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.
After 5 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
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.
This debate was made slightly confusing by the set up and the roles of the contenders. The title seems to imply that the instigator would be Pro, but he is actually Con. Plus, the participants admitted that they had taken the political sides which are opposite of their own usual positions.
That aside, Con used sources and used them effectively to support his point, citing both the original promise of payment, as well as sources clarifying the circumstances under which payment would occur. Pro use no sources, so sources points to Con.
Pro forfeit the last round and offered only minor rhetorical arguments in the prior round. Conduct to Con also.
Con provided a detailed analysis that relied on a literal interpretation of Trumps claims, namely that a test of Trump's choosing administered by an agent of his choosing determine that Warren is an "Indian." While Pro's comments speak toward the validity of such a test, they don't speak to any possible agreement that may have existed between Trump and Warren.
Pro loses conduct points for the forfeit.
Conduct is to Pro. not Con. I do not give a single damn about forfeiting on a debate where the opponent tricked the other into picking the wrong side. It was an intentional trip-up, I know death23 tried to do this to me before but aside from precedent here and here alone in the comments section is indisputable proof if you go back far enough that this was preying on a noob to the site (not DDO but the mechanics of accepting and side-switching here etc)
Pro did try his best despite being totally against the topic yet his assertions relied on us believing a certain percentage of Indian or even that baseless value based on baseless claims lead to Trump owing something to someone for their heritage which were all proven wrong by Con. Not only does Con refer to the exact DNA percent racially but he/she also elaborates on the potential for fraud in whatever proof Pro raises. This combined with the sources Con uses means that since Pro used 0 and only hearsay we must side with Con on the facts and consider the resolution not successfully upheld via the meeting of BoP by Pro.
Sources go to Con for the quotes provided surrounding context to Trump's challenge, Warren's reaction, and Trump's counter. Conduct as well for Pro's forfeit and employment of a rebuttal in R1 in violation of the agrreed scheme of the debate. Given that the debate scheme calls for rebuttals in R2 only and Pro failed to post an R2 entirely, arg also goes to Con as Pro failed to meaningfully challenge the premise of their R1 case.
Conduct to con as pro forfeited a round.
Sources to con. He backed up the specifics of everything he said and these supported his positions which bolstered his case.
Arguments to con. Actually, pro almost had it - as he is correct - Trump didn’t say what percentage Indian, nor did con actually counter this point (Trump was talking heritage throughout). I would have awarded pro arguments had he made a better argument with regards to conditions - arguing that Trump personally would need to perform the test is an obvious semantic point, but valid: and one that Pro could have done much better on - the idea that Trump couldn’t personally perform the test - while true - wasn’t a good rebuttal. As a result of this, while there’s one win each on the two argument points - the latter of which is most important - the remaining swing issue is that Pro did not offer a positive reason as to why Trump should pay the money, it was mainly a rebuttal. As such, while I was close to awarding arguments to pro, con edges this one out.
typical leftist, can't be confronted with facts and avoids them, and also being a deusch
have fun debating nobody
And wah, wah, wah.
How would you be paying for my mistake? By me not wasting your time? I think it would be much more beneficial for you to actually debate someone and not waste your own time.
Except, we can't continue to debate, because there is nothing to debate about. You don't have to be a you know what about it.
If we continue he pays for his mistake. If we cancel, I pay for his.
The debate has already been cancelled in a sense, what's the point of continuing if Boat isn't going to debate you?
I do not consent to canceling the debate.
Yes, so? Someone else would be just as happy to debate this with you. We can just contact a mod to cancel the debate.
Once I post my arguments publicly I've shown my hand. The cat's out of the bag.
Can we cancel this debate and copy and paste your arguments into a new one? Maybe you should change the title to "Trump does not owe Warren a million dollars" and take the pro side, as for this debate, 2 people got confused on your position.
Sorry, I thought you meant "are you aware you are arguing against me"
So,
When I asked "Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?" and you said "Yes, I am."; What was unclear there?
I had the same inclination initially, but then I noticed Death23 was arguing CON and decided to forget about it.
Oh, shoot, I am so sorry. I thought you were for Trump paying her a million dollars. I misunderstood your position. I apologize for any inconvenience or time this may have caused.
Yes, I am.
Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?
Technicalities are Technicalities. Trump said that if Warren was any bit Native American, that he would donate $1 million to the charity of her choice.
Honor and trump should never be used in the same sentence
Warren is as native American as I am French.