The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
TheQuestionMark
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton/_________ ticket in the primaries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 80037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

3 rounds, 24 hours between rounds

I will argue that a nomination ticket of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren (As Pres and Vice Pres respectively) would defeat a Hillary Clinton ticket regardless of whoever she picked as her VP for the nomination of the Democratic Party.

(Whoever Hillary picks as her VP has to be eligible to be VP in the first place, you cant pick 'God' or a dead person to be her VP, no trolling allowed)

The reasons why are listed below

1) Likability

Hillary Clinton is very unliked among republicans, but she also has likability issues with democratic voters themselves

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

In April of 2015, 80% of Dems viewed Hillary positively. That number slid to 70% in July, while 25% of Democrats viewed Hillary as unfavorable (Everyone else had a mixed opinion). If the numbers continue to slide at the current rate, Hillary could easily be looking at 50-50 ratings of favorability from her own party

Biden on the other hand had an approval of 80% by Democrats in May, like Hillary did at the same time, but Biden's numbers have stayed there, while Hillary's have routinely dropped from month to month.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

Should Biden decide to run, his likability advantage over Clinton among Democratic voters would give him quite the advantage over Hillarys campaign

2) Issues

Biden's stance on a variety of issues are only somewhat similar to the stances Hillary has right now. On issues of Individual Rights, Domestic Issues, Economic Issues, and International Issues, Clinton scored a -9, -8, -8, and a 0 respectively (-10 being most liberal, 10 being most conservative)

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com...

Biden on the same issues scored a -7, -5, -7, -6 on the issues listed above. Not only do the numbers suggest he is more consistent with his liberal ideology on different issues (Whereas Hillary is all over the place), but Biden's numbers are also more tame in that they do not go as hard to the left as Hillary's stances do.

This gives Biden a stronger appeal to more moderate Democratic voters, who at the moment are almost all part of the Clinton camp since the only other major Dem candidate, Sanders, gets the very far left vote. This brings me to my next point

3) Voter Base

Biden has a more moderate stance on issues, giving him appeal to more moderate voters. The current major Dem candidate in the field who gets the moderate Dem voters is Hillary, since Sanders appeals mostly to the hard liberal vote. If Biden declares, he would be getting his support almost entirely from Hillary Clinton's base. With Elizabeth Warren as his VP, Warren being further to the left on issues than Biden, then that gives Biden an opportunity to get voters from Sanders's voting bloc, since a lot of the really hard leftists in the Democratic party wanted Elizabeth Warren to run.

http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.politico.com...

Elizabeth Warren as VP would bring a good chunk of voters to Biden and away from the only other hard leftist in the race, Sanders, while Biden himself would be able to lure voters away from Clinton due to his more moderate stance on issues and better likability ratings.

4) Baggage

Clinton, as we all have probably heard more than enough of by now, has a couple scandals that GOP candidates and parts of the media keep flogging her with, namely Bengazi and the email scandal that took place while she was Secretary of State. Those scandals have been regularly brought up against her no matter how much she tries to shake them, and Biden does not have a comparable scandal against him. We can all probably think of a gaffe Biden has made or said, but actual scandals against Biden like we see with Hillary are not out there. Clinton's scandals continue to haunt her campaign, but Biden has a clean slate. This is evidenced by the huge gap that exists between Biden and Clinton when rated on honesty and trustfulness, with voters overwhelmingly giving Biden better marks than Clinton

http://time.com...

5) Their record

Hillary, should she try to run on her record as Secretary of State or as a Senator, would run right into some roadblocks that have haunted her for the past decade, whether it be Bengazi, the email scandal, or voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Hillary has found herself on the wrong side of history in the past, so if she tried to run on her record, she would run into some problems

Biden on the other hand doesn't have such roadblocks if he runs on his record as Obama's VP. A whopping 86% of Democrats view Obama's presidency favorably with only 10% of Dems viewing Obama's presidency unfavorably. Biden, as Obama's right hand man, can run on his record as VP and right off the bat be appealing to Democratic voters who have a favorable view of Obama's performance in the White House, which according to the numbers is MASSIVE. Hillary cannot exploit this since she was only the Secretary of State for 4 years, and in that time still managed to get herself into some sticky scandals, whereas Biden was with Obama for all 8 years and is squeaky clean outside of a few awkward gaffes.

To summarize: Biden is al
TheQuestionMark

Con

No definitions mean that I can argue anything. I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries.

Nothing is ever 100%. It's our laws of nature that reflect every aspect of life and existence. You can't have something without nothing.

Here is an extreme example: Let's say some random stranger walked up to you and gave you his car at some place you met, called point A. Think of everything it took to lead you to point A. Maybe you were on your way to school while he stopped you, School costs money/time so without previous actions your event with the person would have never happened, like if you decided you never wanted to go to school. Your encounter with the person may have never happened had you invested the time/money to go to school.

Nothing is ever true. How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words. Nothing is ever certain ... this may even be the matrix.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

"I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries."

So you want to play that kind of a game? lol, youre out of youre league, kid ;D

If my position is to argue that there is a 100% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary, then I'll interpret the burden of proof to mean that YOU have to prove that there is a ZERO percent chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______, since both you and I neglected to define the burden of proof in the debate so far....

That means Con must now argue that there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______

Here's a tip con, dont try to troll a debate against someone who knows how to troll way better than you ;)


===================================================================================


Now then, cons arguments for why there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/________

1) "Nothing is ever 100%"

Things can always be 100%. For Example: There is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow WONT convert to Islam, hijack an airplane, and fly it into Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole..... There are facts and qualities about reality that make it impossible for impossible things from happening, and for probable things to have a probable chance of occurring.

Because things can be 100%, the opposite of those things can only then be 0%.

The arguments I presented previously are my reasoning for why there is a 100% chance that Joe Biden, if he decided to run, and Elizabeth Warren, if she were selected by Biden to be his VP, would defeat Hillary Clinton in a primary match-up, regardless of who she picked as her own VP....

If we accept Con's argument though, then nothing can ever be 0% either, which means he forfeits the burden of proof he holds in the debate.


"How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words?"

Because if you were a hypnotic spaghetti monster, you would have been smarter, and able to come up with a better argument then the asinine one you ended up using ;)


================================================================================


I extend all other arguments and eagerly await for con to present arguments for why there is a 0% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/______ in an election matchup.

Just as a giant screw-you to con as well, I will exercise my authority as the creator of this debate to ban any and all further interpretations of the resolution, the burden of proof, definitions of words, etc. that are done without my permission.

Back to you con
TheQuestionMark

Con

Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance. Mine isn't to say that there is a 0% chance. I am just arguing against the resolution which means that all I have to do is argue that there isn't a 100% chance. Not why there is a 0% chance and I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance.

He claims that there is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow wont convert to Islam, hijack an airplane and fly it into the Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole. However this is not true the chances may be extremely slim however as I have stated nothing is impossible. For all we know we may all be in the Matrix. Everyone around you may be robots and you may be the only human being alive. Maybe Tim Tebow is secretly an alien who has infinite powers and he reads your argument and sees it as a challenge he may then decide to do the challenge that you have set him. You cannot prove my argument 100% false. You can say that it is more probable that it is false but you cannot say that it is completely false.

Maybe I hypnotised you to say those exact sentences because if you were really that smart you would realise that a hypnotic spaghetti monster my brain would be spaghetti so I would be pretty dumb ... of course there isn't a 100% chance that my brain would be spaghetti so it is possible that I would have a brain ....

By the way, Pro - you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that. It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair. The instigator of the debate should not have more power over the challenger other than the fact taht they can set up R1 once the challenger accepts they are both equal for the rest of the debate unless somebody breaks a rule. New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate and as a result the rules that you made stating that I cannot interpret the resolution, BoP or definitions without your permission is invalid.

And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me because I am certain that I am better.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Burden of Proof on each side

"Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance"


Which I am doing. I am also arguing my case that far better than you are arguing the case you are suppossed to be arguing, that there is a zero percent chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/_______.


"I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. "

Actually you didnt.... In your (epically failed) attempt at trolling, you only ever stated what my BoP is, not that the entire BoP is on me. You afforded me the opportunity to define what YOUR OWN burden of proof is, which I have done, and now you are paying the price for it XD



"You cannot prove my argument 100% false"

Reality itself states that your argument is 100% false, because there is no reason why an alien who could consume planets would come all the way to Earth just to play football in human form, and then suck at it.

Your trolling is bad, and you should feel bad



"so it is possible that I would have a brain"

It may be possible, but judging from your arguments, your win ratio, and your trolling abilities, it is probable that you dont have a brain ;)



"you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that."

Well that's too bad for you :) Like I said, I know how to play this game far better than you.



"It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair."

Except I didnt actually change the definitions of anything, I only elaborated on what YOUR Burden of Proof is, since you neglected to do so in the first place, and also locking down your ability to try to wriggle your way out of it ;)



"New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate"

There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD



"And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me"

No, the reason I'm a better troll than you because I'm in the actual Hall of Fame on this site predominantly FOR trolling: http://www.debate.org...



"I am certain that I am better."

If you're the better troll than me then how come IM the one who turned the tables on YOU and now YOU are the one whining about it like a baby? :)


==========================================================================================================


To summarize the debate, It is my duty, as interpreted by con, to prove that there is a 100% chance that a Biden/Warren ticket would beat a Clinton/__________ ticket. I have provided substantial evidence in round 1 indicating that there is a 100% chance of this happening, ALL of which con has failed to dispute, and has therefore conceded.

Con on the other hand had to argue why there is a 0% chance of a Biden/Warren ticket beating a Clinton/__________ ticket in the primaries, and he has failed to do that spectacularly. He has cited no evidence at all that Clinton + ? would ALWAYS beat Biden + Warren. Instead, con has spent the entire time disputing me changing the rules of the debate, even though he did exactly that in round one.

Con concedes all arguments made in round 1, and therefore, you should vote pro.

Better luck next time con ;)





TheQuestionMark

Con

It isn't about how well you have argued your case. You may have provided reasons as why it is likely to happen but those reasons certainly aren't 100% because if they were then this wouldn't be a debatable topic. I don't need to provide an argument all I need to do is prove that your arguments aren't 100% and that means that your burden is unfufilled.

I said that the alien thing is extremely unlikely to happen - and he probably sucks at football because he new to our planets customs and is learning. When he reads your comment he might be bored of football and decide to consume our planet. Unlikely but not 100% unlikely.

I would be dead without a brain. Your brain is like the command-central for your body. Everything you do, think and say depends on your brain. The brain is divided into regions that control various functions, such as movement, speech and balance. Damage to a region may affect the functions it controls, causing symptoms such as loss of movement, difficulty speaking, or loss of coordination. I wouldn't be able to type this without a brain - so again, your argument has been proven false.

" There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD "

You may think that I am a bad troll but your logic is clearly flawed because according to your logic that means that in R1 it also never said that I cannot make rules. You have made the biggest mistake of your life!

My new rule is that everything Pro says is false and that Con automatically wins the debate and because there are no more rounds I have won this debate! Better luck next time Pro!

Exactly, being in the HoF is only because you have been on this site longer and have been able to troll more than me.

You haven't turned the tables on me, you have just ruined any chance of you winning the debate - if you can make up the rules then so can I because it was never stated in round 1!
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Go Joe!

[*Reason for non-removal*] Both debaters accepted that this debate was a troll debate. Troll debates are not moderated.

Note: This is my third time addressing a vote on this debate, and my third time repeating that votes won't be removed. Any further voting reports that don't report clear violations of the rules of the site will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
Vote by Balacafa has been disqualified and removed.

-Moderator
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
SWEET, alright good, Ill just call in a few favors and have this whole turd fest put to sleep
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
don't worry I got your back imabench
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...That's generally how it works. It's impossible to moderate votes on a debate where neither side appears to be taking it seriously.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Wait, if you insist on calling this is a troll debate, does that mean that any 7-point votebombs on the debate therefore cannot be reported and removed since this is a troll debate and votes on troll debates are not moderated?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Dude, I'm saying that without stating somewhere after the first round that Con had violated the rules, you're leaving it open to interpretation. Stating at one point that Con hadn't met his BoP doesn't suddenly make the debate a non-troll debate. Referring back to arguments made in R1 in a small portion of each round doesn't negate the fact that most of the following rounds were focused on trolling. Whether it was trolling or counter-trolling makes little difference.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
"you should have made it clear that that's what you were doing"

i DID state that in round 3:

"I only elaborated on what YOUR Burden of Proof is, since you neglected to do so in the first place, and also locking down your ability to try to wriggle your way out of it"

"that doesn't change the fact that that's all it became."

In every round I referred back to the arguments made in round 1 that con never disputed though.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
As I read it, the trolling became the debate by the end. Even if it was your intention from the start just to steer it back on course, a) you should have made it clear that that's what you were doing, and b) that doesn't change the fact that that's all it became.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Counter-trolling a troll does not make a normal debate a troll debate though, especially when the counter trolling is done to steer the debate back to the topic being discussed in the first place
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
imabenchTheQuestionMarkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol @ con's attempt
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
imabenchTheQuestionMarkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules by trolling. However, I do not award conduct points when voting. However, Con's trolling prevented him from fulfilling his BOP, as he made no real case. He dropped all of Pro's cases in R1, and dropped many afterwards. Instead, he focused on his one case of Kritiking. While Kritiks can be clever and good, his was terrible. Claiming that Pro's team couldn't win because it's not 100% certain. Not only does he not prove they can't win, his play on words is simply fallacious.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
imabenchTheQuestionMarkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Go Joe!
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
imabenchTheQuestionMarkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the first one to break the rules. "No trolling"