Instigator
Points: 24

Donald Trump is turning America into a dictatorship

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Cowscreen
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 12
Description
Actions made by the president over the past 2 years indicate that Trump's vision for America is that of a dictatorship.
Round 1
Published:
Since Donald Trump was elected president, he has proceeded to attack many of the fundamental principles of this republic. One of those principles is the rule of law. A republic, unlike a dictatorship holds everyone accountable under the law, even the most powerful. Donald Trump has demonstrated disregard for this principle through his own comments; “I have an absolute right to do what I want to with the Justice Department.”
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-justice-department-independence.html
 
Trump and the Republicans have also worked tirelessly to implement elections that subvert the will of the people through unnecessary voter ID laws and gerrymandering, which are making elections increasingly meaningless.
 
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/american-democracys-built-in-bias-towards-rural-republicans
 
Trump has a complete disregard for the truth. With his constant lying and demonization of the media, he is undermining one of the fundamental elements of a republic: free press.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-false-or-misleading-claims/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.078e6639a7d0
 
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/public-confidence-in-media-falls-to-all-time-low-in-2016-228168

Published:
1.  Trump sometimes doesn't know what even he says.  I am not sure of the context and details of the situation, but he did say “But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed un-involved with this particular matter.”
Based on this, I'm sure he doesn't want the justice department to worship his orders.  He does have some executive and Constitutional authority, though.

2.  No where in this article is Trump directly mentioned or involved.  This seems to revolve around propaganda that Republicans gerrymander, although that both parties do it.  It also mentioned the popular vote and electoral college a lot, but that is simply how our country has always done it.  It is not trump's fault.

3.  Your first source is extremely biased.  It says Trump's 5000th false claim was a tweet saying "Russian ‘collusion’ was just an excuse by the Democrats for having lost the Election!”
This tweet is solely his opinion, and of course the left will make it seem like it is a lye.  This all depends on political perception and bias.  The same thing could be said about Obama.

4.  "he is undermining one of the fundamental elements of a republic: free press."

FAKE NEWS!  Of course he is not stopping CNN from reporting or being nationally televised, but he is calling out the fake news media.  No other president has fought back to bad things they say about them, and Trump is changing that by exposing them and making sure lies aren't spread.  The confidence is obviously lower because he is exposing the fake news media.  He is not denying freedom of the press.  Do you even know what qualifies undermining freedom of the press?  All of these things are completely false left wing agenda's, and it is becoming a disgrace.

Back to you.
Round 2
Published:
1. The fact that Trump is stupid and doesn't know what he is saying is no excuse for his behavior. Ask yourself, why is Trump even questioning the impartiality of the Justice Department? That part of the quote alone is damaging to our countries confidence in the rule of law. Before unjustly firing James Comey, Trump is on record requesting that Comey pledge loyalty to himself rather than the constitution, do you consider this behavior benign? If he doesn't want the Justice Department to worship his orders, why is he at war with Attorney General Jeff Sessions? To top things off, he also threatens to jail his political opponents, does that mean anything to you?
 
2. You are correct that Trump is not individually responsible for voter suppression and gerrymandering, but it's important to acknowledge that he is its most powerful purveyor. As the most popular representative of the Republican party, his demonization of minorities has only served to embolden these undemocratic practices.
 
3. I don't believe the media is peddling fake news, and I'm sure your response to that is to dredge up some stories that CNN mistakenly ran. Mistakes are going to happen, and when CNN makes them they apologize, which is good. If your news source never makes mistakes or apologizes it's likely you watching state-run propaganda. Trump response to the press has never been a measured critique of specific errors, instead we get a wholesale demonization of the news media, which has lowered our countries confidence in the press.

Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
Forfeited
Published:
1. Jeff Sessions is a weak attorney general. He wants him fired. Nothing dictator like there. Also, your thing about Comey is purely an opinion. He did want Hillary jailed, he has not talked about it recently because the chances she will get jailed is slim, and that's because she broke the law and deleted over 30,000 emails. Does that mean anything to you?
2. Our country is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Gerrymandering has always gone on before Trump was elected, so Trump is not responsible for gerrymandering. This is simply an opinion.
3. CNN is fake news. The most obvious thing about CNN is that they report to be objective reporters, when in fact they have a clear democratic bias. They also make certain things seem bad with language or tone, but don't report the other side, like on illegal immigration, gun control, etc.

Round 4
Published:
1. Hillary Clinton never broke the law. Like a dictator Trump has completely remade the federal judiciary by replacing judges throughout the country with Republicans. These actions have reshaped the courts in Trumps favor, removing a check on his power. For the Supreme Court, Republicans pushed through a nominee, disregarding the filibuster to steal the seat of Antonin Scalia.
 
2. Republicans continue to implement voter ID laws which prevent some people from voting, these are the actions of a dictator.
 
3. CNN is a neutral news source, there is no reason to think that the media has a liberal bias. It's just a fact that Trump does and says bad things so when the media reports it is often negative.

Published:
1.  Really?  Hillary never broke the law?  Why do you think that?  Trump has appointed conservative Supreme Court justices that follow the Constitution.  Liberals don't follow the constitution.

2.  Source please?  Both sides do this, it has gone on before Trump.  On this premise, I guess Obama is a dictator as well.

3. LOL are you kidding me??  You actually think they have no bias.  This is absurd.
"It's just a fact that Trump does and says bad things so when the media reports it is often negative. "
You are proving my point.  This is completely an opinion on what stuff Trump has done, good or bad.  The thing about the left is they have come to believe there opinion is a fact, when the right admits they have an opinion.  There is no way CNN is a central news source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
Round 5
Published:
1. Hillary Clinton was never indicted by the FBI and was cleared of any wrongdoing. It's not just who the Republicans and Trump appointed to the courts but how they did it. The tactics used to deny Obama's appointment were undemocratic.
 
2. Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/georgia-election-fight-shows-that-black-voter-suppression-a-southern-tradition-still-flourishes
 
3. What bias does that mediabiasfactcheck.com have? My point is the media as a whole is not biased against Trump. Fox News is even more popular than CNN and it is completely pro Trump.  

Published:
1. Hillary has not been investigated, but she still broke the law.  Also, Trump hasn't talked about this recently, only his supporters chant it.  The tactics used to deny Obama's appointment was the rule that his own vice president made.  It is called the Biden rule.

2. Both sides do it.  It's gone on before.  You did not rebuttal to this.

3.  Mediabiasfactcheck has a slight left-wing bias, but they are pretty neutral.  The FAKE NEWS press is the enemy of the people.  Not as a whole.  CNN is bias and are anti-Trump.
Added:
Fox news is pretty mixed and not very trustworthy for information.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
#29
Added:
Ram's RFD, Part 2:
2.) Trump and Republicans are engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cons main defense was not that this was not happening, but that everyone does it. Admitting that your opponents primary factual claims are correct on their face concedes the argument unless con attempted to show these actions do not undermine democracy - which he did not. Pro caveated “Trump and the republicans”, while con correctly points out Trump isn’t The instigator of these policies, cons argument that Trump is the leader of the party is a valid rebuttal with this caveat. As a result pro was far more compelling. 2-0 pro.
3.) Trump undermines the free media. Pro explains that Trump is undermining the free media, and is a compulsive liar. Con offers very little rebuttal of the latter, and basically rejects cons source without justification. Pro wins the lies argument. On the undermining of the media, instead of really arguing the point, cons primary argument wasn’t to use a very generic argument - without any specific examples or citations - that trump is fighting back, and the media is biased against him. This appears to implicit be arguing that Trump IS undermining the free media - but they deserve it. As he implicitly concedes the point, and offers no genuine defense or argument to support the media “deserving it” other than a very generic catch all argument with no examples or specific - This rebuttal is wholly ineffective. Pro 3-0
Pro wins arguments on all three points.
#28
Added:
Ram's RFD, Part 1:
Sources: pro supported his first primary contention with sources, and supported a requested contention. Con supported none of his primary arguments with sources or references. As a result, sources go to pro.
Spelling + grammar. Con made several grammatical and spelling errors that tripped me up l. I didn’t notice any from pro: examples: “You did not rebuttal to this.” “no where”, “completely false left wing agenda's”.
Conduct to pro. Con forfeited, pro deliberately ceded a round to make it fair: that’s good form - I would have awaded this point for cons forfeit alone, but must also stare that Con was also rude in the comments. Being rude, snide during a debate, even in the comments, is bad form.
Arguments. There were three main points raised. In the opening round pro met the basic burden of proof on all three - and I hoped the rest of the debate would revolve on defense and tear down of these points. The were:
1.) Trump is undermining the rule of law by his usage of the justice department. Cons rebuttal focused on the single example raised by pro - which was reasonable. However pro went on to list several other actions, and con did not present a cohesive rebuttal, making a limited reference to the attorney general being weak and then changing the subject to talk about Hillary clinton. Cons defense fell far short of rebutting pros contention. 1-0 pro.
#27
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments and conduct were sufficiently explained. However, sources and S/G were not. To award sources, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source." The voter does not do this. To award S/G, "a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points." The voter does not sufficiently ground the excessiveness of the S/G violations; where excessive means very frequent or severe. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter may keep his existing argument and conduct analysis, and must add information on the excessiveness of S/G violations and on how the sources *impacted* the debate while also analyzing at least one source example. Alternatively, the voter could keep their RFD as-is but simply not award S/G and/or Sources points.
************************************************************************
#26
Added:
Points for conduct and spelling are certainly nitpicky.
#25
Added:
I've never seen such a biased vote in my life.
Contender
#24
Added:
--> @ArgentTongue
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Argent_Tongue // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Both participants used reliable sources of some manner, therefore it was a tie in terms of sourcing information. Both the supporting and proposing sides had acceptable grammar and spelling, resulting in another tie. Both Pro and Con failed to honor their obligation in at least one round, earning an equal distribution of points to both contestants. However, in terms of argument, Pro however, made an unsupported and rather fallacious assertion that a major news network was objective in its outlook and style of presenting information to the US public.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey all the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
#23
Added:
--> @Polytheist-Witch
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: CNN and Fox are the two most political news sites in the US. To say one is bias and one is not is dishonest.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter seems to insert their own preexisting opinion into the RFD, which is not permitted. However, even if that is not the case, the voter fails to survey the main arguments and to then weigh them to arrive at a decision. The RFD is very myopic. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by (a) surveying the main arguments within the debate and (b) weighing those arguments for their relative strength in order to arrive at a verdict.
************************************************************************
#22
Added:
--> @dustryder
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Sources: Con made little attempt to substantiate his counter-arguments with sources. The one source con used had little relevance to the topic at hand (CNN is left-leaning. This is irrelevant to whether Trump is "undermining one of the fundamental elements of a republic: free press")
Spelling and grammar: Con had slightly worse spelling/grammar over Pro.
lye->lie
there->their
No where->Nowhere
You did not rebuttal to this->You did not rebut this/You did not make a rebuttal to this
However this did not hurt readability
Conduct: Tie. Both were relatively polite
Arguments: Con failed to effectively address Pro's arguments. Later arguments nitpick over irrelevant details, leaving the overarching point unaddressed. I also note that Con has used instances of whataboutism and appeal to tradition which detract from his arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: On sources, the voter fails to explain how the use of sources effected the debate itself and failed to do any comparison between both debaters' use of sources. On arguments, the voter fails to conduct any weighing analysis and fails to survey the main arguments of the debate. The voter may cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the source impacted the debate itself and by surveying and then weighing the main arguments in the debate.
************************************************************************
#21
Added:
@McSloth
I personally do not care for any major news outlet - they all are equally distasteful in my opinion. However, for the sake of this topic, I would need to point out that the 'score cards' created by politifact are unreliable at best. The means they used to assess the honesty of each station was highly subjective in a variety of ways. The comments used to produce their data were only a select few pulled from the vast majority. This is a bit like critiquing the integrity of an individual based off of a sample of the statements they have made, only all of the statements chosen are untrue. If, in theory, the better part of total things said by this person happen to be true, this will not show in the data produced from the sample, as it has been populated with all un-truths. It also happens that 33% the comments selected for the scorecards were suggested to the site by the public - meaning that the data collected is possibly influenced by bias.
Also, the set you linked was relevant only to a single month.
I would caution against making broad claims based on statistics, as they are pliable. The other sites are also affected by this - I would be happy to elaborate on how.
#20
Added:
--> @McSloth
You do know that politifact gave donations to the Hillary campaign, don't you. They are very left wing.
Fox is better than CNN. All you have to douis turn on cnn and they act like not letting in illegals is the worst thing ever. They hate Trump for enforcing the law, and act like he is putting children in "cages." Fox reports the whole truth, cnn half-asses, fox is better.
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Are you sure you want to continue this? I gave you a perfect chance to walk away from a losing argument, but I have found myself with some free time so why not, let us continue.
The idea that CNN is better then Fox News is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. In almost every unit of measurement, CNN is better the Fox News.
Which news agency is more factual? CNN.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/
Which agency produces more informed viewers? CNN.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
Which news agency had to drop their slogan of being "fair and balanced" ? Fox News.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337797-fox-news-drops-fair-and-balanced-slogan
Which news agency is more trusted? CNN.
https://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html
Do I need to continue ?
#18
Added:
--> @McSloth
It is your opinion CNN is better. It is my opinion fox is better. CNN always trys to criticize trump. That is not objective reporting. You are wrong.
Contender
#17
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
And here I thought you were better then that Boat, to say I am disappointed is an understatement. It's been a pleasure proving you wrong in this comment section, but I can now tell that you are just going to continue holding onto your beliefs no matter how many times I beat you over the head with reason and logic. Goodbye Boat, I'm sure we'll meet again in another debate or comment section.
#16
Added:
--> @McSloth
cnn is still fake news. They continue to demonize trump, not report full stories, and fox news is way more factual.
Contender
#15
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I would have liked to see more sources used in Con's rebuttal. However, Pro lied twice in his statements. Pro said that Hillary Clinton didn't break any laws and that she was cleared of all wrong doing. That is false, since her private email server was inarguably a violation of public access laws controlling government information and the FBI confirmed the violation did take place.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments tied because of the numerous dropped or uncontested points by both sides. The individual contentions each evolved just enough as the debate progressed that it would be unfair to award points to either side given that the original points argued for were not ultimately defended or deconstructed by the end of the debate. (Ex. contention 1: Trump's well documented infringement in Justice Dept. matters scrutinizing or affecting him devokved into a back and forth on SoS Clinton's private email server. This whole thing was going to end up being a tie but upon visiting Con's single source calling CNN biased I found a disclaimer link at the bottom of the page regarding claims of accuracy or objectivity in its assessments of bias. Pro's more fact-based sources give him the points.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Sources: pro supported his first primary contention with sources, and supported a requested contention. Con supported none of his primary arguments with sources or references. As mentioned in arguments, pro uses his sources to establish his initial burden of proof in the opening round, establishing the baseline level of evidence which led credibility to the opening round, cons argument (as touched upon in my arguments decision also), was not underpinned by any sources or specifics, which eroded his position.As a result, sources go to pro.
Spelling + grammar. Con made several grammatical and spelling errors that tripped me up l. I didn’t notice any from pro: examples: “You did not rebuttal to this.” “no where”, “completely false left wing agenda's”. “Trump's” instead of Trumps, trump, “lye” instead of lie, and statements such as “The confidence is obviously lower because he is exposing the fake news media.” which made no sense in context. This impacted readability by making me have to go back and forth, and I felt the multiple errors per round that impacted readability were substantial enough to warrant the grammar point.
Conduct to pro. Con forfeited, pro deliberately ceded a round to make it fair: that’s good form - I would have awaded this point for cons forfeit alone, but must also stare that Con was also rude in the comments. Being rude, snide during a debate, even in the comments, is bad form.
Arguments. There were three main points raised. In the opening round pro met the basic burden of proof on all three - and I hoped the rest of the debate would revolve on defense and tear down of these points. The were:
1.) Trump is undermining the rule of law by his usage of the justice department. Cons rebuttal focused on the single example raised by pro - which was reasonable. However pro went on to list several other actions, and con did not present a cohesive rebuttal, making a limited reference to the attorney general being weak and then changing the subject to talk about Hillary clinton. Cons defense fell far short of rebutting pros contention. 1-0 pro.
2.) Trump and Republicans are engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cons main defense was not that this was not happening, but that everyone does it. Admitting that your opponents primary factual claims are correct on their face concedes the argument unless con attempted to show these actions do not undermine democracy - which he did not. Pro caveated “Trump and the republicans”, while con correctly points out Trump isn’t The instigator of these policies, cons argument that Trump is the leader of the party is a valid rebuttal with this caveat. As a result pro was far more compelling. 2-0 pro.
3.) Trump undermines the free media. Pro explains that Trump is undermining the free media, and is a compulsive liar. Con offers very little rebuttal of the latter, and basically rejects cons source without justification. Pro wins the lies argument. On the undermining of the media, instead of really arguing the point, cons primary argument wasn’t to use a very generic argument - without any specific examples or citations - that trump is fighting back, and the media is biased against him. This appears to implicit be arguing that Trump IS undermining the free media - but they deserve it. As he implicitly concedes the point, and offers no genuine defense or argument to support the media “deserving it” other than a very generic catch all argument with no examples or specific - This rebuttal is wholly ineffective. Pro 3-0
Pro wins arguments on all three points.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
On sources: Pro has used a variety of news articles to support his main arguments. Con has used a single source to support his evaluation on the biased nature of CNN. However, regardless of bias, Con has failed to demonstrate how this constitutes as "fake news". That, and due to the ill-defined nature of the term "fake news" in the first place, has negatively affected his counter-arguments.
On arguments:
Disregard for rule of law: Pro has argued that Trump has disregarded the rule of law through his comments and filling the courts with republication judges.
Con has correctly pointed out that Trump has filled the courts with judges that follow the constitution, which can be implicitly understood to mean that Trump has followed the rule of law. Con has however has failed to meaningfully defend Trump's comments. Even were Con to prove his statement beyond opinion, Pro correctly points out, stupidity is a poor excuse.
Subverting the will of the people: Con's arguments against this point revolve around "both parties do it" and "that is simply how our country has always done it". By only attempting to justify trumps behaviour, and by admitting that Trump allows for this to happen, Con concedes this point. This is whataboutism and appeal to tradition respectively.
Trump's truth and demonization of the media:
Con concedes that Trump is a liar as he has failed to fully address Pro's source.
Con has failed to expand on his claim that the source used by Pro was biased, and further has only addressed some small part of Pro's source, leaving the rest of the article, and hence the claim unaddressed.
Con concedes that Trump has demonized the media and hence undermines freepress.
Con argues that this demonization is justified due to "fake news" however Con has failed to expand on his use of "fake news", specifically why it's justified to demonize it or how it is different to inaccurate news and biased news. Con has argued that Trump has not denied the freedom of press. This is a strawman as Pro has not claimed that Trump has denied the freedom of press, but has undermined it. Con has failed to address this point.