue with which you disagree on.
I disagree that Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the specific position that Death23 has given on the issue. You agree with Death23 on this position.
Do you understand the difference between where you have disagreed with the issue and agreed with the specific position?
It's not an opinion where you disagree-
it's just a fact that I made a mistake misunderstanding his position.
If you read more carefully, the issue was the subject of the disagreement, not the position of your opponent.
ie "The issue that I disagreed with" vs "The issue that I disagreed with him on"
I don't disagree, I agree with him. Read more carefully before you type a clever comment.
You should finish this debate, I will be voting on it...hey Death, I see you're up to your dishonest antics again. Finish the debate Our_boat, just finish it.
He's respected your attempt to debate on an issue that you disagree with. You could've either chosen to debate in earnest as a personal challenge or ignore it entirely as a protest, but you've decided to half-ass it and mock him for his reply. If you think this makes you look anything other than petty, think again.
Wow he actually just wasted his time by writing a long rebuttal to something I agree with him on? That's hilarious!
How would you know he posted a comment if you didn't read any of this?
Didn't read. Didn't care.
I would just let him cancel the debate, @Death23.
You'd save a lot more time for yourself by just moving and doing it again
You are proving it further. You don't care about anything but winning and your own agenda. You only argue feelings, not facts.
Didn't read. Didn't care.
You're literally proving my point..
Only some liberals, mostly SJW's and Progressive's, but some people, like armoredcat and you, can put up reasoning into debates.
Come now Boat, I don't think you really believe that. I consider myself a Liberal, and we're not a monolith you know. But back to the problem at hand, any thoughts on possibly debating another issue? He might be down for it if you ask.
cuz liberals don't care about facts, only feelings.
Oh I know I won't convince him, I am simply exposing his true colors to viewers.
Boat like I said, there is no point in arguing with him, the chances of you being able to convince him to cancel the debate are slim at best. He is set in his thought process and won't listen to logic or reasoning. You also should not care about your wins and losses Boat, they don't matter in the slightest and they definitely don't tell you who the best debaters are.
Death, why is my reasoning flawed? Please, do explain where you think I was wrong. Also, you haven't responded to Boat's question, why and how could you "pay" for his mistake?
OK, so now you concede I am right. Secondly, if you didn't care about winning, why would you continue an empty debate?
Whether you lied or made mistake, my decision would be the same. I don't care about winning.
I just want death to cancel the debate and stop taking advantage of a noob's mistake to look good on his stats. I do not want to have my first loss on this site because of a jerk. BTW death has already seen my recent comments, but obviously has chosen not to respond when he is confronted with the truth.
"Never argue with a fool, for onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
I am a strong believer in the conservation of energy, with that in mind I think this whole issue has become nothing more than a waste of time, and thus a waste of energy. Death isn't going to listen to reason, and Boat isn't going to be able to change that fact. With that in mind, I suggest you two either drop this matter and move forward or (and this is the far more interesting option in my opinion) you two debate another issue. This will let the two of you settle this like proper debaters and let the rest of us enjoy a good debate, it's a win for everyone involved.
I have further proof, as Logical-Master commented "I had the same inclination initially..."
This prooves that I am not the only one who got confused. Lucky for logical, he caught himself before he accepted the debate.
I can prove it was a mistake, while you can't.
I literally just gave you a proof of link.
Still don't believe me? I posted a couple comments on a TYT youtube video more than a week ago.
Here is a special link that highlights the comment, and I reply two times on it. My name is starts with Eli, and I post several anti-pochohontas comments. Alec can actually confirm it is my real name through emails on google.
I don't believe you. My language was clear. So was yours.
you said "Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic"
I ran through it fast and thought it said something like "are you aware that I'm arguing against YOU on the topic."
The way you titled it sounded like you were pro, by seemingly putting a biased title. You also gave no positioning on the topic in the description.
Why would I want the debate to be canceled if I agree with you? I think Warren is a hoax. Look at my profile, I'm Conservative and love Trump. You can also look at my DDO profile, where I even make fun of warren on my profile. This proves I am not lying about my position, but rather it was a misunderstanding. Also, the debate says "instigator and contender" not "pro and con"
I just joined 2 days ago. I am unfamiliar to how this works.
FYI what happened here was Pro accepted debate and said that he knew that I would be arguing against the topic before I posted arguments. After seeing my arguments, Pro then claimed that he didn't know that I would be arguing against the topic and requested a cancel. I didn't consent to cancel because I didn't believe Pro. What strikes me as more likely is that Pro knew I would be arguing against the topic and then lied about it to try to get a cancel after he saw how good my arguments were.
"Completely on me" right? Your reasoning is clearly flawed.
He said he was aware that I was arguing against the topic before I posted my arguments. Had he responded differently then I would have agreed to a cancel.
Nah, Trump's honor bound to at best, send 1/1024 of a million dollars. Should send it as a giant publishers clearing house check for about 9,000 dollar. Also, since when was Central and Southern American(Hispanic) the same as Cherokee? Be careful, ur getting pretty close to racist A" territory if you hold 1/1024 of DNA matching the central and south american DNA that was used in that test, is the same as matching with DNA of a Cherokee 😏.
O I don't believe what he said, he definitely should have looked into the debate more before clicking accept, and that mistake is completely on him. However, you also need to take responsibility for your mistake in setting this debate up. In setting up this debate you should have taken the Con position considering you are debating against the resolution you posted. If you wanted to vote for the resolution you should have phrased the debate differently, such as "Trump Should Not Have to Pay Warren". This mistake is completely on you, and you need to also take responsibility. Considering you both messed up, I suggested you just cancel the debate, to save everyone's time and effort.
He says he didn't know he was Pro until I posted my arguments. You believe him? I don't.
Added: 4 days ago
Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?
Added: 4 days ago
Yes, I am.
And I don't care either, the fact remains that what I said is most likely the truth. Cancel the debate or don't at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What does matter is your character, and caring about a "win" this much shows a lot about you as a debater. I suggest you stop caring about wins and loses so much, try actually learning something from each encounter and try and grow your understanding, that should be the reason why we bother debating one another.
I don't care what you think.
I think he should challenge someone else to the debate but he shouldn't cancel this debate because a win is a win.
I think its quite clear that all you want is the win in this debate, you don't care about debating or argumentation. You just want a win so your arbitrary and meaningless stats look better. If you really cared about your time you would cancel the debate and find someone who will actually debate you on this issue. If you don't you are literally wasting days for each round to be forfeited.
Talking to Our boat is right below, not Logical master.
Your the one arguing the leftist position here. The person on the left wants Trump to pay the $1 million. You also got annoyed when people forfeited debates. You said that on DDO. So don't forfeit this one.
You can probably still argue that Trump made the mistake of never defining terms of his challenge (thereby making 1% Indian blood irrelevant) and that Trump merely paying a charity $1,000,000 is an inherently honorable thing to do and that Trump's riches enable him to do this without breaking a sweat. I don't agree with that, but it's not like there's no arguments to be made here.