The Instigator
mc9
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
uahshdyy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Donald Trump should be the next US president

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
mc9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 82985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

mc9

Con

I will be arguing that Donald Trump should not the next president of the United States while my opponent will be arguing that he should.
uahshdyy

Pro

I believe Donald Trump could and should be the next president of The United States of America because of his devout Conservative/Libertarian Views (Personal & Economic Freedom whilst Conserving The American Status Quo) issues, his political incorrectness, unique opinions, cocky attitude and way of defying what the people want.

But of course, I don't agree with all things Trump has said and claims he will do.
Debate Round No. 1
mc9

Con


Ok so on the sources please ignore the ads and comments but anyway here is my argument.




  1. 1. Donald Trump would create a database on Muslims in the US similar to nazi Germany. (http://www.nbcnews.com...) and he doesn’t even deny that it would be comparable to Nazi Germany. Also according to your claim he is libertarian. I ask you, since libertarianism supports a small government and doesn’t like government overreach, how does this show libertarianism, it seems closer to fascism. This is also unjustified because Muslims don’t even commit most of the terrorist attacks http://www.thedailybeast.com...

  2. 2. Donald Trump wants to make a border fence, make Mexico pay for it (though they wouldn’t as there is no reason to) and deport all illegal immigrants. He says his immigration policy would have prevented 9-11 though it was committed in planes and have no proof of the ability to stop them beforehand. https://www.washingtonpost.com.... Also there are around 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the US (http://www.nytimes.com...), how would he be able to deport them all without deporting legals or native borns, not to mention what would happen to kids that were born to two illegal parents and would have to go to orphanages. Also if one parent was deported that could tear a family apart. Also illegals who have been in the country for years or even decades would be forced back to where they came from.








  1. 3. He has no prior political experience and is going to do his reality TV show among some other things mentioned in this source. http://theodysseyonline.com... not to mention he will be busy with his presidency while the apprentice is being done.


I will be making more arguments in the next round and I await my opponent’s rebuttals.


uahshdyy

Pro

Okay; pretty solid points but I'm sure if my rebuttal can keep up.

1 - I'll give it to you there, Trump's idea of a Muslim tracking database was absurd, ignorant, misuse of government powers and a violation of equality & liberty

2 - Again, that is Trump's PLAN; Not all of this will come into action when he's elected (Specifically Mexico paying for the borders)
But I do agree with Trump on this issue of illegal immigrants from Mexico because they're the biggest nuisance in American history; they destroyed our economy, implanted state socialism, and raised crime, no other group of Immigrants was able to do so

3 - George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln had no prior political experience and they were great presidents, why would Trump not be a great president when those guys were?

Please no more emotion based arguments, I can tell you were told this by someone else.
Debate Round No. 2
mc9

Con

Ok so I was in fact not told this by someone else but anyway sorry if this is brief as I am on an IPad.
1. Con then concedes that the database on Muslims is a ridiculous notion.
2.,Con has not provided a source that any of these things has happened much less because of illegal immigrants and has not refutes that it would be a massive waste of tax dollars and he has not stated how Mexico would pay for it.
3. I'm concede this point if con can provide a source to prove ALL of these presidents had no prior political experience.
Con has not actually refuted the arguments about separating people from their families and has not provided an argument or a source.
uahshdyy

Pro

uahshdyy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I wouldn't say it was outright conceded, and saying "practically conceded" is more nebulous than I'd like to work with. Not to mention that still would have required many of the same vote removals, just for the reason that they voted for the conceding side.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
This is one of those practically or outright conceded debates I was talking about Whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter insufficiently justifies S&G. A couple of wide white spaces don't make Pro's argument difficult enough to read to awarrant this point, nor does Pro's replacing "I'll" with "I'm" once. (2) The voter insufficiently justifies sources. There was no rule in this debate that sources be cited in MLA format, nor should the voter be able to award points based on what would be "thrown out of any real debate competition". The voter also don't justify giving these points to Pro, only explaining why he wouldn't give them to Con. (3) The voter insufficiently justifies arguments, only assessing Pro's arguments and failing to address any specific points made by Con. (4) The voter insufficiently justifies conduct. A statement of intent to post arguments in the final round is really not enough to justify awarding this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
For Conduct, I vote Pro because Con said he was planning to run new arguments in the last round which was totally unsportsmanlike. Moreover, Pro gracefully conceded which itself merits a conduct point. However, this concession was not necessary as Pro clearly won. On arguments, Pro makes an extremely compelling argument that political experience doesn't necessarily link with being a good president and in fact the very best had very little experience. This was a great argument because, since Pro didn't really try to argue Con on the specific policy proposals, he undercuts his entire case. We have good reason to believe that a lack of political experience is a good thing, which warrants a Pro ballot. Pro also gives good reasons to support Trump based on his personality in round 1 that were totally ignored by Con.

On spelling and grammar, Con had this horrendous formatting that made it extremely difficult to read and Con used "I'm" when he meant "I'll". Pro made no such mistakes and was in fact perfect.

On sources, the criteria clearly says that the sources point needs to go to whichever debater better utilized sources to prove their argument. Pro did not cite his sources in MLA format, which warrants a complete deduction of these points--he utilized sources improperly and in a manner that would have them thrown out of any real debate competition. For example, the constitution of the Texas Forensics Association clearly states the criteria for citing internet sources: "Evidence submitted from an internet source should include the following elements: an acknowledgment that the material was electronically retrieved, name of online source (Nexis, Internet, Dialogue, etc.), the date of access and the URL site." http://txfa.org...

Con loses the sources point when he chooses to improperly cite them, posting just a hyperlink. Pro wisely did not make this mistake.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: ff cant stump the trump

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter justifies conduct, presents their opinion on the resolution, and provides no RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: cant stump the trump

[*Reason for removal*] The voter just presents their opinion on the resolution, but doesn't actually provide an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: sadolite// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both sides give their opinion no facts at all supporting their opinions. The only sources provided are opinions supporting their confirmation bias. The US has banned immigration from regions of the world in the past several times. It also does do religious tests. Building a boarder wall is not unusual. Data bases were used to rid communists in this country. Nothing con presents disqualifies Trump from being President. But only his emotional wish that he could not be. There is no reason Donald Trump can't be president. Experience is hardly a qualifier. Barack Obama is current and living proof that having experience is not necessary. The only requirement to being President is getting elected.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The vote is insufficiently explained. The voter only says one thing about Con's argument but never addresses any single argument made by Con, merely dismissing it off hand. The voter does not evaluate Pro's argument. (2) The voter appears to place a lot of their own arguments into the equation for evaluating this debate, since many of these points weren't brought up by Pro in response to Con's points.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: bballcrook21// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.

[*Reason for removal*] While a forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct, it is not sufficient to award arguments points by itself.
************************************************************************
Posted by wipefeetnmat 1 year ago
wipefeetnmat
I currently have a vote ban so I will not be able to submit my vote. Sorry.
Posted by mc9 1 year ago
mc9
Thanks for the vote.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
mc9uahshdyyTied
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 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: Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited the last round. Arguments go to Con because Pro did not give a rebuttal; instead, he actually agreed with Con's points. The only argument that he made was that he agreed with Trump's immigration policies, but he left it as an unsupported opinion and provided no evidence. Since Con had support for his arguments, he won by default.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
mc9uahshdyyTied
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 UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
mc9uahshdyyTied
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 Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
mc9uahshdyyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both participants had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Con's Muslim argument was conceded by Pro. Pro did seem to drop a major portion of Con's immigration argument concerning kids being separated from their families, which makes me lean towards Con in regards to this argument due to Pro being unable to overcome this challenge fully. The final argument regarding past political experience was defeated by Pro by showing other great presidents that had no prior experience. However, Pro had the BOP, and as such needed to overcome each argument raised by Con. In failing to do so, he failed to uphold his BOP, thus Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro did not utilize sources within this debate whereas Con did. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
mc9uahshdyyTied
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