The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
itslit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Donald Trump is a brilliant presidential candidate, with brilliant, near full proof policies.

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...
SocialDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 88663
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

SocialDemocrat

Con

I'm con

brilliant-Outstanding, very good, impressive, excellent, and marvelous.

full proof- No loophole, or way to be exploited.

policies-a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.
itslit

Pro

I love Trump. Whats not to love? He is a legend
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Con

To clarify, this debate is about Donald Trump and the policies he has proposed as president. Please note that this debate is now whether Donald Trump has the best policies, but whether they are brilliant or not. There is no need for other candidates to be involved in the debate.

The Burden of proof is on pro, as he is trying to prove Trump's policies, are, most of the time brilliant. Mostly what I have to do is say why his policies, are not brilliant.

He has advocated for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S, let me explain why this is not, brilliant, but actually sh1tty.

A. Let's say a jihadist decides he wants to bomb New York, and tries to immigrate. When they see his papers, he will get turned back from immigrating. However I have always been curious what stops them from changing their religion to Jewish on their immigration papers. Idk.

B. This is a recruiting tool for terrorist groups. Let's say there is a moderate Muslim seeking refuge in the U.S, ISIS has asked him to join many times but he has refused. Say the U.S turns him away based on religion, and they ask him again, his answer may just change. Do this millions of times, and ISIS may get some new recruits.

C. Have you wondered the percentage of terrorist attacks in the U.S are committed by Muslims? I shall tell you, it is about 6% in the U.S. That means 94% of terrorist attacks are done by non-Muslims. See the stupidity in this sh1t? I know the argument to this some people use, "but we don't know if they are terrorists or not!" B1tch, the same goes for Christians, and Jews, and Buddhists, and atheists. Do you want to kick out everyone? Because it is not Muslims committing most of the terror attacks. http://www.thedailybeast.com...

Next popular yet sh1tty policy- Deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

A. It is impossible to round up every illegal immigrant, all 12 million, is virtually impossible.

B. It is... inhumane, but I guess that doesn't matter.

C. I have heard so many times the complaints that illegal immigrants never pay taxes. That is invalid. Of course not all of them do, just like you no, some of the richest people in the country. But in 2012, illegal immigrants collectively paid almost $12,000,000,000 in state and local taxes that year. 12 billion dollars. So yes, the majority of them, do pay taxes, and contribute to society. Keep in mind this while knowing most of them really don't make very much money yearly.

So there are two, more next time.
itslit

Pro

itslit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Con

la la la la la la la la la la la la la

Those damn Muslims, get em out of here. Or let me take out my gun to shoot those brown skinned folk.

la la la la la la la la la la la la la

Silly trump supporters, how long have you been waiting for the dear leader to give you the permission. Or maybe encouragement.
itslit

Pro

itslit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
itslit

Pro

itslit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
RFD:

Resolution is an "is" not an "ought" so Pro has the greater BOP in this debate. Sans fulfillment of BOP I'm voting Con anyway, since Pro forfeits. Con's terrorism offense is explained to a certain extent since I'm able to get how Trump encourages terrorism in the US. "Brilliant" is obviously subjective so I don't know why this is an objective measure, but the weighing mechanism should be as to whether Trump's plans accomplish his objectives. Con shows they don't, Pro drops all of Con's offense and fails to fulfill BOP. Vote Con.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
hehehe, clearly you've been without a TV. But okay, okay lets wait till election time shall we?
Posted by adc0204 11 months ago
adc0204
FollowerofChrist, a president cannot impose Martial Law just to stop an election. Martial Law is reserved for emergencies. Example: if the US suddenly declared war with several countries and had to deal with multiple threats, Martial Law would be declared so that the commander in chief (the president) can take over and handle the emergency without having to take the time to run everything past Congress. Because we all know that if someone had a nuke pointed at the United States and we had to rely on Congress to decide what to do before the nukes are launched, we would all die because they argue more than they solve problems. That's what it's for and it wouldn't be used for any other reason.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
You mean "Fool-proof."
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
pity a declaration of Martial Law is all it takes to stop the election ..... an Obama to continue as President isn't it?
Posted by SocialDemocrat 11 months ago
SocialDemocrat
I know I looked it up afterwards, I had no prior knowledge of it, as it is not in my usual vocabulary.
Posted by BenJWasson 11 months ago
BenJWasson
it's "fool proof"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by stschiffman 10 months ago
stschiffman
SocialDemocratitslitTied
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 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: I don't agree with anything either had to say, but at least Con didn't forfeit almost all of the rounds.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
SocialDemocratitslitTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratitslitTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Con was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Con by default.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
SocialDemocratitslitTied
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: See comment