The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Is Trump a good candidate for president?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 89248
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance. I will be arguing that Donald Trump is NOT a good candidate for president. Opponent should be arguing that is he IS a good candidate. Good luck!


Accept, and looking forward to the debate
Debate Round No. 1


1. Donald Trump is a bully. He repeatedly mocks anybody that doesn't support him, and even attacked a news reporter by telling her that she must be on her period. Let's add sexist to the list. And racist. To quote him: "Laziness is a trait in the blacks." And when he called Mexicans rapists. Source: Donald Trump's mouth

2. Donald Trump's big plan is to build a wall on the Mexican Border to keep people out. "Fear builds walls." There is no proof that a wall would keep people out. In fact, even Donald Trump himself admitted that people could probably get over it with a ladder and a rope. And the wall will cost much much more than it will help. Source: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

3. He flip flops on ideas. Examples include the recent abortion discussion and the Klu Klux Clan scandal.


The Case for Trump

A1: Trump is a nationalist.

There is simply no source necessary for this. The entire appeal of Trump's campaign is owed to its nativist nature.

A2: Trump will enforce our border laws [2]

A3: Trump is a non-interventionist [3] [4]

A4: Trump wants to audit the Federal Reserve [5]

Rebutting Con

Trump has not universally mocked people on the basis of not supporting him. Most of his linguistic jabs have been directed against opponents or particularly obsessive critics (such as Megyn Kelly).

Con then argues that Trump is a sexist due to one particular response to a reporter . Suffices to say, the use of a gendered insult tells us nothing about Trump's general views on women, Trump personally, or most importantly, Trump as a presidential candidate.

Con asserts that Trump said "Laziness is a trait in the blacks". This is, at best, extremely contestable, and at worst, a complete fiction.

As the Washington Examiner wrote [1] on said quote:

"That line, however, is not directly from Trump. It is found in a 1991 tell-all by a former Trump employee, who alleges in his book that he heard Trump say those words to a black accountant at a Trump-owned establishment, according a 2011 article in the Huffington Post."

"In a statement to the Washington Examiner media desk, Trump said the book with the alleged quote was 'written by a fired and totally disgruntled employee who was terrible at the job he did and who I hardly knew.'"

Con also states that Trump "called Mexians rapists", citing "Donald Trump's mouth". It should be noted that this accusation is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Are there Mexican rapists? Obviously, yes. Unless Con would like to argue that there are no Mexicans who commit rape, Trump is merely pointing to a reality.

It should be noted that at no point has Trump said all Mexicans are rapists, or even a majority.

2: Con claims that Trump's plan to build a wall would be ineffective, citing "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver". Aside from the fact that no specific arguments are made for such a bold claim, Con doesn't seem to realize that the wall idea is not the totality of Trump's plan to deal with legal immigration problem. Were he to become president, Trump would obviously be able to take many alternative measures to deal with the situation.

At no point has Trump or his campaign stated that the proposed immigration policy is restricted to building a wall. To the contrary, Trump's campaign site [2] highlights other measures, such as:

- Increasing the number of ICE officers
- Defund sanctuary cities
- End birthright citizenship

3: Con states that Trump is a flip-flopper, as evidenced by "the recent abortn discussion". Assuming Con is referring to the radio interview which garnered much media attention, it simply does not support his case. Trump was presented with a convoluted, highly particular hypothetical scenario and pressured into giving an outrageous answer.

Either way, is this really a significant enough issue to dismiss a candidate?

As for citing the "Klu Klux Clan [sic] scandal", Con failed to articulate how this shows Trump is a flip-flopper.


Debate Round No. 2


"Trump will enforce our border laws"

By what...making a wall? And making Mexico pay for it? The leaders of Mexico have repeatedly said that under no circumstances will they pay for the wall. And the U.S. certainly does not have the money to pay for it.

More here:

Trump is sexist. For example, that unforgettable tweet about Hillary Clinton. "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Do I really need to point out the ways that is sexist?

And what about the infamous photo of him posing with three waitresses from Hooters? If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

"While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct." Hmm. Another sexist tweet.

"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" And let's not forget that.

As for being racist, what about his attempts to ban Muslims from the country? That is discriminatory against race. Also known as being racist. And how Donald Trump refuses to believe that President Obama was born in Hawaii, despite a proven birth certificate. If Obama was white, I guarantee you Trump would believe him 100%.

Also, he called two men who beat up a homeless hispanic man, "passionate."

Need I go on?

IT IS significant to dismissing a candidate. Personally, I am a democrat, but if I was a republican I would not want to vote for a president that could change their views (the ones I agree with) while in office. I want a guarantee that I get what I vote for.

So yes, honesty does matter.


1: (Trump will enforce our border laws) "By what...making a wall? And making Mexico pay for it?"

In my prior argument, Con was provided a short list of alternative measures Trump would take to curtail illegal immigration. There's no point in pretending the wall is the totality of Trump's plan.

"The leaders of Mexico have repeatedly said that under no circumstances will they pay for the wall. And the U.S. certainly does not have the money to pay for it."

It wouldn't be particularly difficult to obtain payment for the wall, even from Mexico. Trump's campaign site outlined [1] a variety of ways this could accomplished, including:

- Visa fees
- Tariffs/enforcing trade rules
- New regulations
- Cancelling visas

2: Trump's supposed sexism and racism

To begin with, Con has failed to:

a) define and specify what constitutes sexism or racism, or what makes someone a sexist or a racist
b) demonstrated that this is necessarily bad
c) demonstrated that this is so bad, that it offsets everything and anything good about Trump as a presidential candidate.

Either way, the quotes Con included on Trump did not single out the subject of the commentary due to their race. So even by using common-sense definition, Trump would not be a racist or a sexist. Furthermore, Con has zero evidence that Trump would not be a birther if Obama were white. If they do, surely they will be able to provide it.



Debate Round No. 3


You can't honestly say that Trump hasn't said that the wall is the most important part of his plan. And the most expensive. I am highlighting it, because a lot of the people that want to vote for him do so because they are so in favor of the wall. (I know this just by hearing interviews with his supporters.) But he is feeding them outright lies, because there is no way that wall will ever get built.

Because it is completely impractical, for reasons stated above, such as the fact that there is a thing called a rope.

I have read Trump's entire plan, but the fact is that it will be impossible to enforce these other attempt at limiting immigration if we are also taking on the enormous job of building a (unknown height) wall across the /entire/ border. That will also strain our relationship with our direct neighboring country.

I did not state the definition of racist or sexist because I thought you had that basic knowledge.

Sexist: "The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life."

(A) Racist: "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another."

//Source: google..?

I think the fact that it is bad is quite self-explanatory. Or have you never heard of the holocaust?

Someone who supports these terrible and corrupt ideas that set our country back hundreds of years should not be our supreme leader making the biggest political decisions. I think that fact is also self-explanatory.

Did Trump ask for George W. Bush's birth certificate? What about Bill Clinton's? Hmm.

Another sexist remark:

"If I were running "The View", I"d fire Rosie O"Donnell. I mean, I"d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I"d say "Rosie, you"re fired.""

If Rosie O'Donnell was a man, he would not have used the words fat or ugly. But he believes in the stereotype that women should be judged by appearance rather than their personality.

"I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I"m more honest and my women are more beautiful." As this source points out, women are not his possessions. "My women"... tsk tsk. If that's not sexist, what is?

" Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Could you imagine that, the face of our next president?" Again, Trump, you don't vote for candidates by how attractive they are physically. And if we did, Trump would surely come in last place.

Another racist remark:

"Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down." - November 22, 2015

As CNN put it, "On November 22, Trump repeated his claim " widely regarded as false " that he saw television reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. No footage to back up Trump"s assertions has been found."


someloser forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I forfeit this round because my opponent has reliable reasons for not posting an argument.


1) Immigration

"I am highlighting it, because a lot of the people that want to vote for him do so because they are so in favor of the wall. (I know this just by hearing interviews with his supporters.)"

And why are people in favor of the wall? For the simple fact that it would, at least in theory, limit or eliminate illegal immigration. More importantly, the wall functions as a symbolic affirmation of the US' borders.

"I have read Trump's entire plan, but the fact is that it will be impossible to enforce these other attempt at limiting immigration if we are also taking on the enormous job of building a (unknown height) wall across the /entire/ border."

Virtually none of the other facts of Trump's immigration reform plan rest or depend on the construction of the wall. In fact, the ones that will likely prove most effective have nothing to do with it.

3) Sexism

None of the insults Trump levied against Fiorina were sexist. He had previously mocked other (male) candidates for their appearances as well.

Similarly, the comments directed against Rosie O'Donnel had nothing to do with her gender - no, fat jokes are not necessarily gendered (if that were the case, people such as Ralphie May would not have a career).

4) Muslims

"As CNN put it, "On November 22, Trump repeated his claim ' widely regarded as false ' that he saw television reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. No footage to back up Trump"s assertions has been found."

While somewhat exaggerated, Trump's claims of cheering after 9/11 were far from baseless. To the contrary, further investigation has proven them true [1].

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate. Vote Pro!


Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
RFD: Sexism: CON provided several quotes to substantiate the claim that Trump is sexist. PRO attempts to rebut with semantics, but fails to extrapolate or provide examples to counter CONs stance. On CONs racism claims: Although in context racial bias is inferred, it is adequately rebutted by PRO with substantiation.

Border Wall and Immigration: CON contends that Trump"s border wall is impractical, Mexico will not pay for it, will strain relations and can be traversed. PRO rebuts with finance means through fees, tariffs and new regulations. The wall in theory will deter illegal immigration and provide a symbolic barrier. (Spending for symbolic purposes, an unsound premise.) PRO provides additional Trumps measures for illegal immigration which CON fails to address. Flip Flop on abortion and KKK: CON makes claims, PRO rebuts. Both make assertions of little substance; a wash. PRO contentions on non-intervention and the Federal Reserve were dropped by CON. As much as this voter finds Trump a contemptible candidate, PRO"s rebuttals were adequate enough to win the majority of the arguments. S&G tied: Readability comparable. Sources tied: Both presented citations of equal validity. Conduct tied, both were civil.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: cgt97// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to both parties because they were both respectful to each other. I gave spelling and grammar to both parties because both were presentable. I gave reliable sources to both parties. Pro used a few more different sources however, this isn't what this question is asking. Both parties provided reliable sources. I gave more convincing argument to pro. Not because I agree with him but because of the amount of sources and information provided.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't sufficiently explain arguments. A larger number of sources and "information" is not a sufficient reason to award argument points. The voter has to directly assess specific arguments made by both sides.
Posted by mangolife23 2 years ago
you can just reply, we only missed one round it's fine
Posted by someloser 2 years ago
Should I reply to your previous argument, or forfeit this and restart the debate some other time?
Posted by someloser 2 years ago
Thanks, we might have to debate this again some other time
Posted by mangolife23 2 years ago
I'll forfeit the next round no worries :) @someloser
Posted by someloser 2 years ago
DDO glitch blocked access to all debate pages, didn't allow for time to reply and forced the forfeit (see here:
Posted by mangolife23 2 years ago
> When you wonder how an online troll manages to sleep at night since they are such a horrible person

You got something to say? Challenge me to a debate you passive-agressive idiot.

I guarantee John Oliver is one million times times smarter, honester, and nicer than any hater like you.

> When someone is so dumb they actually support Trump lmfao

Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
>When you quote huffington post and morons like John Oliver as yours sources...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments