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.
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.
Keep whining.
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.
Don't care.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtTN3BEPWOI&lc=UgxBhwo8hFPSUxkyF_t4AaABAg
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.