Controversial Debate Topic Series: Donald Trump Was a Good U.S. President

LOL the debate rules were basically "you cant talk about anything bad trump did" i assume the instigator was memeing though

I'm not a big politics guy. I'm not gonna loophole by talking about Iran or China. Let's try this trickery, using the debate description against you!

Good luck on the debate.

"I agreed with PRO until I read the description"

This is what Trump fans seeing this will say.

Am I missing something? How can you have a debate about Trump without mentioning literally everything about him?

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2988/comment-links/36791
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2988/comment-links/36793

This is explicit, extensive help from Coal to a participant in the debate. There must 100% be warnings issued and comments deleted. I am reporting publicly so that there is no confusion that Danielle did or didn't report it.

So true!

Although be careful, Con can talk about things Trump didn't do (Bomb Cambodia like a Chad)

obviously Con side's data is skewed and misses the resolution. There's a reason I said I was pro on the topic. I'm giving him a chance by playing devil's advocate. Let's see if Unpopular notices the crucial flaw missing in the link!

"We both know there is nothing about you that could ever make me nervous."

You are very defensive. Why is that?

" I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked."

I don't understand why you think those are the sole motivations I had?

Just FYI, the evidence you are presenting in your debate doesn't say that lockdowns don't slow the spread of viruses. Some of it says the lockdowns that were imposed were not very effective because 1) people did not follow them in western countries as stringently as they did in Asian countries; 2) by the time some lockdowns were implemented, the virus had already spread among the population. That might prove the lockdowns were not useful or necessary, but it doesn't prove they have no impact on transmission. I don't have time to skim all the links at the moment nor do I feel compelled to help your opponent by making his case for him. That seems like a really bitch-ass thing to do 🙂 I just wanted to warn that I think you may be misinterpreting what the data says. Send me the link when it's done as it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

"Should we defund the police"

Wait, remind me of what happened there? I forgot.

I could care less about your lockdown views - I'm referencing our talk in my forum "Should we defund the police" - that is why I call you condecended.

to be fair, I think Coal's way of arguing is very easy to make people on edge. (pun intended? lol)

As I showed in my debate about Covid 19 lockdown effectiveness, Con side looks like it's largely winning from evidence alone.

I am only Pro because I believe con side's bones can be broken and the entire framework collapses because it hinges on the fact that people are stupid and government is dumb, rather than people are smart and/or gov. is reasonable (see Belarus, which is a double edged sword showing that people's collaboration means ANY policy works, lockdown or otherwise)

We both know there is nothing about you that could ever make me nervous. I'd just like for you to explain to everyone why you felt the need to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent. At first I was flattered, but then I realized giving that much feedback on a debate you believe he is already favored to win is actually more of an insult to him than a compliment to me. I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked.

I don't understand why you think I was condescending to you, because that was not my intention.

As I recall, you had some opinions about lockdowns and whether they were effective for a couple of public health factors. I disagreed with them and send you some stuff on that subject.

You thought what I sent you supported what you said.

I asked whether you were interested in the substance of the issue, or just trying to establish that you were right.

That offended you, and here we are.

I would prefer that there not be any lingering animosity. I don't have any towards you, despite your opinions on lockdowns if you were curious.

I also don't think I was condescending, either. Though perhaps you may have considered my unwillingness to engage in rhetorical jousting over lockdowns may have given that impression. That wasn't the intent.

Couldn't be that you continued to condescendingly talk at me while refusing to make an argument - and then got even moreso whenever I called you out. Now, if you want to talk at me, fine - but don't expect me to be "respectful" to you afterward.

Just seems like you've got some unresolved issues. Namely because you continue to block me. Seem very aggressive in comments here.

Animosity? Whaaaat? Why would I have that towards you?

@Theweakeredge

I am confused as to why you seem to have so much animosity towards me.

" need for some comic relief"

Well I had no idea my debate had such a significant impact on you, necessitating any "need for some comic relief." But that's ok. This should be an interesting debate to watch.

" decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that?"

Did I make you nervous?

Somehow I doubt that.

Lol your stale ham sandwich of a "debate" wasn't inspirational so much as demoralizing, hence the need for some comic relief. But here's what's funnier. In response to me highlighting all of the ridiculous handicaps you oh so pathetically imposed on your opponent (with me noting arguments they cannot make, thereby offering no guidance to them at all), you decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that? 😎

So true! Good thing I never said Pro couldn't talk about them.

XD I knew something was up. Good luck.

To Truth!
-logicae

Danielle is trying to replicate coal's debate on corporate punishment.

I'm being a silly goofball taking near impossible topics to enhance my ability to argue on my feet.

Why such a long list of exceptions?

We call that sarcasim.

Spite? That's not very nice. You'll hurt my feelings doing that . . . .

There are similarities. It's named controversial debate and has semantic abuse making it essentially a truism because of how 'good' is being defined as 'got away with' primarily.

Also the description rules out all issues with him.

Spite.

Also no reason - no similarities whatsoever, just a HUNCH.

But his LGBT issues, family separations, DACA stance, border wall, and "mUsLiM bAn" were all good things. Why wouldn't you want Con talking about them? lol

I am delighted to see that I've been such a source of inspiration!

lol

This should be amusing to watch.

CON still is favored to win, despite all of these.

Absent from this list are: China, Trade Deficit, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and dozens of others.

Though the description is funny, it doesn't analogize to my corporal punishment debate.

@Theweakeredge - Why are you blocking me? Also, why do you think this was meant for me?

oh, yeah, don't worry, I'll just blanket statement and talk about utilitarianism plus Undefeatable's suggested morality argument

Did you read the description?

I was actually considering doing this debate as a kritique, but I have a debate with Athias and RationalMadman. I'm wary of both debaters, so I'm gonna have to spend my time there, lol

you know, I feel like fruit inspector could actually win this by saying all humans are evil and all humans have sinned. Through god, blah blah blah, we must repent ourselves, yada yada, and Trump is nowhere near Jesus's salvation, so on and so forth, religious arguments, win win win.

I think this was meant for you buddy ;)

Pieces of shit have a way of slipping through one's fingers if they try to clamp down.