Instigator / Pro
20
1499
rating
52
debates
35.58%
won
Topic
#5498
Biden vs Trump (2024 Election)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
gugigor
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
11
1515
rating
15
debates
86.67%
won
Description
Burden of proof is shared
We’ll assume that Biden is the democrat candidate and trump is the republican candidate for the 2024 November election
Pro: in the 2024 presidential election, Biden should win over trump
Con: trump should win over Biden in the 2024 election
Round 1
Pro
#1
The Most Important Aspects
A significant case against Trump is the fact that he is incompetent to be president. Congress even considered getting rid of him completely during the last presidency. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of power, and less than a handful of presidents have been impeached (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeached.html). He used an inflammatory speech that encouraged people to storm congress, Killing and injuring quite a few people directly due to his works. He claimed we have to fight like hell, with the forgetful "peaceful march" statement only at the very beginning of the speech, which was clearly ineffective. People remember the end of speeches, not the very beginning.
Trump also failed to uphold an important clause of the constitution, helping foreign diplomats staying at his hotel (https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/)
Trump declared that the press was an enemy of the people, despite our right to it in the first amendment (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people)
It is held that all persons are equal with regards to rights, and ability to express themselves in the US, unless in exceptional circumstances like committing a crime. Trump is anti-trans and destroys the inequality of the people. It's said that "The Trump Administration is built on demonizing minority groups; reversing the civil rights gains of immigrants, people of color, women, and the LGBTQ movement will forever remain the hallmarks of their time in office." (https://transequality.org/press/releases/trump-administration-announces-beginning-of-transgender-military-ban-on-april-12)
Trump was found guilty of all 34 charges in hush money trial. There has never been a convicted felon who had been elected president before, and we shouldn't start now. How do we know he won't just keep on going with this illegal activity? It would be perfectly justified for a judge to put him to four years in imprisonment. Why would we allow a corrupt politician to lead the country?
The Less Important But Still Worrying
42% say Trump is one of the worst presidents ever (https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/trump-presidency-history-analysis/index.html)
America had grown to the highest COVID cases out of any country, showing Trump's incompetence (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s)
Trump's Affordable Care Act did not work economically and only increased expenses (https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca)
He also dropped out of Paris Agreement, which was crucial to help save climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement)
Trump had threatened Nuclear War, despite the "mutually assured destruction" that could cause world extinction as a result. He ignores the standards set in place and does whatever he wants (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-nuclear-war-threat)
A significant proportion of Trump's claims are lies (more than 70%), more than the vast majority of presidents before him (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/). How can we trust someone if we don't even know what promises he will fulfill? You can try putting his entire campaign promises here, but how do we know which 30% he'll do?
Con
#2
The source above clearly states that the public's criteria for who they prefer is mostly based on who they find more likable and who is more honest. According to votings, that person is Biden but Trump is viewed as a more intelligent and in general better leader among republicans and independent voters. Concerns have been raised about Biden's age, supporting that it might negatively affect the way he operates. 4 years after Biden has elected, his approval has decreased considerably while people believe that Trump is a stronger and more decisive leader, managing the government in a more effective manner and displaying good judgment when dealing with crisis. You say that Trump is a criminal for firstly encouraging people to like injure others but following Biden's presidency, if you state you are a Trump supporter in states where Biden is dominant, you will be verbally abused and physically attacked, there's absolutely no difference.
However, i believe that Biden wanting to open the border for all immigrants, even undocumented ones is a crime too. According to the following statistics: Report Highlights ‘Staggering’ Racial Disparities in U.S. Incarceration Rates (usnews.com), the ratio of Latinos possibly being criminals is 1.3 higher than the likelihood of White Americans being criminals while it can go up to even 4, for example in Massachusetts.
As far as LGBTQ and trans people are concerned, trump wants to ban gender-affirmative care for minors and persecute schools that continuously push inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto children because as i have already stated in a previous debate i did, children are irresponsible and immature which will lead to them being negatively influenced. Trump's allies have drafted a sweeping document titled "Project 2025", which includes actions such as banning trans-gender participation in the military and define gender as either male or female. I am in strong support of these views as the situation has gone out of hand under Biden's presidency. Many members of LGBTQ argue there are hundreds of genders and force people to accept them and integrate them in their way of thinking. That is completely wrong biologically as biology has shown there are only two combinations of gametic chromosomes, namely XY and XX. Science for thousands of years has showed that (disclaimer: sorry for my language) some humans have penises and are called men and others have anuses and are called women. There aren't humans different from both categories unless there was some genetic disorder or problems throughout the pregnancy, maybe even throughout the delivery of the baby.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con says: if you state you are a Trump supporter in states where Biden is dominant, you will be verbally abused and physically attacked
However he provides zero evidence for this.
His first argument states that Trump being a strong and decisive leader means he should be, well, elected leader, which seems sort of circular reasoning. On the surface it looks like it makes sense that if he can lead and can make decisions, it will lead to prosperity, however, this only further supports the idea that if his Leadership corresponds with warped ideas, it will only lead to people being incited and doing horrible things. Notice how Con has completely dropped the speech that has led to people storming Congress - Trump's "charismatic leadership" and seemingly "Decisively" declaring that we must fight like hell actually worked against him. Extend the impact of the lives lost and the injuries directly caused by Trump's careless declarations, his lies that the election was stolen, leading to the people causing harm. I mean think about it on the extreme side. Hitler was a *very* strong and very decisive leader - but it means nothing if you make all the wrong decisions. You're just gonna cause everyone to do corrupt, malicious things.
Con also argues that allowing undocumented immigrants is a crime since they will inevitably lead to the incarcerations in high rates, however his own article reads:
The nation's history of white supremacy over Black people created a legacy of racial subordination that impacts their criminal justice outcomes today.The report also asserts that communities of color, especially Black Americans, are negatively affected by biased policies and practices including police-citizen relations, pre-trial detention, the weight criminal history records can carry in sentencing and unequal prosecutorial charging.
As you can see, it is the incarceration itself that is the crime, the biased policies and practices that create an insane rate of minorities being trapped. In fact, Biden is actually working against this by implying he is aware, most immigrants would not commit crimes illegally. It is the justice system that is at fault and being racist. Another point in favor of Biden!
Finally con argues that the LGBT should actually be discouraged. He states children are immature and cannot make the decision to become Transgender. I will admit that the controversy around Gender blockers and informed consent is a hot topic that is difficult to resolve. However, this is a non-issue since Biden has not explicitly stated his policies to encourage the children to take the blockers. Over the last four years he has not really dealt with such transgender policies that could potentially make things worse, so this isn't really a point in favor of Trump.
Con also says it's a good thing to ban transgender in the Military, but provides no arguments for why this should happen. As far as I'm concerned, the bigger the military is the stronger potential it has to be. There doesn't seem to be a good logic here for banning people for such a label as "gender". He also argues the LGBT community is irrational since there is no scientific evidence of the hundreds of genders. However, Scientific American discovered that this intersex idea is pretty recent:
their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another.... “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology
As you can see, the countless genders while seeming confusing is not the same as "Sex", which is said to only have two different Sexes. The gender social construct is multifaceted, and Trump intends to completely eliminate this scientific knowledge and punish it, which would prohibit growth in society.
Con
#4
However he provides zero evidence for this
If you take a few minutes and look up users such as "Date Right Stuff" on Tiktok, he shows the kind of behavior associated with liberals (majority being biden voters). There are many trump supporters who debate with biden supporters and you can easily tell which side brings forth rational argumentation and which side is the calmest when presenting its opinion (it's not the Biden supporters if you exclude a small number of blatantly racist 60 year olds)
Hitler was a *very* strong and very decisive leader - but it means nothing if you make all the wrong decisions. You're just gonna cause everyone to do corrupt, malicious things.
The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago. While i do agree there are more civil ways to prove your country's power, i believe he didn't have any intention of bombing, he asserted dominance over other countries and showed them he wasn't someone to threaten, a thing that Biden doesn't seem to be doing, according to concerns made by citizens. As i have explained, voters from both sides do corrupt things ( biden supporters push their views down other people's throats, for example certain members of the LGBTQ seem to think it's okay to tell people it's wrong to be heterosexual, even doing it to children). If the law continues to loosen, these ideologies will become even more extreme and society will irreversibly distance itself from what was previously considered normal. If everyone is forced to become gay for example, people will stop giving birth and until science finds a way for people of the same gender to have kids.
In fact, Biden is actually working against this by implying he is aware, most immigrants would not commit crimes illegally. It is the justice system that is at fault and being racist
My statement about the law loosening applies to this situation as well. If we loosen the law, people will be able to commit more crimes without being persecuted. The situation as it is discriminates against black people or latinos i must agree, however the solution isn't loosening the law: It is tightening it, quite literally the opposite. If the law tightens, meaning if more laws are made, potential criminals seeking to commit crimes will be deterred from committing them since the law will punish them if they do. In other words, we must scare criminals in order to reduce the crime, not give them permission to commit it, which especially applies to immigrants. I can accept people from different races emigrating, however it is unacceptable to barge into someone's home illegally and then proceed to commit the most atrocious and ghastly crimes with no possibility of facing jail time.
Con also says it's a good thing to ban transgender in the Military, but provides no arguments for why this should happen. As far as I'm concerned, the bigger the military is the stronger potential it has to be
Whenever there is a conflict of ideologies, people tend to not operate effectively. People who hate their country for acting in racist and homophobic ways (even if that isnt particularly) will not defend their country well. It makes no logic for someone to hate something and represent it at the same time.
As you can see, the countless genders while seeming confusing is not the same as "Sex", which is said to only have two different Sexes. The gender social construct is multifaceted, and Trump intends to completely eliminate this scientific knowledge and punish it, which would prohibit growth in society
These are the findings of one scientist. Other scientists have different opinions and even if this was "scientific knowledge", why are those defending it not aware of it and choose to blindly advocate for it, in violent sometimes ways. If it can't be denied, why doesn't the average citizen know of it (for it to be official, people must recognise and accept it)
Round 3
Pro
#5
Firstly, Con says the Tik Tok with Date Right Stuff shows verbal abuse or attack, however, he fails to say why this is unique problem with Biden - I see no reason behind why Trump supporters would seemingly be more peaceful on a wider level. In fact, the lack of evidence of Murder shows that the Capitol Riot impacts were far more massive. Unless con can directly link to a video where a person was *killed*, my strong argument for incitement of the Capitol proves that Trump has caused far more damage.
Con admits that Trump has indeed made the nuclear war threat, dropping it completely. He claims that Trump will make stronger decisions to fight enemies, but makes no objections to the potential idea that Trump might become an extremist and follow through with nuclear war. Con's argument draws to a nonsensical slippery slope saying "If everyone is forced to become gay for example". I see no evidence that Biden merely *allowing* more progressive things will eventually *force* everyone to draw into the extreme action. Con's argument is growing weaker and weaker the more he speaks. Do not let the irrational exaggeration slip on through - he has provided no evidence that everyone will become gay. He has provided zero evidence that LGBTQ persons have accused it is wrong to be heterosexual. Dismiss all these arguments on count of lack of sources.
Con tries to argue in favor of the current unfair justice system, stating "we must scare criminals in order to reduce the crime". However, may I remind him that the current justice system is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Sure, punishing a criminal is very important, but sacrificing an innocent's life and well being in order to do so seems monstrous and irreconcilable. We already have the standard of better to have ten guilty men go free than an innocent man go to jail. The purpose of the punishment is not only to prevent crime but also a potential for rehabilitation. We know there are extenuating circumstances, humans are emotional and sometimes they just do wrong. By con's logic, we can go even more extreme and just frame all the immigrants for crimes and punish them in order to prevent real criminals. There is still no correlation to the Allowing Immigrant argument, since that is not inherently allowing crime to occur. It is also irrelevant to the idea of tightening laws - in fact, the more strict on the Investigation side seems it would much further prevent criminals.
Con says that people who hate what the country stand for (such as racism and homophobic) will not defend it as well, however may I remind you that joining the military is already your own choice (unless drafted in a war in extreme cases). If someone hates the US policies but wants to join the US military, they are implying they can put aside their differences in order to protect the country. I don't know what Con's trying to say here. A person who is reluctantly sitting at the front lines is better than the same person doing nothing as a civilian.
Con argues that the LGBTQ position seems vague and unsupportable, however, I will say that it is a reasonably new finding. Con has failed to provide names/sources scientists from the last decade who severely disagree with the existence of the multiple genders. A fellow professor named Richard performed a Meta analysis, a collection of studies which is more reliable than a single study, explained in his review that "the public health consequences of discrimination towards LGBT individuals have only recently been a topic of investigation". As you can see, most people would not be aware due to the recent nature of LGBT, despite its importance. Con has still not refuted the right for LGBT to express themselves on a lower innate level. There is no reason to discourage equality and representation.
Dropped args: 34 charges in hush money trial, why elect a felon? Trump's 70% claims are lies, so even his "decisive" leadership would just be betraying the people most the time.
Con
#6
Firstly, Con says the Tik Tok with Date Right Stuff shows verbal abuse or attack, however, he fails to say why this is unique problem with Biden - I see no reason behind why Trump supporters would seemingly be more peaceful on a wider level. In fact, the lack of evidence of Murder shows that the Capitol Riot impacts were far more massive. Unless con can directly link to a video where a person was *killed*, my strong argument for incitement of the Capitol proves that Trump has caused far more damage
I didn't mean to show verbal abuse through the videos, i meant to show irrational behavior and argumentation by Biden supporters and liberals. I actually do have a video that shows abuse yet i do not possess the link: it's something about a "gayborhood" meaning a neighborhood where only gay people are allowed and an obnoxious purple haired woman is caught on tape shouting at a guy who entered the neighborhood as a straight man. While i don't know if she's a biden supporter(she probably is), she shows how negatively Biden giving in to LGBTQ commands has afffected American society. This video was filmed under his presidency, however if it was under Trump's, this behavior would not be tolerated and the woman wouldn't dare act in such an obnoxious way because many people are homophobes and Trump can't control them, however if homosexuals or any minority is to act that way, they SHOULD be critisized. As far as Trump supporters killing people, i can't direct you to a specific video, however through social media, all liberals including journalists, candidates criticized Trump as far back as his first days, mostly insults about his wealth, his physical appearance etc., the media always criticized Trump no matter his actions
Biden wants to ban tiktok and a lot of people are infuriated by this because some will lose jobs but also because his lawyers were posing some ridiculous questions to the singaporean CEO of Tiktok that had no relevance whatsoever instead of the US government actually doing it's job.
American economy was in its peak in 2019. 5 years later, prices have skyrocketed and inflation has gone to the moon. This has lead to families struggling to make ends meet, increased homelessness while Trump's project 2025 aims to eliminate homelessness and obviously restore the economy to what it was when Trump was president. Why vote for the person who condemned the US economy? (i don't have to provide sources, they're all over Internet)
Con admits that Trump has indeed made the nuclear war threat, dropping it completely. He claims that Trump will make stronger decisions to fight enemies, but makes no objections to the potential idea that Trump might become an extremist and follow through with nuclear war
Trump had the opportunity to start the nuclear war. However, he didn't. The nuclear threat was as i repeat, a not so civil way for Trump to prove that American stands powerful and it would be wise not to mess with it. Biden didn't do anything to stop the Russia-Ukraine war, he merely funded Ukraine like every other country while Trump clearly stated in an interview that if he were elected, he would negotiate with their leaders and put the thing to bed because unlike Biden, Trump befriended Russia and has earned the respect of many leaders.
Biden merely *allowing* more progressive things will eventually *force* everyone to draw into the extreme action
Let me explain. If LGBTQ people adopt children, they will encourage children to be the same as them but the children themselves will want to resemble to their parents? What happens then? The term "family" loses all its meaning since a trans mother can't function like a natural woman, nor can trans men like natural men but also children all transform into their parents and LGBTQ becomes the norm, defying everything.
Vote trump in order to implement Project 2025, which stands for a powerful economy and a traditional, conventional life like the one we used to have before Biden
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIy0y6LjRW0
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This was a hard vote to cast. I did enjoy reading both the pros and cons arguments. However, I side with Pro because they made a very strong legal case against Trump.
Trump has, in fact, been found guilty of Hush money convictions And is therefore unsuitable to be president from a legal viewpoint.
Con could have also strengthened their stance by pointing out Biden's age, which has been the subject of great controversy, and the high likelihood of Biden either suffering from or could suffer in the future mental health issues. Etc.
Pro also provided more sources than Con and, therefore, got the more reliable sources to vote from me.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Considering the first round, Gugigor makes some valid points about Trump's crimes. He opens with a strong argument with several different points. Itsnatago responds with three main points. I find the first of which to be by far the best. It encompasses the largest reasons people will vote for Trump. The second argument is valid, although Biden's (controversial) immoral behavior doesn't really compare with Trump's two impeachments and thirty-four felony counts, though it was stil la valid point to bring up. Itsnatago's third argument I find weakest, as it's completely subjective and every voter has a different view on the issue. While it's true there are only technically two genders, things like banning them from the military are extremely controversial.
Throughout the debate both sides make some great points. I feel like Gugigor could have used some dropped points from the first argument, like the one about climate change. I think the debate got a little too focused on the LGTBQ aspect. Itsnatago should have kept away from opinion and tried to keep the discussion more about Biden himself, and to bring out more of Biden's faults.
The argument category was the hardest, and I think it's a tie. Both sides had good arguments.
Itsnotago used sources well, except for the one time he used tictoc. However, Gugigor simply had a lot of sources from reliable places, especially in his opening argument. Close again, but Gugigor wins.
Itsnatago is just a really good writer, so legibility goes to him here.
Finally, neither side had any bad conduct, so it's a tie.
Damn, I meant to vote on this one. I let time get away from me. Oh, well, it's not like my vote would have changed the outcome anyway. Pro was already winning by a wide margin and I was planning on voting for them anyway.
I didn't share my desktop in the video so you could see what I was writing and where I was at in the debate. Sorry about that. I could have sworn I did
They aren't seeking to ban porn.
I will vote in a minute if my son let's me
I am going to go ahead and say this, because I was asked to vote on this debate. You both have a lot of room for improvemnet
Do you watch porn even occasionally? Yes or no.
Porn is an addiction, but so is tobacco. We aren't going to ban tobacco.
Now, if you want to ban porn, then I wouldn't agree due to my libertarian beliefs, but I would only respect it if you personally haven't watched porn in at least 5 years (and advocate banning all addictive activities like tobacco). You would then be pro safety and by extension; anti liberty. I can respect it if it's consistent. I'm just more libetarian than that. That, and if Biden banned porn, give him the same credit you would give Trump. Policies before politicians.
That's not half bad because porn has actually destroyed the meaning of intercourse. People are supposed to have sex, not watch it. Men search for happiness through porn, yet only if they experience it will they ever be happy and complete. Porn is an addiction like many others
If you watch porn even occasionally (most men do), then you have no place voting for Trump. He supports Project 2025 (which would ban porn).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Census_citizenship_question
Sure thing, if I get my voting qualification before the voting period is ended I will definitely vote on it. I hate to see a debate tie solely due to being unvoted.
All I have to do to get my voting rights is complete three debates without forfeiting. One is already done, I'm just about to complete another, and I plan on making another brief debate very shortly.
If u get your voting permit before the deadline, could you also view and perhaps vote on my debate about school being mandatory. It's difficult to find people who evaluate debates, and i want to know who i did so that i can get better
That's fair; the relatively low character limit prevented this debate from getting really in-depth, which I think is a shame because there's always so many complex angles to consider when it comes to presidential elections.
Whatever you wish, in my opinion, we didn't get much out of each other. I mean i enjoyed it but i didn't like that we used things AGAINST the people we were representing, instead of things ABOUT them. Obviously, subjectivity played a huge role and there weren't things really to rebuttle, my opponent just ruled them off as irrelevant or unjustified and continued and to an extent so did I
I can't vote yet. I'm going to start a new debate soon and I might get my voting qualification before the voting period has expired. If not, I'll make a post in the forums detailing how I would have voted and why. I'll reread the debate before casting my vote, but for now, I'm leaning towards Pro. Overall, I think they did a better job connecting their arguments to the resolution.
i didnt have characters to rebuttle your other arguments but i'm happy to do so in a private session
Now that solves the debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkGK7bitav0
It was asserting dominance, we all knew he wouldn't bomb shit. It was a show-off and nothing more and Biden can't assert dominance, he is being squeezed by all sides.
"The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago."
In other words, Trump's actions can't possibly lead to war except for when he threatens war. 10/10 argument
I don't live in America and i can't vote for either one but if i could choose i would be inbetween. I'm just doing this for entertainment purposes
To be honest, I'm surprised this site hasn't seen more of this type of debate. Given that both contestants seem at least minimally competent at debating, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out. (For the record, I'm absolutely team Biden. I don't think anything could make me vote for Trump at this point.)
This is easy win for Pro as long as voters dont accept choice of actual voters in elections. So its pretty much a debate of meritocracy vs democracy, more than it is Biden vs Trump.