Instigator / Con
34
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#183

Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
3
Better sources
10
2
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
4
1

After 5 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...

Death23
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
11
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description

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

-->
@David

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.)

-->
@Raltar

Ah I gotcha. I'm sorry. But since you voted for the other person, I still had to delete the vote.

-->
@David

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.

-->
@Raltar

I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?

-->
@David

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.

-->
@Alec

*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************

-->
@Raltar

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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?

-->
@dustryder

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.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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?

-->
@dustryder

It's not an opinion where you disagree-

it's just a fact that I made a mistake misunderstanding his position.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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"

-->
@dustryder

I don't disagree, I agree with him. Read more carefully before you type a clever comment.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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.

-->
@Death23
@Username

Wow he actually just wasted his time by writing a long rebuttal to something I agree with him on? That's hilarious!

-->
@Death23

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

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@Death23

You're literally proving my point..

-->
@McSloth

Only some liberals, mostly SJW's and Progressive's, but some people, like armoredcat and you, can put up reasoning into debates.

Keep whining.

-->
@Death23
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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.

-->
@Death23
@McSloth

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.

Don't care.

-->
@Death23
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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?

-->
@Death23

OK, so now you concede I am right. Secondly, if you didn't care about winning, why would you continue an empty debate?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Whether you lied or made mistake, my decision would be the same. I don't care about winning.

-->
@Death23
@McSloth

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.

-->
@Death23
@Our_Boat_is_Right

"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.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@Death23

I can prove it was a mistake, while you can't.

-->
@Death23

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtTN3BEPWOI&lc=UgxBhwo8hFPSUxkyF_t4AaABAg

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I don't believe you. My language was clear. So was yours.

-->
@Death23

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.

https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/

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.

-->
@McSloth

"Completely on me" right? Your reasoning is clearly flawed.

-->
@McSloth

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 😏.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@McSloth

He says he didn't know he was Pro until I posted my arguments. You believe him? I don't.

Death23
Added: 4 days ago
Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?

Our_Boat_is_Right
Added: 4 days ago
Yes, I am.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@McSloth

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.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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.