The Instigator
TheAtomicDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should Russia Be Punished For Tinkering With The Presidential Election?

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 1 vote the winner is...
RonPaulConservative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 98932
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

TheAtomicDebater

Pro

Russia has been currently accused of messing with the 2016-17 USA Presidential Election . So the question is, should they be punished? And if yes, how should they be punished? I'm depending on the people of Debate.org to decide yes or no?
RonPaulConservative

Con

Russia shouldn't be punished for something they never did- I win.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAtomicDebater

Pro

Vladimir Putin actually said publicly that he funded a program to help Donald Trump win the election.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Did he? Proof please.
Debate Round No. 2
TheAtomicDebater

Pro

I have watched the international news everyday and they have said that. Plus you can read this as well, http://www.dailynewsbin.com...
RonPaulConservative

Con

Daily News Bin? Is that where liberals are getting their sources now? You still haven't posted a legitimate source.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Capitalistslave// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I award arguments to con. Burden of proof lies with pro, and they did not sufficiently provide evidence of their claims. They made the claim that Vladimir Putin publicly admitted that he funded a program to help Donald Trump win the election, but did not offer a source for this claim, thus this argument is unsubstantiated. Since nations and people are innocent until proven guilty, con didn't need to offer any evidence of their own, and they didn't. They pointed out that Russia shouldn't be punished for something they didn't do, and pro failed to prove that Russia was heavily involved. The one source they did provide indicating some involvement, is questionable as it is known to be extremely left-wing in bias( https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... ). It uses wording that would appeal to emotion, rather than with logic and facts. Con did not use any sources, but no source is better than a misleading source, thus I award sources to con as well.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is clearly interceding in the debate, providing their own evidence to show that the evidence of a debater was flawed. The voter is not required to award points to the debaters based on evidence presented, but giving points to one side on the basis that they did not present bad evidence is not sufficient reason to award these points, nor is providing points not made in the debate to show that that evidence was poor.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I award arguments to con. Burden of proof lies with pro, and they did not sufficiently provide evidence of their claims. They made the claim that Vladimir Putin publicly admitted that he funded a program to help Donald Trump win the election, but did not offer a source for this claim, thus this argument is unsubstantiated. Since nations and people are innocent until proven guilty, con didn't need to offer any evidence of their own, and they didn't. They pointed out that Russia shouldn't be punished for something they didn't do, and pro failed to prove that Russia was heavily involved. The one source they did provide indicating some involvement, is questionable as it is known to be extremely left-wing in bias( https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... ). It uses wording that would appeal to emotion, rather than with logic and facts. Con did not use any sources, but no source is better than a misleading source, thus I award sources to con as well.

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is a carbon copy of the RFD given by Capitalistslave. Voters are required to provide their own RFDs for any debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: chrislee125// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This debate seems to be more of a small conversation rather than a actual structured debate. Either way, I have to give the win to TheAtomicDebater. Election hacks have been directly hacked to Russia. This isn't their first time meddling with international affairs either. Syria and Ukraine were both subject to Russian hacking as their governments, technologies and armies fell. So Russia, according to history and facts, has hacked our election. TheAtomicDebater supported these claims, but due to the lack of content, he did not venture too far into the details of these contentions. That's why I agreed with him. Conduct vote: TheAtomicDebater. Ron pushed away all claims (there was like one claim only) by just stating that it was liberal BS. Spelling/Grammar: Both. Most convincing: TheAtomicDebater. Really the only person who had a source to prove his point. Ron had nothing to prove his point except for his position. Sources: TheAtomicDebater. Well, only person with a so

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Personal agreement with the facts behind one side"s arguments is insufficient reason to award these points. The voter must specifically assess points made by both debaters to determine the outcome. Also, stating that one side proved their point while the other side didn"t is not specific to the arguments given. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show that one side either was insulting, violated the rules, or forfeited a round to award this point. While the issue borders on insult, this sounds more like a weak response problem, which could be reflected in the argument points.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provided sources, the voter must explain how those sources were reliable (i.e. applicable to the debate) in order to award these points.
************************************************************************
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
It's interesting to see the misrepresentation of views made by voters on here sometimes. If you notice, chrislee125 said that "Ron pushed away all claims (there was like one claim only) by just stating that it was liberal BS." But he never did make the claim that it was liberal BS. The quote, form Ronpaulconservative is "Daily News Bin? Is that where liberals are getting their sources now? You still haven't posted a legitimate source."
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
For the record, as you can see with who I agreed with, I actually believe Russia had involvement in the election, however in this specific debate, pro did not sufficiently prove it.

Since I am a leftist myself, and agree with pro's position, my bias would go the other way, so the fact that I am voting for con should indicate that they actually won this unquestionably.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
Lmao, any sources there Pro?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
TheAtomicDebaterRonPaulConservativeTied
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: I award arguments to con. Burden of proof lies with pro, and they did not sufficiently provide evidence of their claims. They made the claim that Vladimir Putin publicly admitted that he funded a program to help Donald Trump win the election, but did not offer a source for this claim, thus this argument is unsubstantiated. Since nations and people are innocent until proven guilty, con didn't need to offer any evidence of their own, and they didn't. They pointed out that Russia shouldn't be punished for something they didn't do, and pro failed to prove that Russia was heavily involved.