Instigator / Con
6
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2376

Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a "racist".

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
0
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
4

After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
28
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I continue to see this over and over again about somebody being "racist".
Well tell me how this person is being such?

Can you do it in 3 rounds or will it take 10?

If you need 15, I'll talk to Mr. Trump about legislating this website to increase its capacity for possibly stigmatizing him.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

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:

Ragnar easily won. Here's why:

a) Ragnar fufiled BoP more than once, and mall barely did anything not only from his point of view but also refuting Ragnar's claims.
b) Ragnar used sources. Mall did not.
c) Mall forefitted.

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:

Ignoring the forfeit, Pro still dominates this debate. He presents a number of substantial pieces of evidence to support the resolution. The responses that Con gives are largely a big "nuh-uh" rather than direct rebuttals, and even if some of them were effective, Con gives himself no ways to win this. He doesn't provide any substantial threshold for determining when someone has demonstrated their racism (he allows Pro to set both the standard for racism and the threshold he has to meet), and as he has no offense of his own to show that Trump is not a racist, he has to either disprove or mitigate everything Pro says into oblivion. These rebuttals only present niggling doubts at best; none of them outright defeat any of the points Pro presents. Pro clearly did present evidence and explain what was in said evidence, and Con's responses all trend towards either questioning the validity of his conclusions without presenting his own, or requesting that he present more facts without addressing the ones he's presented with in the first place. Sources to Pro, largely because he was the only one who presented any and they were entirely dismissed without reason.

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:

Mall forfeits. Ragnar presents proof and mall doesn't do anything and ignores it

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 asks pro for proof but does not negate it when faced with multiple sources and facts. As such Mall loses