The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Trump was such a bad president
42% say Trump is one of the worst presidents ever (https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/trump-presidency-history-analysis/index.html)
America had grown to the highest COVID cases out of any country, showing Trump's incompetence (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s)
Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of power, and less than a handful of presidents have been impeached (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeached.html)
Trump also failed to uphold an important clause of the constitution, helping foreign diplomats staying at his hotel (https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/)
Trump declared that the press was an enemy of the people, despite our right to it in the first amendment (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people)
Trump is anti-trans and destroys the inequality of the people. It's said that "The Trump Administration is built on demonizing minority groups; reversing the civil rights gains of immigrants, people of color, women, and the LGBTQ movement will forever remain the hallmarks of their time in office." (https://transequality.org/press/releases/trump-administration-announces-beginning-of-transgender-military-ban-on-april-12)
Trump's Affordable Care Act did not work economically and only increased expenses (https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca)
He also dropped out of Paris Agreement, which was crucial to help save climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement)
Trump had threatened Nuclear War, despite the "mutually assured destruction" that could cause world extinction as a result. He ignores the standards set in place and does whatever he wants (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-nuclear-war-threat)
A significant proportion of Trump's claims are lies (more than 70%), more than the vast majority of presidents before him (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/)
42% say Trump is one of the worst presidents ever (https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/trump-presidency-history-analysis/index.html)
22% say Trump is one of the best presidents ever, in that same source. We know that the average American is not an expert, so the media is how they form their opinions. Let us not forget that America is divided between two parties. Of course, any president from the other side is going to be "horrible" in the eyes of the opposition, as they disagree on politics. Also, statistics almost always lie.
- America had grown to the highest COVID cases out of any country,
- showing Trump's incompetence
Tell me why these two cases are logically connected? Is Donald Trump's mission to solely focus on the disease? No of course not. Did you know that in India, the damage taken by the society because of the lockdown was actually far greater, more dangerous and in any other way worse? No, you did not.
Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of power, and less than a handful of presidents have been impeached
Let me show you the first interesting line in that source:
The votes on the two articles of impeachment fell largely along party lines
Yes, exactly, his opponents wanted him removed, does this prove his guilt according to you? Ultimately he survived, being unpopular does not make you criminal.
Trump also failed to uphold an important clause of the constitution, helping foreign diplomats staying at his hotel
As far as I read, he was the president, and foreign investments in his companies grew. This is obviously beneficial for Trump, but one cannot blame him, he does not control the foreign powers. But still, this argument is the best.
Trump declared that the press was an enemy of the people, despite our right to it in the first amendment
His political opponents and rivals declare that they want to restrict gun rights, despite their right to it in the first amendment.
Trump is anti-trans and destroys the inequality of the people. It's said that "The Trump Administration is built on demonizing minority groups; reversing the civil rights gains of immigrants, people of color, women, and the LGBTQ movement will forever remain the hallmarks of their time in office."
In the same document:
the Trump administration today instructed the Armed Serves to begin discharging transgender service members effective April 12.
"Wow, transgenders not being allowed in the military, how racist". There are clear reasons why. First of all, this is positive, this puts a burden on the oppressing straight white Christian male that other people do not need to bear, as the burden of not being normal is too heavy already. Secondly, transgender (I guess trans-women are what you mean) people have no right to be in the military, as only men are forced to be there. I do not share your seemingly emotional connection to that cause, and thus the argument has no effect on me.
Trump's Affordable Care Act did not work economically and only increased expenses
You have to be more specific. What was the motive, what was the effect? Increased expenses compared to what? How does it stack up compared to other plans? Why was it implemented, was it necessary? Tell me why exactly this was a bad move. Also, every health program has only increased expenses, and even today democrats want to raise the federal budget, effectively crashing the economy if not stopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMs_3_WOjP0
He also dropped out of Paris Agreement, which was crucial to help save climate change
He also dropped out of the Iran agreements, which was crucial in Iran's secret nuclear program. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1749906/middle-east
Trump had threatened Nuclear War, despite the "mutually assured destruction" that could cause world extinction as a result. He ignores the standards set in place and does whatever he wants
Mutual destruction? Come on, you should know that the dictator of North Korea would never risk his position, and thus nuclear threat is the only threat he could ever fear. Trump's threats, though can be impulsive, easily benefit stability and demand proper limits for North Korea.
A significant proportion of Trump's claims are lies (more than 70%), more than the vast majority of presidents before him
I have nothing to say here.
When you are throwing statements around yourself that often, its no wonder that he cannot check sources every time he wants to say something : )
I mean, his 30% true claims are certainly more than any other president ever said, both truth and lies. ;D
You made no actual arguments, you just came with a bunch of his unpopular actions.
Please be more specific, I will not care to debate you if you cannot write your own arguments.
You made no attempt at mentioning any of his general policies and major decisions, which I think are more important than the small unpopular decisions.
The argument about the corona is not valid, as this was a crisis, and any president (except Churchill) suck at leading a divided and hateful country during a crisis.
Setting up the debate
I agree that Donald Trump as a person sucks, we all know that. The statement in question is whether or not Trump's general policy was beneficial or awful.
My opinion is that it was not.
The economy grew faster, the middle east peace is finally within reach (except for Iran) and except for the democrat's civil war, the country is peacefull.
Con says any president is going to be considered bad, but has not addressed that Trump has the most opposition out of any president. This is the hallmark of a bad president in a democracy.
Con claims that India is worse, but does not tell us why. In contrast, two articles from nature.com highlight Trump's ruining of science and causation of COVID. Not only did the president get the virus himself, he repeatedly fails to follow the regulations set by the White House (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02800-9?fbclid=IwAR087O59JHJzb6mwiJmn5QO7lqyoPgIyDQzdZk7B46rS4Cm6RnxSDjmQYBU). He has also meddled with science to give false information and ignored their advice, even silencing one from testifying about COVID (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03035-4?fbclid=IwAR2SPZu6iTr8N2UomYEZh-_LQW6BN-daHGxs7SUAg-e9rydZmG_ykpJXKqk). It's clear that Trump's actions has caused COVID to grow to absurdly high rates and made it unreasonable to support him.
Con says merely because we suspected him that he is not bad. Keep in mind that only a handful of presidents have been impeached. To even think that a president would commit a crime infers that they are already doing horrible.
Con says he sees no problem, despite my article highlighting that "President Trump has at no time sought or received the consent of Congress to accept any foreign emoluments, even though public reporting makes clear that he has already violated the Clause in at least three respects...". He agrees that this argument is excellent to prove my point, and makes no reconciliation for Trump's failure to uphold the Constitution. And the most important promise of the president is to fulfill the Constitution. By failing his basic duties, Trump is definitively a bad president, not worthy of his position.
Con claims that we restrict the right to guns, but it is extraordinarily hard to say if the "right to bear arms" was same as personal ownership of the guns. Many interpret it as only a defensive measure for militia and armies. The amendment is incredibly vague, and is very controversial. The creators of the constitution could not have anticipated that guns would become so dangerous and accessible to criminals, causing mass murders and problems. America has one of the worst gun murder rate in the whole world. On the other hand, the press's information is harder to judge whether it is truly bad. At the very worst, it has still killed nobody. So clearly, the second amendment is more controversial, with big negative impacts of killing people, while the first amendment tells us about informing the people. The first amendment has caused almost no negative effects through fulfilling it, contrary to the second amendment.
Con claims that "not being normal is enough of a burden", proving that his views are no different from being racist and anti-transgender. What exactly is "normal" and why is "non normal" a "burden"? He doesn't tell us. Everyone has burdens one way or another. It would be like saying to restrict the poor from being military since they have extra burden to support their family. People have the freedom to make dangerous choices and put as much burden as they wish upon them. It seems absurd to chase someone out due to a vague idea as "burden", especially if the person themselves accepted the burden.
Con claims that I have to say exactly what Trump did wrong. Well, if you want, I got it. I did the research beforehand. Brookings.edu, a trusted expert site (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/09/six-ways-trump-has-sabotaged-the-affordable-care-act/), notes five ways that Trump failed the ACA:
1. " Reduce outreach and opportunities for enrollment in the ACA’s insurance exchanges"
2. " Cut ACA subsidies to insurance companies offering coverage on the exchanges"
3. "Construct off-ramps to cheaper, lower-quality insurance."
4. Promote waivers that would decrease ACA enrollments and undermine its regulatory structure.
5. Discourage legal “aliens” from enrolling in Medicaid.
The article then concludes... "Current developments illuminate how the administrative presidency can exploit its control over the Justice Department to coalesce with state officials of the same party to accomplish its policy goals. "
As you can see, Trump only wanted to accomplish the policies that fulfilled his personal desires, while ignoring the standards set by the congress. The destruction of ACA has resulted in low quality insurance and made our lives and health far worse as a result.
Con claims that the Iran deal withdrawal had significant effect on the nuclear program. It did not. As a news article notes (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal), "Signed in 2015 by Iran and several world powers, including the United States, the JCPOA placed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal in 2018, claiming it failed to curtail Iran’s missile program and regional influence. Iran began ignoring limitations on its nuclear program a year later." As Con's claim is false, we ought to ignore this claim and put it in my favor.
Con claims that the nuclear deterrence is good at preventing Korea from striking, but Korea is already deciding not to take action. Trump's words only seem to extend his extreme beliefs and his ideals. As my article further explains, “Nuclear deterrence is only effective if threats are deemed credible; bluster hurts our national security posture,” William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, noted on Twitter. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, was equally unimpressed: “Potus rhetoric should be tempered; goal now is to increase int’l pressure on N. Korea, not concern over US behavior.” As you can see, US alone acting out seems absurd and gives the impression that we will actually act in return to mere verbal threats. Through Trump's similar words to Truman, he gives off the wrong impression that US will already destroy North Korea as we did to Japan. And violating international agreements is one of the worst things a president can do.
Con claims that Trump's claims are more than any other president, but gives no proof. As such, we should dismiss this.
Con agrees that Trump sucks as a person. How can a bad person be a good president? The leader is supposed to be the model for the people. Next, he says Trump managed to improve the economy, but gives no proof. In contradiction, Trump had assigned a 4% growth goal, but only had Obama's level of growth, so he really just inherited the decent economy rather than doing anything special himself (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/data-show-trump-didn-t-build-great-economy-he-inherited-n1237793). There is no evidence that Trump did anything substantial.
I did the research beforehand.
Surely, a man of honour.
Again I want to state that I am not focusing on proving how "perfect" Donald Trump is, but if you cannot prove that he sucked as a politician, you have lost.
I do not care whatever stupid things he says or does, I care only about results.
Con says any president is going to be considered bad, but has not addressed that Trump has the most opposition out of any president. This is the hallmark of a bad president in a democracy.
Why? You are simply restating your previous argument. I will not bother repeating myself.
By failing his basic duties, Trump is definitively a bad president, not worthy of his position.
If Trump was worthy of being impeached, he would have been so, judges are not stupid. Your argument is based on a hidden premise, namely that if the left and the right disagree, the left is correct. The right side deemed Trump worthy of keeping his position, while the left did not. You are simply basing your argument on the left side claims. Also, are you claiming that a president that is not impeached automatically was worthy of their position?
Obama was also accused of being worthy of impeachment multiple times https://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/impeach_obama_again/
But his popularity was too great:
It's not too surprising that this keeps coming up, considering that large swaths of the Republican base seem to support impeachment. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who is leading the charge on Benghazi, said in 2010 that there's "not a chance" that the House will impeach the president.
If Obama was nearly impeached without deserving so at all, then you cannot claim that being near impeachment is a good reason as to why a president is bad. As I pointed to, you are assuming that the opinions of the political left side are the correct ones. Your claim is biased and based on hidden, false premises.
Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of power, and less than a handful of presidents have been impeached
Less than a handful of presidents was as unpopular as him, that is why he was impeached, while Obama was not, its about politics.
Con says he sees no problem,
Correction, I said: "This argument is the best"
it is extraordinarily hard to say if the "right to bear arms" was same as personal ownership of the guns
Again, additional proof you are left-leaning and biased in your arguments. You are making a political claim, it makes it so obvious to understand your motives.
You disagree with him on policy, that's why you hate him, that's why the left hates the right, that's why only the left voted for him to be impeached. If you consider his policies terrible, you are not making a truth claim but rather you are expressing a personal preference. Political rivals are bad because they make "bad" political decisions. For a right-wing extremist, even Obama was terrible. The reason why Donald Trump was hated (in addition to him sucking as a person), was that he was very effective at making "bad" policies.
The amendment is incredibly vague, and is very controversial.
Well, that's what they said. "It's extremely vague and controversial"
That was the claim of those that used the Bible to justify killing other Christians, those that use the Quran to prove or disprove terrorism, it's how Iran justifies breaking the human rights and how Nazies interpret the theory of evolution.
You are making an appeal to ignorance. Tell me, what makes a gun different from a knife when it comes to attacking a civilian in a closed street? Nothing. What is the difference between a purse and a gun when it comes to defending yourself? Everything. Pros argument that Guns are dangerous fails to understand that this is their purpose, they make everyone dangerous. Image if only criminals had guns, how much safer would the state be? Not much. His argument is based on a straw man fallacy, namely that if we remove guns, the country will be peaceful. Its wrong, criminals will always have guns in the US. When Hitler becomes the American president, he cannot oppress the armed people, that was the clear intention of the first amendment, they knew how the republic in France had fallen to Napoleon.
Con claims that "not being normal is enough of a burden"
You seem to be quite angry about my response, especially the trans-gender part. Why? Trans genders have basically ruined sports. Men becoming women and taking the honour and medals from women in women sports, how is that fair. https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/16/another-womens-sport-is-letting-biological-males-compete/. According to Professor Jordan Peterson, wait, he is evil so I cant reference him. The reason why trans gender people are not forced into the military is the same reason why women are not forced into the military: biological and or psychological differences. If you fail to recognise science, at least stop calling me "racist and anti-transgender" for being rational.
Iran began ignoring limitations on its nuclear program a year later."
Ignoring the fact that Iran is a theocracy that presses its people, funds terrorism and wants to dominate the entire middle east, your argument is still invalid.
They are simply hiding their facilities and weapons of mass destruction, just like Iraq did under Saddam Hussein. Here is a report of how dangerous Iran is, and Israel of any country should be more competent about Iran:
Netanyahu, who strongly opposed a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, made the remarks in a televised speech about a week before a general election in Israel in which he is in a tight race to win another term.“I call on the international community to wake up, to realize that Iran is systematically lying,” Netanyahu said.“The only way to stop Iran’s march to the bomb, and its aggression in the region, is pressure, pressure and more pressure.”
Trump's words only seem to extend his extreme beliefs and his ideals.
Again, you are calling his belief extreme, when they are not. Maybe your beliefs are so extreme that his beliefs are extremely far away from your ones.
I agree with your claim that such rhetoric might make the USA seem more words than action, that was a good argument.
The leader is supposed to be the model for the people.
Everybody knew he sucked, even before he became a president, so this argument is false. People did not expect him to be a model, and he was not, nothing surprising here.
Trump failed the ACA
Well, first of all, your site shows us that this was a normal trend and that Trump is just the latest evolution of this trend:
Aggressive, partisan, multifaceted administrative presidencies have been especially evident since Reagan with presidents of both parties participating.
In other words, he is not special in this regard, he is no different in quality, just quantity.
Trump has in multiple ways taken this trend to new levels as his efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) vividly illustrate.
Yet again, ACA is a POLICY, not an amendment or public duty. One cannot sabotage a policy, just people. Obamacare is an expense, and all expenses need to be cut if the US is to survive the debt crisis, but instead, they spend more and take more taxes. Health care is important, but not more so than the military, the security branches or infrastructure. Why are you blaming Donald Trump from removing a non-essential expense, calling it to sabotage? Tell me how Trump's changes raised expences, stop keeping me from the important information.
What exactly is "normal"
Normal: "ordinary or usual; the same as would be expected:" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/normal
Normal in this case means to accept ones biological sex. I do not understand where your frustration comes from regarding this issue, maybe its indoctrination?
Con claims that India is worse
First of all, I said that their economy has been ruined by the lockdown, making the lockdown more dangerous than covid itself to the poor nation.
Also, they had a lot of covid deaths even though they were among the first to start lockdown. The reason being they had large masses of people in one space.
I will let this expert evaluation talk for itself:
One group of 40 scientists wrote a letter to the chief medical officers of the UK suggesting that they should aim to “suppress the virus across the entire population”.In another letter, a group of 28 scientists suggested that “the large variation in risk by age and health status suggests that the harm caused by uniform policies (that apply to all persons) will outweigh the benefits”. Instead, they called for a “targeted and evidence-based approach to the COVID-19 policy response”....the one-track response threatens more lives and livelihoods than Covid-lives saved.”
We are yet again faced with the brutal truth: Trump did not "fail" the country (he failed himself only by being a jerk), but he represented another POLICY, not another type of human, one that only cares about himself. A question: why is covid in America so widespread? Could it be that widespread prolonged anti-trump and pro-different-leftist-ideas demonstrations created the problem? Who knows, maybe you can explain to me why Trump is blamed for the problems his enemies created.
Donald Trump - as opposed to all before him
- Made peace in the middle east
- Never went to war
Let me remind you again that I do not defend his selfishness or bad persona.
We talk about politics, and you dislike his policy, so of course, you hate him.
Right-wingers do not share your priorities, and that is why they can think of him as one of the best presidents ever (22%).
Your statement is true only if you are left-winged.
Not a fact, only an opinion
con has repeatedly failed over and over again to refute that a president must have majority support, not to mention my poll highlights that his election's lost of popular votes means that he never had the power of people. With only serving his personal interests at hand, it is doubtless that Trump's ideals were poorly conducted.
Con claims that Obama was close to being impeached, but accusing of impeachment is entirely different from actual impeachment. It takes little effort to say "I want to impeach", but is a far more rigorous process to actually come up with enough evidence to accuse them of crimes. Con has not addressed that each other impeached president had committed a controversial action that tainted and almost ruined their political career, making them a bad president.
Con tries to assert our right to bear arms, but does not go into the intricacies of how complex gun control is. It's entirely plausible to hold more background checks, restrict assault rifles, and require passing tests to make getting a gun more difficult. Obviously, "right to bear arms" would not include young children who are irresponsible and can easily accidentally hurt themselves. Con tries to say only criminals will have guns, but a lot of the time, even owning a gun would not necessarily mean being able to stop the shooter. If the shooter hides and makes it non-obvious, they have the severe advantage, and the gun owner would still have to decide in the nick of the time. Either way, gun control is not a simple cut and shot. Con has not addressed the problem with freedom of press, more importantly. He has not shown why Trump is more justified to arbitrarily restrict which news to release and which news to reject. Just because the alternative would be to restrict guns, does not mean that restriction of press is preferable. Perhaps both Trump or Hilary would be bad presidents. That doesn't turn Trump into a good president.
Con compares the trans within military to the sports, however, this comparison is fallacious. Sports is inherently about equality and fairness. But nobody cares about that within war. Terrorists aren't going to care; they send kids to fight, women to trick us, etc. We need all the help we get, whether in combat or non combative roles. The more people we have, the greater the chance we are going to win. So long as they pass requirements, the restriction upon gender or transgender seems arbitrary and countering the ideals of equality we have in the US.
Con contradicts himself by saying the more pressure the better. That would mean he supports US still being in the deal to add upon their scrutiny of the Iran crisis. He has also dropped the climate change arguments, which I will extend. It's very important to protect the environment as otherwise we may suffer and die as a result. And Trump has forgone this idea.
Con tries to ask where this expense is for the ACA, of course, the finance costs are hard to see, but the cost on the people is clearly laid out. I cannot make it any clearer than the idea that Medicare is now poor quality and made it more difficult for people to improve their health as a result.
Con notes that India's response was poor, and attributes it to the Lockdown. I argue that the lockdown is only one of the reasons why the workers and economy suffered. Certainly, Trump is one kind of a response, allowing people to sacrifice their health in exchange for money. But even Trump was forced to admit to encourage people to stay home as it would help serve the country as well. Indeed, Biden proves that there is another way to help the poor, through a distributed income, which is what India missed out on. Even with no complete lockdown, Biden managed to convincingly prove that Trump's inability to help the poor combined with encouragement of sickness, denial of it, and ultimately getting COVID proves Trump's sheer stupidity and inability to serve.
It is clear as day that Trump is a bad president. He lost to Biden in a landslide due to his poor policies. If the benefits had clearly outweighed the negative, you would definitely have seen him win a second term.
con has repeatedly failed over and over again to refute that a president must have majority support
I never tried to. You never asked me about that. He does not need to, he only needs to win the election. The flawed election system is not Trump's fault.
With only serving his personal interests at hand
You provided no evidence or arguments for that stand. He is the president, he serves the people, but maybe you are referring to his individualist's style.
Con claims that Obama was close to being impeached
Stated. My argument was simple: both presidents were close to being impeached, and Donald Trump was unpopular while Obama was popular. That is the reason why Obama was not impeached, there was no massive media movement going after him, no investigation was set up etc. The point is, since Trump was not found guilty, he was no different from Obama that was never impeached. Neither of them was worthy of being thrown out, but none of them was, the difference was that Obama was too popular to be impeached, while Trump had half of the nation against him, because they hated him and his POLICIES.
Con tries to assert our right to bear arms, but does not go into the intricacies of how complex gun control is.
That's the point. It's complicated, and you had no right to attack me because of my comparison between two amendment rights. Media is also complicated, just ask those that want to arrest Trump and others spreading fake news. Think about how powerful the media is, among other things they ended the Vietnam war and brought about the impeachment of Trump. No wonder why fake news is becoming a big problem, so I do not accept your argument with regards to the media. Also, Trump has freedom of speech, just as everyone else.
Con compares the trans within military to the sports, however, this comparison is fallacious. Sports is inherently about equality and fairness.
What? No, sport is about competition, teamwork, achievement and success. He is making a straw man out of my argument: transgender people destroy the women sports, as biological women have no chance compared to trans-women in most cases. The same way, a military filled with men disguised as women and women disguised as men would be a mess to navigate.
The more people we have, the greater the chance we are going to win
Excuse me, the US military is the largest in the world with regards to equipment. The US has the strongest navy in the world, their naval airforce is the second largest in the world, only rivalled by the land-based airforce of USA, and their tank force is only inferior to that of Russia. Clearly, winning wars should not be a problem, the US crushed Iraq in less than a month. Your argument would only be valid if we were trying to fight space aliens with armies of billions.
the restriction upon gender or transgender seems arbitrary
No, it is not. "Arbitrary, definition: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." There is a system, only biological males are forced into the military, as they are the best single group for making soldiers. Rejecting this fact would be to return to ancient pagan myths of "women god fighters", like valkyries.
Terrorists aren't going to care;
In fact, you are wrong: Islamists believe that they won't go to heaven if killed by a woman soldier. Maybe trans in the military could, in fact, be beneficial after all, who knows. Still, you forgot my point: transgender people are not fit for the military, the military is perfectly balanced for biological and psychological males to join.
countering the ideals of equality we have in the US.
Exactly, was is dirty, and if we want to win, we need the best group of soldiers, and that is the group we already have: MEN.
Con contradicts himself by saying the more pressure the better.
When did I claim that more pressure is better? When did I claim that less pressure is better? I never said any of that, I just pointed out your flawed argument. Iran had a secret nuclear program during the time the treaty was still in place, so the treaty accomplished nothing except give Iran a free ticket to economic support. Read the report in my last argument, where Benyamin Netayunaha releases information about a nuclear reactor made for nuclear weapons, and why they bombed it. Clearly, the combined pressure of Trump and Israel has been a great obstacle for further Iranian expansion. Remember, they are basically an Islamist terrorist state, trusting them would be like trusting Adolph Hitler. The pairs agreement might just as well have been the middle eastern version of the Muchen treaty before World War Two. Your argument is based on ignorance, not facts.
It's very important to protect the environment
as otherwise we may suffer and die as a result
Wow, you clearly do not understand the dangers of climate change. You treat is as impending doom. It simply is not, climate change will lead to a harder environment, which will slightly adjust the earth, which will affect not humans but rather ecosystems, the hardest. I understand what a long term threat climate change is, but I believe that
"all men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights", among them the right to own a business and not to be pushed around by a government. Did you know that the countries still in that agreement are not able to keep their promises? No, you did not. In essence, Trump's retreat from the treaty changes nothing, it just makes the green shift come naturally, not forcefully.
the finance costs are hard to see, but the cost on the people is clearly laid out
Not so based on spamming sources now are you? He admitted it himself, he is not talking about the economy, but human health. Let me tell you something, if the government goes bankrupt, the economy will collapse, rendering not only health but all other public sectors, damaged. You complain about Trump not following his duties. The federal budget is the most important duty of the president, so don't complain when he actually does what you want him to do: follow his duty. You make it seem like Donald Trump reduces spending on health care, and instead puts that money into his own pocket. In reality, you are spreading misconceptions by doing this. America is doomed unless more presidents act like him: reduces government spending. Sorry, but the national economy is more important than the household economy, one can survive a sudden crisis because of other institutions, and one cannot.
Trump is one kind of a response, allowing people to sacrifice their health in exchange for money
You put no argument, no fact and no other things into this argument, so it is just an expression of personal feelings. I agree though that Biden could have tackled the corona crisis better, but it would have taken a much harder toll on the economy. Again, priorities priorities priorities, no "sucking" policy exist.
proves Trump's sheer stupidity
He is not stupid, but quite intelligent. He is just foolishly self-confident and proud.
inability to serve.
If that is your argument, what a double-edged sword that is. Well, I assume you think Biden is a bad president, he is much less able to serve, due to his old age.
Pointing at what you ignored:
- His diplomatic success, greater than anyone before him in the middle east
- The fact that he never went to war, even with an aggressive rhetoric
- My argument about different corona politics
- The fact that Iran already had a hidden nuclear program, that was the reason why Trump left the agreement
- My argument about what duties are most basic, and what rights we have
- How the impeachment was supported only by Trumps political rivals
- How other presidents avoided impeachment by being more popular
- The fact that Trump's enemies, the demonstrates, is the cause of the massive covid-crisis in America, not Trump himself
- My argument that the economy is more important than healthcare
- My claim that the economy is in danger due to the ACA that Trump is removing
- The point about political adherences controlling one's opinions
In essence, my opponent cannot answer me properly, this refutes his so-called "fact-based" argument.
Sorry, preparation won't help you if your claim is incorrect.
I have debunked most of his statements, and those I did not, I debunked his interpretation of.
My opponent did not even answer any of my questions, he just repeats his claims with minor differences.
He appeals to ignorance in some cases, to authority in others and yet in other cases he appeals to emotion.
Pro made no attempt at making a coherent argument to support his statement, instead, he tried to throw a bunch of links at me and expect me to surrender.
In essence, my opponent is making a bold claim: Trump sucks, despite having no real argument. He also did not care about the fact that almost everyone in the USA regards him as either the best or worst president of all time, showing us that he is not bad, but controversial. Why you might ask? Because he is so clear cut, effective and non-bureaucratic. His friends love him because of everything he accomplished, and his enemies hate him for everything he accomplished. On the world as a whole, he had a positive influence, in the USA he had a positive economic influence. But on the leftish side of America, he had a very negative influence. His greatest achievement was making peace between Israel and the Arabs, his greatest defeat was the corona crisis, cause not only by him but also his enemies. My opponent had no argument I could not debunk, giving me the victory.
I would request this as a conclusion:
Trump was a successful president, a saviour in the eyes of his friends, and a sucking criminal nazi in the eyes of his enemies.
Obviously, he sucks as a person, but all intelligent people should understand that even jerks can accomplish great things, as Donald Trump did.
Vote Con - because you care about truth rather than emotion.
Facts dont care about your feelings - Ben Shapiro
Anytime Trump has a lollipop, he sucks.
I think this is very interesting debate.
If you have a problem with my vote then you are free to report it.
You forget that I successfully and entirely won my case regarding policy - while I admitted in the beginning that Trump was a terrible person.
Therefore, as far as actually debating goes, I clearly won.
For the economic/fiscal portion of this premise there were basically no statistics backing up any of the arguments, Con did support his side a bit better, arguing that Trump stripping resources in the present will prevent horrible fiscal/economic and health backsliding in the future though. Pro referenced the reduced quality and universality, but the downside of future catastrophe was not addressed. Con effectively argued that Trump could save America from future tragedy in healthcare and the economy, so he bested Pro on this point.
A narrow victory for Con.
Paris Climate Accords.
This was dropped until the final argument, Pro therefore never had the opportunity to respond.
I suppose then that Pro will have to win this point.
The Iran deal point was backed by Con in the 1st round with an Arab News article suggesting Iran was pursuing nukes in secret. Pro points out how the agreements provisions don't allow such a thing, but Con's whole argument is built on the fact that Iran wasn't abiding by the treaty in the first place, so this doesn't quite address Con's point.
Pro citing some source looking at Iran's uranium stockpiles for instance could have helped here,but he failed to do this. As a result, Con narrowly wins this point.
Con points out how Trump has helped the economy, but Pro points out how he has only maintained Obama levels of growth, not really that spectacular.
This point was even.
Trump has been proven to lie more than the vast majority of presidents, Con contradicts this with his statement, but doesn't enforce it with a citation the way Pro had.
Pro was the only one to substantiate his point here, so he wins this.
Pro won this debate because he won most of the premises.
(apologies in advance for the lacklustre grammar/spelling)
Trump is Unpopular
It is indeed true that Trump is unpopular, (42% vs. 22%), but this is rather unpersuasive as a voter, people are not perfectly reasonable as Con points out, so appealing to opinion polls when you could appeal to meaningful failures or successes doesn't move the needle at all for me.
It's even on this point.
The lack of statistics here was a glaring flaw, vaguely gesturing at India's economic backsliding or America's health failures is not persuasive, pointing to Trump's failures/successes, not the failures of lock-downs, India, or America would move me a little more. I did appreciate how Pro argued Trump's failures to follow the Covid restrictions and Trumps meddling with the science though, this was indeed a failure from Trump specifically. Also, pointing toward Biden's greater successes with helping the economically disenfranchised could have added to this case Pro was making, but it lacked the substantiation necessary to move me. It is important to note that just because America is faltering doesn’t mean Trump is, the question is whether or not Trump is making things worse or better, not whether things are good or bad.
A win for Pro on this point.
Trump was impeached, but Con argues that this has to do with Trump's low popularity, also, Obama almost got impeached as well. But getting impeached, as Pro points out, is not normal. It also takes a lot of effort to build the case for impeachment as well. Saying Trump just got impeached because he’s unpopular ignores the fact that Trump was found to have violated certain laws.
I say that this was a win for Pro, but not a very meaningful one.
Con admits this is the best point of Pro's argument, but he merely says that Trump can't control the actions of foreign actors. This doesn't address the infringement on the constitution aspect of the argument nor the argument in general.
A win for Pro.
Con just pivoted to the 2nd amendment when pushed on this, saying “the democrats are also a threat to the constitution” is not a defence of attacking the media (and therefore the 1st amendment).
I say Pro one this point, but not convincingly.
There were basically no statistics brought up to justify or tarnish the second amendment. All I read was vague mentions of the amendment's wording (with little thorough analysis of said wording) and mentions of the drawbacks and benefits of guns with no real substantiation.
A few simple sentences and links could have helped this point a lot, but as it stands, this point is even.
Civil rights of Minority/Oppressed Groups.
Pro points out a quote that questions Trump's capacity to help minority groups, but Con narrows in on Trans people, arguing originally that they're not normal and therefore bad. Also arguing that trans people are a burden on straight christian men. These 2 points were never really backed up, when questioned on what's wrong with not being normal, there was no response. Con does say that the military is meant for men, so trans women shouldn't be allowed in, but this fails to address trans men in the military.
Put simply, only one minority group was addressed, leaving much of the point untouched. Also, all of Con's counter arguments to the transgender point were addressed well by pro, not expounded upon, and not defended sufficiently.
Kritik-wise, if you redefine “suck”, and you prove that There is no evidence that Trump sucked anything the way a medical needle sucked blood, Con wins easily, or called, “a foregone conclusion”.
I just achieved the most significant writing mistake in history:
"The Paris agreement could perhaps turn out to like the Muchen treaty made with Adolph Hitler"
I will never recover my pride after this XD
That would be brilliant, lmao
tempted to use this resolution and argue that Trump has drank from a straw publicly, and thus technically sucks.
I mean, if Trump has ever drank from a straw, you can affirm.
I mean, I agree, but for the resolution, you should be more specific, for example: TBHT: President Donald J. Trump was a bad president, except "bad" is such an abstract, you would probably have to be a bit more grounded for a better debate and not a look into pedantics