Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States
Debate Rounds (4)
R1: Will be Con's acceptance and the introduction to the debate by Pro
R2: Opening Arguments; NO REBUTTALS
R4: Rebuttals and Conclusions no new arguments
No arguments in the first round
If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to the opposition
I will be arguing that Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States. Con will be arguing that Donald Trump is qualified for president of the US.
This is a closed debate. If you find a way to accept the debate all seven points go to the opposition.
If you're asking whether or not Donald Trump's credentials imply that he will be a good President, that is a very different question.
Also, while I fully realize it's not germane to this debate I feel obliged to make the point anyway since certain GOP candidates such as Marco Rubio and Trump himself have made a claim to the contrary, but Hillary Clinton is also legally qualified to be the POTUS.
I clearly stated that there is to be no arguments in the first round. Then I said "If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to opposition." Since con accepted the debate he agreed to the rules thus meaning he agreed with my rules but refused to follow them.
This is breaking the rules which I clearly stated. All points to Pro.
By the way..... By qualified I mean "Fit to the president" and that he is presidential and would be suitable for office.
And you should have better defined qualification if in fact what you're asking for is a debate about whether Trump will be a successful President. If you'd like to have that debate that's fine; define your allegation better. Of course that would be a much more subjective debate rather than the legal one your original premise implied.
I understand that Con. But, the rules clearly stated "No arguments in the first round". Thus, all seven points go to the opposition which would be me in this case.
You can signal your defeat now by rule violation or the voters will handle it.
On a side note, I can't believe you had the unmitigated temerity to send me a friend request. Rest assured I'm ignoring it.
Oh please, give it a break. You broke a rule that I clearly defined in Round one. I sent you a friend request so I could message you and tell you to post an argument. Which took you over two days to write one paragraph.
Enjoy your loss.
OK, fair. You won because in my haste to squeeze this debate into a working, meaningful life contributing to society I didn't get your round order nonsense right. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get some sleep so I can wake up tomorrow morning and work so that I can generate tax dollars for the government to pay for lazy liberal leaches like yourself so you can sit on your rear end and never have to contribute to society.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Though I dissaprove with the conduct on each side of this debate, the rules stated that with the R1 violation that all 7 points have to go to Pro. I have to do so under the rules.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.