Instigator
Points: 34

Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Death23
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Points: 11
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
Round 1
Published:
Facts -

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/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)



Arguments -

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?"

Published:
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.
Round 2
Published:
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.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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.)
#70
Added:
--> @Raltar
Ah I gotcha. I'm sorry. But since you voted for the other person, I still had to delete the vote.
#69
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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.
#68
Added:
--> @Raltar
I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?
#67
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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.
#66
Added:
--> @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
************************************************************************
#65
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#64
Added:
--> @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?
#63
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#62
Added:
--> @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?
#61
Added:
--> @dustryder
It's not an opinion where you disagree-
it's just a fact that I made a mistake misunderstanding his position.
Contender
#60
Added:
--> @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"
#59
Added:
--> @dustryder
I don't disagree, I agree with him. Read more carefully before you type a clever comment.
Contender
#58
Added:
--> @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.
#57
Added:
--> @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.
#56
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.