Instigator / Pro
14
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Topic
#4573
Biden should pardon Trump
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Slainte
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
8
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Description
I argue that Biden should pardon Trump for the classified documents charges that have been filed against Trump.
Mutual BoP
Pro must show that Biden pardoning, or attempting to pardon Biden is in the best interest of the country.
Con must show that giving Trump a pardon would not be in the best interest of the country.
I am open to modification based on agreed comment-related discussions.
Round 1
Pro
#1
No comments or changes to the description. I am fine with new arguments in the last round. This is supposed to be short and quick.
Strategically, If Biden offers to pardon Trump the country will be in a better political, and social position then if he does not. While Ford lost his re-election because of the Nixon pardon, Nixon was not a candidate anymore. This is most critical because Trump is a candidate, and a very popular one.
THEREFORE
An offer to pardon would:
- Show Biden will be putting a leash on his administrations DOJ. Clams about witch-hunts and unfair prosecutorial practices would not end, however would be curtailed significantly.
- Refocus the media on issues at hand, such as inflation, crime, ridiculous spending, and other issues like the Ukraine money pit.
- Save countless dollars on prosecutions, that would be dragged on and on by Trump, who is very good at that.
- Start to repair the damage to the political system, and inject some confidence into the electoral process
- Reduce tensions from extremist on both sides.
If Trump accepts the pardon, it would
- Be an admission of guilt by Trump. You can't get a pardon without admitting guilt to the charges
- Show Trump as capitulating, and would compromise his image, giving Biden an advantage
- Fundamentally overnight change the nature of the conversation about a witch-hunt
- Give Biden the opportunity to review the various classified categorization regulations, and make modifications like both Clinton and Obama did.
- Give Biden a reason to improve Open Records rights, and slow down the over classification of documentation that is occurring.
- Sets up a precedence so that if Biden is charged after he leaves office for similar crimes, he could get a pardon.
If Trump rejects the pardon, it would
- Fundamentally overnight change the nature of the conversation about a witch-hunt
- Highlight Trump is in it for him (which we know), which will influence some neutrals, or Anti-Biden voters.
- Show Trump as wanting and wasting federal resources, which would be a strategic benefit to Biden
Overall, there is very little downside to offering or granting a pardon in the grand scheme of things.
Con
#2
"Con must show that giving Trump a pardon would not be in the best interest of the country."
First off I can just speak for myself being that I'm a person of the country and the country meaning people.
I gather from the opposing side is that they're making a case in a general social relationship.
I'm going to take it in the direction of specifics as we're dealing with "in the best interest of the country".
That translates to the best interest of people and I'm not excluding one person.
A best interest is the best. It's supreme bar none. That means I'm in my best living conditions. Anything that has to do with that is a part of that interest.
Now we're getting micro specific. Away from macro generalizing.
My specific situation as part of this country, whether personal or financial business can be what it is all the while the affairs are taking place between two other individuals of this country that are a part of this country.
My problems that exist and continue to exist while someone receives a pardon on something outside of me serves nothing to the betterment of my circumstances.
Simply put.
I take it that the opposing side may have not been expecting this type of direction on the topic.
Perhaps what was being sought was a general mainstream political topical commentary.
I've heard it said that if there is no justice everywhere then you don't have justice.
It's the same sentiment with my stance. When talking about the country, it's in reference to all people , not in pockets. When talking about all in tandem with "best interest", that is theee best there is. Part of the time, in some places , in some areas, in some things is not THE best .
My interest is a summation of that. I've also heard it said that justice is guaranteeing that NO person (country) is mistreated(injustice) and that the person that needs help the most, gets the most(best) constructive help.
So we're not looking at generalities, mainstream news on common typical elements focusing perhaps on certain classes and communities.
Is this pardon in the best interest of "race" relations?
Does it solve the so called race problem?
That or any other problem, does it solve it?
I've heard that the so called race problem is the biggest problem.
If that problem hasn't been solved yet....pitifully and pathetically speaking, anything else is a "so what".
"In the BEST interest of the COUNTRY". That's the epicenter I'm presenting.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con is arguing that grammatically in the best interest of the country is singular, absolute, and relative only to themselves.
I argue that Cons position is a red herring, in that Con is attempting to divert attention from the clear and unambiguous description. Furthermore, the description makes it very clear that any clarifications will be resolved through comments, of which Con made no attempts to clarify their interpretation.
The question then is; "Is Cons interpretation reasonable, or defendable based on the nature of how the resolution was written?" Clearly no. Con's interpretation falls under the category of "absurd results", that being when someone tries to interpret something in such a specific way, and the results are clearly beyond what was intended, that is an absurd result.
I reject the totality of Con's argument as being irrelevant,
I extend without reservation all my first round arguments.
Con
#4
If you think somebody pardoning someone else is an answer to everything, of course that person pushes that mess wins the debate to you.
When you're talking about best interest, which is ALL of my situation consisting of problems, all my problems, a person pardons another in a separate situation that didn't help me any, what was it that worked in the best interest for me?
Maybe this topic is centered on a particular group. A group that is not downtrodden but all they need is a pardon taking place within another party to spread icing on their cake on a silver platter.
Let's see if the opposing side addressed any of my statements.
"Con is arguing that grammatically in the best interest of the country is singular, absolute, and relative only to themselves."
I'm going to insist you define your terms so you can't be evasive, vague and obscure.
Does country mean "all people "?
Does best interest mean no interest higher or greater to that person?
"Con is attempting to divert attention from the clear and unambiguous description.
Furthermore, the description makes it very clear that any clarifications will be resolved through comments, of which Con made no attempts to clarify their interpretation."
Ok so since you claim you can be so transparent and give excellent clarity, you should be able to answer those questions I posted above with clear direct answers. Okey-doke.
"I reject the totality of Con's argument as being irrelevant, "
Uh no no no. No evasiveness. See you face the truth, the truth comes out. We know it's no one size fits all but the position you're taking is promising otherwise.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Con has continued the interpretation of this debate as being a personal one. The judges will need to determine, does the resolution apply to an individual or the greater good.
The descriptions states:
Con must show that giving Trump a pardon would not be in the best interest of the country.
The description clearly shows that the issue of a pardons best interest applies to the country, the grand masse, not the individual. Con has flagrantly and erroneously tried to twist the target of the debate.
Con asks if country means all people. The term country is very ubiquitous, and a definition now is a little late, even as I asked for any clarifications to occur in comments prior to the debate. A country is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." There is nothing remotely infferable that the reference to a country could mean an individual needs. To be clear, to Con, the answer is clear. The word country does not mean an individual, and could never be inferred as such.
Con has not refuted any of Pro's reasons. I have refuted 2x the same argument from Con, that being a twisting of definitions of a country to the individual.
Let me make this clear. I agree with Con that the pardon of Trump would not benefit Con personally. That is not the issue. Con's unwillingness to address the logic used on why Biden should pardon Trump is disappointing, and cowardly.
Con
#6
"Con has continued the interpretation of this debate as being a personal one. The judges will need to determine, does the resolution apply to an individual or the greater good."
This is a prime example of not understanding the words that we use. Is not what's in my best interest personal?
The individual or the greater good. What is the greater good and why is the distinction or demarcation being made?
This topic and the opposing side's position wasn't thought all the way through. It's turning out to be very paradoxical.
"Con must show that giving Trump a pardon would not be in the best interest of the country."
Am I a part of the country or not ? So why isn't when I show that somebody else's pardon is not doing anything for me, you shift who or what exactly the country is or represents? See I know this position is just causing you to shoot yourself in the foot.
The country suppose the represent the people. I must not be a part of the people. According to you it's like I'm not a person.
You said "country". That would include me wouldn't it? Now you move the goalpost and trying to make a demarcation like it's others except me or specific higher up folks instead of downtrodden niches that you know have problems for days regardless of what happens. Maybe you don't know. You should know that everybody has unique problems and it's not a one size fits all solution.
Don't be so hasty with the words "best interest" for the " country" because I'll make you identify who and what you're referring to.
" " A country is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." "
A county is nation of WHAT? PEOPLE.
PEOPLE MAKE UP A NATION. DO WE ALL GET THIS?
PEOPLE ARE MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS OF PERSONS. DO WE GET THAT?
Stop being indirect with terms like "nation"...."territory"......"government".
You're talking about people. So because you weren't clear in stating verbatim it CAN'T MEAN ALL PEOPLE, I'll step in and say it is. Logically speaking each INDIVIDUAL person in the land of a nation or country is still that .
"There is nothing remotely infferable that the reference to a country could mean an individual needs. To be clear, to Con, the answer is clear. The word country does not mean an individual, and could never be inferred as such."
Then to whom or what is the term "country" referring to?
You were too vague with the term . Most of if not all your talking points was about political figures and the effects of them in particular. I don't recall one point you made outlining the benefit of every household, community, town, city, state, the youth or seniors. I'm more clear breaking down what this would mean when it comes to people then you. Particularly getting down to the essence of "in the best interest".
When we say in the best interest of the country, are we not referring to all people? Are we referring to people at all? Is country referring to the land, soil, grass and ants?
Ok what does the best interest of the grounds have to do with us? If it doesn't include people, you can let the ants and grass debate this topic.
"Con has not refuted any of Pro's reasons. I have refuted 2x the same argument from Con, that being a twisting of definitions of a country to the iindividual"
I refuted them a million times over with one single knockout punch. Nothing you said went to my best interest. If you fail to argue how this can help me , how in the world of countries that exist on it...can it help a single country? A country that is FULL OF INDIVIDUALS, individual persons that will respond such as I making a case about their unique issues probably the same or similar.
Do you see where you got stuck in your position?
"Let me make this clear. I agree with Con that the pardon of Trump would not benefit Con personally."
Oh yes, concede. Remember, it's not just me. Others that are in similar circumstances across the country will take the same stance. So you really should of buckled down specifically the groups of people in "the country" you were identifying.
You should of quantified your point when you say " the greater good". Who is that? How many is that?
I nail you down with those details.
"That is not the issue. Con's unwillingness to address the logic used on why Biden should pardon Trump is disappointing, and cowardly"
It is the issue unless you can prove I'm not another individual of the country. You said I was to prove how somebody pardoning somebody else would not be in the best interest of the country.
Maybe you should of said everybody but who I'm debating, in the best interest of the rest of us .
In this topic, you really should of been more careful with words. Just taking me out of it, we don't know every person's situation in the country to make a one size fits all benefit to the country claiming that something is in the best interest of all .
I don't know what is in the best of you, him, her, they because the unique problem necessitates a unique solution.
The truth is, this topic is stemming from a perspective lense that you haven't made clear of who actually you have in mind when using the term "country".
I exposed the clarity ambiguity fallacy from the opposing side.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Round 1:
All and all, Pro has a really convincing first argument and this puts him off to a good start. He gives examples for how this could benefit Biden and the country by not pointlessly wasting money. There are a few other predictions that could’ve used a little bit of evidence, but we’ll see how Con contests them.
Unfortunately, Con doesn’t really do much to contest Pro’s round 1 argument. Responding by pointing out that a pardon doesn’t benefit EVERY single individual does nothing to convince me that a pardon isn’t necessary to at least help the majority. While Con’s goal in helping every individual is good, he should have perhaps elaborated on how this pardon could be more harmful instead of simply saying it can’t help everyone.
Round 2:
Pro does a good job getting the discussion back on-track by pointing out that Con is derailing the debate and thus, breaking the rules.
Con ignores Pro entirely and just insists that he is being evasive.
Round 3:
Pro argues that the needs of the majority outweigh that of the individual and Con has tried to reshift the focus of the debate when he was supposed to request changes in the comments.
It’s unclear exactly what Con is arguing, but he makes a valid point that a policy should consider the needs of everyone instead of leaving people out. The rest of the time Con is just rambling.
So with these current factors in mind, the points for arguments go to Pro, since Con didn't really bring any. There was an absence of sources on both sides and both really needed some. So that's a tie. Legibility was great on both sides and I will not penalize Con for bad formatting.
Despite the allegations of rule breaking, Pro addresses Con's behavior as cowardly, which is not necessarily misconduct as I don't suspect bad intent from Pro's side, but it isn't exactly respectful, so I'll leave conduct a tie.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro argues the resolution, which states, "Pro must show that Biden pardoning, or attempting to pardon Biden is in the best interest of the country." Con's kritik is way too indirectly tied to this to effectively counter Pro's case. If we're considering all interests, then Pro effectively makes the case that pardoning Trump is preferable to not doing so.
Yeah, ill get to it later on today
Care to vote? It is a quick read.
I should have mentioned the title of this debate in my RFD as well, which also supports Pro's interpretation of the resolution. But ah well.
My family and I, my nextdoor neighbors, my community is struggling. An affair going on between two outside individuals does nothing for us. Yet that was in the "best interest" of us.
Clearly we're not the part of the country the ones who vote for the opposing side have in mind. Just making a recognition of that .
Slainte is going to win this.