Total votes: 25
There was a clear rule violation. Con did not waive round 4, thus giving him an unfair advantage(extra round) in the debate. This is poor conduct. Both made equally compelling arguments that went off topic a lot, so I don't think they can be fairly evaluated from me, especially since my personal bias is for con's position.
concession
According to billatard, I don't have to explain my vote.
concession
Con said a number of things that had poor conduct. Arguments are tied because both sides made good points, I was leaning towards pro, but decided his points were not enough to give him the arugements, as both sides in this debate were sort of a mess.
"bitch"
"fuck you bitch"
"classic case of white supremacy"
"classic case of white privilege"----pro's not even white lmao
"The police are the trigger happy people"
"Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
"you're a racist cunt"---which doesn't even make sense since Pro is not even white lmao
"MLK is racist"
Con proves that the original laws, despite the perception that some people or things were racist, was not founded as a white nation. He proves many things to be irrelevant, such as things like after the foundation of the country in later years, and things that had no affect on the founding documents and laws.
I will break down the arguments from each allegation speedrace made in the 1st round, I require a few proofs that Trump is racist, not one or two--
"Trump referred to a Miss Universe who was Hispanic as "Miss Housekeeping."
Con claims Trump always likes to use nicknames and this can be grouped into the other ones. Pro responds by saying this deals with specific stereotyping of Latinos being housekeepers. Con does not respond back and this point is dropped by both contestants throughout the debate. Stereotyping is not necessarily the same thing as racism, so this is not a clear and cut example for me.
"Trump was talking to a Korean-American intelligence analyst, and he asked why she wasn't working on North Korea Policy."
Con drops this entire point even though Pro pressed him each round to do so. Since their is no debate on this point, I can't judge an argument point on it. Repeatedly dropped points will perhaps effect the conduct point.
"Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas.""
Con contends that Trump was justified because Warren barely has any Indian blood. He seems to contest the overall truth of Warren's claim, which pro weekly responds and says "Calling someone Pocahontas is clearly a racial slur." Con also provides evidence that a N.A. supported Trump and he held an event for them. This is not good proof that Trump is racist.
"Trump has called Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.""
Trump's quote was "Mexican's are not sending their finest people." Con claims he said this because of the criminals they bring across. Pro brings up stats on racial crime, but whether Trump knew stats or not is irrelevant. This is not a clear and cut example or racism either.
"Trump tried to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States."
As con points out, Trump was trying to stop terror attacks and people immigrating into the U.S. He also points out that Muslim isn't even a race but religion, so this point is invalid.
"Trump has retweeted many white nationalist tweets."
Con brings up his retweets had nothing to do with white supremacy. The rest are hypothetical arguments about Trump's staff alerting him or not alerting him. I can't take this as credible especially since you can't know if Trump knew he was retweeting White supremacists.
"When he was trying to get black voters on his side, Trump said “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”"
Con responds by claiming pure truth to his claims, but pro misses the point as he claims Trump said that purely off of race. He also claims Trump never cited all his stats, but this is not enough as you do not always provide sources for your claims, especially in a rally environment. This is not enough to prove Trump's racism, either.
"Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism."
Pro does not provide any direct evidence for this and it is a cat fight back and forth about the sourcing. This point was a mess, so I can't award points for this.
"Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists."
Con provides the context of Trump's quote and his clarification that he wasn't talking about the Nazis and white supremacists. He shows that there were counter protestors of the taking down of the statue that weren't associated with the rally, so with all this, it is very clear Trump was not being racist.
"Trump racially discriminated against black people in his apartment building."
Con responds by saying Trump avoided renting welfare, no matter the race. This was also in the 1900's a long time ago, and the resolution says "IS racist", not "was." Either way, this comment does not prove Trump IS racist in current day.
All of this said, the argument point goes to con as there were not enough clear and cut examples of racism.
Sources: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Conduct: Con dropped multiple points, although he did mention most of them later down the debate, it disrupted the flow of those points and didn't allow for nuanced discussion on them. Conduct to Pro.
Good job to both debaters. Interesting debate.
lmao tf is that voting period u might as well end it in 2025
full forfeit
FF is this 10 characters yet
sparrow's was hella funny
better raps
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
RM lost cuz he is gay
All tie cuz this debate hella long and i dont feel like analyzing it too complex
Pro conceded. I actually give credit for pro to have the guts to admit he lost and (possibly) changed his mind. I admire that a lot.
Conduct to Con for the Forfeit.
Con efficiently explained how guns reduce homicide rates and protect from rape, which pro dropped both of those points. Con also refuted the point that other forms of self-defense than guns are useful. Con also said and refuted the point from pro by pointing out criminals will get guns either way, so if you ban them they will get it illegally. Con is the only one that sourced, and pro did not back up his claims with any sources and skipped over some of pro's arguments which were sourced. Congrats Alec for smashing another liberal.
Con was just trolling and in effect FF the debate.
"Now he can shut up about me not accepting a debate on the topic and realise that unfair rules in a debate can rig it for a winner easily.
Please stop harasssing me with your bullshit 'waaa waa you rap too well' votes in all troll debates too."
This use of profanity and toxicity towards con was rude and disrespectful because pro attacks con half-mockingly. This was also unacceptable because in the rules it says "con waives first round, pro waives final round." RM does not waive final round, makes a couple rebuttals, and mocks pro without pro having the chance to respond. Con kept it respectful the whole time and made legit points, while keeping his attitude in check.
The rules say "If voters judge these rules to have been substantially violated, arguments and conduct points maybe assigned automatically against the violating side citing the rule violation."
I feel as though the rules have been pretty substantially violated for the reasons above, and along with the multiple dropped arguments on Pro, I think it is fair to award arguments to Con.
Con used known conspiracy theorist websites such as the NY Times, USA Today, and the guardian. Pro used RELIABLE sources such as factcheck.org and reason.com.
lol type1 is doo doo it's just free wins I'd be top 5 on leaderboard if I accepted all his debates lol
I evaluated each meme and gave it a point if I liked it. At round 5 after wrick had posted, I had wrick up 4 memes. I then looked at omar's memes once he posted. I like his first three memes, only down by 1 know. The 4th meme wasn't that funny. It comes down to the last meme, and what does omar do? Make a political meme. Since I'm conservative, I didn't like the meme. By the description, it is a subjective vote, so pro wins by one meme. If con had stayed away from some of the political memes in the debate, especially the final round, there would be a very good chance he would have tied or won. Pro wins by 1 meme. Congrats Pro.
FF omegalul
Full Forfeit for Pro other than opening argument. Ramshutu provided clear and convincing evidence of times Type1 has been anti-jew, toxic and hateful towards other members, which are against the COC. Sources to con because he provided the only sources which were debates and comments most of which were cited.