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

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.