The Instigator
JimShady
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Tuba_players
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 104340
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

JimShady

Pro

Donald Trump has met harsh criticism by the left, and although I lean towards the right-wing, I admit that he deserves some of this criticism, so much to the point that liberals shouldn't have to accept Donald Trump as their president.

I will be arguing that Donald Trump does not have to be accepted as the official POTUS. You will be arguing that all liberals must except that he is the valid President.

1st Round: Acceptance and Definitions.
2nd Round: Arguments.
3rd Round: Additional Arguments, Rebuttals.

POTUS (President of the United States): The head of the Executive Branch of the USA.
liberal: a person of liberal views.

Please let me know if you accept my definitions (no response to them = you do) and add any definitions you want to.

Thank you for accepting!
Tuba_players

Con

Accepted. Yes I believe those terms.
I just want to say that every president should meet harsh criticism.
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Pro

Argument:

There are some liberals who live in countries besides America. Therefore, not all liberals have to accept Donald Trump as their president.

Thank you for reading.
Tuba_players

Con

Argument:

Everyone in the world has to accept that Donald Trump is the POTUS(USA only). USA liberals have to accept that Trump is their President.
I don't know why liberals outside the US is even in this debate but okay. No they don't have to accept Trump as "their" countries leader. But must accept the he is the POTUS. I want to deny Kim jong un the leader of North korea, but he is.
Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Pro

Rebuttal:

My opponent has failed to clearly read the debate terms and definitions. Notice that I defined liberals as "a person of liberal views." This is not specifically a United States liberal, just liberals in general. Since there are liberals outside of the United States, I am making an argument that those liberals do not have to accept him as THEIR president (strong emphasis on the word "their"... they can accept him as president, but not as THEIR president."

The title of this debate is "Liberals don't have to accept Donald Trump as their President." This statement from you "No they don't have to accept Trump as "their" countries leader" is a crystal clear concession to my argument, because, again, I did not say U.S. liberals, I said, in general, liberals.

Therefore please vote Pro.
Tuba_players

Con

Rebuttal:

meaning of "liberal" can change from country to country. Here is an link why.
http://www.bbc.com...

I would like to know why all liberals in the world are even in this equation? I know I wont get my answer.
This debate should only include USA liberals because they are the ones who are saying "hes not my president"

President Trump won the Electoral College and was inaugurated, so why can people deny him as President of the USA?
I said that other liberals don't have to accept Trump as their president because they don't live in the USA, how would Trump affect a liberal from Egypt? War? Any country can do that even if you don't accept them as a leader.

But for USA liberals, they have to accept that he is their President.

This is one of the most baited debates I got lured into, if my opponent stated that it includes all liberals I would of stayed out of the debate.
I hope next time my opponent will be specific. His term for liberal was very broad.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in round two that foreign liberals don't have to accept Trump. This means some liberals don't have to accept Him. The resolution is affirmed.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter could certainly be more specific, perceived concessions like this can be used as justifications for awarding argument points so long as they are explained. Contrary to the report, I don"t see how this is a misinterpretation or where the lack of information comes into play.

Note: this is the second time this vote has been reported. Unless the reporter wishes to add some reasoning as to why the vote should be removed, further reports will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Political.Questioneer// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Conduct, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Con actually Used sources that seem reliable considering it is the BBC awarding Con the Sources point. While Pro trapped Con into the debate and attacked his opponent in the debate giving the con the conduct point. I also have to say Con made a pretty good argument as well, but due to bias I will not vote on convincing arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely appealing to the reliability of BBC sources is not sufficient reason to award these points " must be clear why the source itself was reliable. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. While the voter is welcome to award this point based on perceived semantic trapping or personal attacks, the voter does have to explain what he means by both of those. That requires pointing to what was specifically done in the debate and explaining why it was problematic.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in round two that foreign liberals don't have to accept Trump. This means some liberals don't have to accept Him. The resolution is affirmed.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter could certainly be more specific, perceived concessions like this can be used as justifications for awarding argument points so long as they are explained. Contrary to the report, I don"t see how this is a misinterpretation or where the lack of information comes into play.
************************************************************************
Posted by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
Not for long, though!
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 months ago
DakotaKrafick
In this case, though, it's not a win. It's just an un-honorable loss.
Posted by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
A win is a win no matter how dishonest it is. I stated the terms, he agreed, and because of this, he loses. No matter how un-honorable it is, it's still a W.

I'm not a troll, I'm just a scavenger for stupid debaters.
Posted by SinSyto 3 months ago
SinSyto
Looks like the dishonest troll is going to lose unless the judges keep showing bias behaviors ^^
Posted by Political.Questioneer 3 months ago
Political.Questioneer
May I also present the point (which helped me give the con side the conduct point) that the pro even stated "it may be a dishonest way to win" which gives con the point.
Posted by Political.Questioneer 3 months ago
Political.Questioneer
May I also present the point (which helped me give the con side the conduct point) that the pro even stated "it may be a dishonest way to win" which gives con the point.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 months ago
DakotaKrafick
Forgive the minor typography errors in the RFD. When transferring it from my word processor to this site, it automatically replaced any instance of an apostrophe or ellipsis with a quotation mark. I'll keep this in mind in the future.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 3 months ago
DakotaKrafick
JimShadyTuba_playersTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 months ago
dsjpk5
JimShadyTuba_playersTied
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 conceded in round two that foreign liberals don't have to accept Trump. This means some liberals don't have to accept Him. The resolution is affirmed.