Instigator / Pro
7
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Topic
#2718

Trump sucks

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

gugigor
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

Trump was such a bad president

Anytime Trump has a lollipop, he sucks.

I think this is very interesting debate.

-->
@Benjamin

If you have a problem with my vote then you are free to report it.

-->
@Trent0405

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.

-->
@gugigor
@Benjamin

Vote 2/2

Healthcare

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.

Iran Deal

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.

Economy

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.

Lies

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)

-->
@gugigor
@Benjamin

Vote 1/2

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.

Covid

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.

Impeached

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.

Foreign Diplomats

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.

1st Amendment

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.

2nd Amendment.

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”.

-->
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge
@gugigor

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

-->
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge
@gugigor

Entirely sarcastical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMnESsD5i-c

-->
@MisterChris

That would be brilliant, lmao

-->
@Theweakeredge

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