Instigator / Con
7
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Topic
#5557
Donold Trump is innocent of the January 6th insurrection
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Americandebater24
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1516
rating
25
debates
82.0%
won
Description
Opinions are split regarding January 6th and Trump's involvement. Some believe he is innocent, while others deem him guilty.
Rules: Pro takes the position that Trump is innocent, while Con takes the position that he is guilty. POB is on Pro.
Round 1
Con
#1
I thank con for accepting this debate.
Introduction: Donold Trump is a failed leader and a traitor to the American people. He is without a doubt guilty for causing the January 6th insurrection and deserves to be locked up for his lies, is complete disregard for Democracy and trying to turn Americans against each other for his own power.
Argument 1: Trump organized the event.
After losing the 2020 Election Donld Trump Organized the January 6th event that would become known as the day of insurrection. He tweeted in December 12, "WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT! and in January he tweeted, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!" And then he also said on January 4th, "If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now," The former presidents own words prove that he not only organized the Insurrection, but he also promoted for it to be violent. Trump cannot say that January 6th was meant to be a peaceful protest when specifically instructs his own people to fight for him.
Argument 2: Trump did nothing to stop the insurrection once it begun.
Trump not only started the insurrection, but he also supported it. On the day of January 6th, he told his followers to "fight like hell." His supporters began their attack at 1pm and breached the Capital building by 2pm. During this time, rather than stop the rioters or tell them to go home, Trump blamed the incident on his Vice president at the time. Even when national guardsmen were sent, they came from other state governors and not the President himself. If Trump did not intend for his supporters to become violent, why would he incite them, remain silent about the attack on Congress, and then, when he finally did respond, simply blame Mike Pence? The answer is straightforward: Trump never wanted to leave office. He cared little for democracy or the rule of law when they did not serve his interests. This insurrection was started by Trump through his words and actions and his inaction as president showed his support for their actions while it was happening.
Conclusion:
There is little doubt about Trump's guilt. He organized January 6th by ordering his followers and used inflammatory language, including telling them to "fight like hell." He showed no intention of stopping the insurrection as it unfolded. Remaining silent for a full hour while violent protesters stormed the halls of Congress, he never instructed his followers to halt their actions. Instead, he chose to encourage their activities by placing the blame for the incident on Vice President Mike Pence. The events of January 6th were a profound affront to American democracy and the rule of law, with the sole responsibility for its tragic outcomes resting at the feet of former President Donald J. Trump.
Pro
#2
Let’s review the current BOP and resolution:
Opinions are split regarding January 6th and Trump's involvement. Some believe he is innocent, while others deem him guilty.
Rules: Pro takes the position that Trump is innocent, while Con takes the position that he is guilty. POB is on Pro.
Under these rules, I must prove that Donold Trump (according to the title of this debate) in order to win; if CON does the converse or I’m not able to do this sufficiently, CON wins.
- Possible Non-existence
Notice that the title of this debate clearly says “Donold Trump”. This is spelled with two “o”’s, and zero “a”’s. This means that it is clearly different than the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump. Understanding the difference between Donold Trump and Donald Trump is imperative to this debate.
Upon a google search for Donold Trump, the following results appear:
- A model helicopter titled “2002 Matchbox Donold Trump Hotels & Casino Trump Helicopter Chopper Mint In Package”. (https://www.amazon.com/Matchbox-Donold-Helicopter-Chopper-Package/dp/B00M16LV54). Obviously, this is a non-living object. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be a human to blame
- A few near-empty profiles from facebook (https://www.facebook.com/people/Donold-Trump/pfbid02NG9jhRbNnWiWEPN9wcBWMu7uTaKd22e9GZW4QwMmFn3Ssy4DLuNSrgKAoLbBeqhul/)
- An Airbus project manager (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/donold-trump-b88683173)
- A pokemon card maker (https://pokecardmaker.com/donold-trump/)
Other results include references to Donald Trump; however, it is important to note that these are usually typos. (for example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/266442424961)
Therefore, it is important to note that:
- A model helicopter was not charged with crime in Jan 6 insurrections
- A pokemon card was not charged with crime in Jan 6 insurrections
- Innocent Until Guilty
Taking all this into account, it is very clear that Donold Trump played no part in the January 6 insurrections. The USA Rests on a law of “innocent until guilty”, where in US courts (where the January 6 insurrection happened), “burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt." Because there is no evidence that Donold Trump committed a crime, Donold Trump is innocent of the January 6 insurrections.
- Rebuttals
After losing the 2020 Election Donld Trump
Neither Donld Trump or Donold Trump participated as a candidate in the 2020 election (https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020). Instead, a man named Donald Trump did, different from these two.
Donold Trump did not tweet this. Instead, Donald Trump tweeted this.
The former presidents
Donold Trump is not a former president.
Your source clearly says that this quote was said by Donald J Trump. He is different from Donold Trump.
There is little doubt about Trump's guilt.
There are severe doubts about Donold Trump’s guilt considering that a majority of your evidence discusses Donald Trump instead of Donold Trump.
In sum, there is no evidence that Donold Trump started the January 6 insurrection, and therefore is innocent under the innocent-until-guilty premise of America.
Round 2
Con
#3
I acknowledge the spelling mistake I made when writing Donald Trump's name, but it's clear who is being referred to in the debate. Therefore, the argument that I am not referring to the 45th President is flawed and should be disregarded.
As for pros second point of Innocent until proven guilty. I concede that Domald Trump may not (yet) have been found guilty in Criminal law regarding insurrection. However, Trump has been tried in civil court and found guilty of insurrection in Civil Court.
DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S.
When Pro asserts that Trump had "no part" in the January 6th insurrection, neither I nor the state of Colorado concur with this view. The overwhelming evidence against the former President Trump is too significant to disregard. I might comprehend Pro's stance if they argued that Trump is not criminally liable for his involvement. Yet, Pro claims that Trump is entirely innocent, which is inaccurate. Moreover, I am curious about how Pro can claim that Trump had no involvement in an event organized with his resources.
I would also like to request that Pro not be so unreasonable as to suggest that I am referring to a different person due to a minor spelling mistake. It is quite clear who I am referring to and the subject of this discussion.
Pro
#4
I acknowledge the spelling mistake I made when writing Donald Trump's name, but it's clear who is being referred to in the debate. Therefore, the argument that I am not referring to the 45th President is flawed and should be disregarded.
This would be regarded as changing the subject within the middle of your debate. That’s moving the goalpost, a logical fallacy. It’s definitely not something to be disregarded considering what you are arguing, your evidence, and your application of the evidence are entirely different. In fact, both the title and your opening statement both say Donold.
- Your evidence refers “Donald Trump”
- The debate is to argue “Donold Trump”
- Your argument #1 discusses “Donld Trump”
I would also like to request that Pro not be so unreasonable as to suggest that I am referring to a different person due to a minor spelling mistake. It is quite clear who I am referring to and the subject of this discussion.
Yes but that’s not reflected in the debate and a completely different argument. For instance, see (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2212-orogami-is-the-best-active-debater-on-debateart).
Moreover, I am curious about how Pro can claim that Trump had no involvement in an event organized with his resources.
Can a model helicopter, a pokemon card, an Airbus project manager have enough “resources” as you mention to pull off the January 6th insurrections? Didn’t think so.
Round 3
Con
#5
I have established that Donald Trump has been found guilty in law when it comes to the January 6th insurrection. It may not be criminal, but a court has still found him guilty. Additionally, I provided multiple sources that demonstrate that former president did nothing to stop the protest that I have equally shown he organized from being violent. Trumps inflammatory speech was designed for one purpose: to stop the counting of votes and remain president.
My opponent has not only refused to address this evidence, but erroneously claim that we are not talking about Donald Trump because of some unintentional spelling errors; they continue to do despite it being obvious of who the debate is about. The only portion that they offer that is even worth addressing is claiming that the January 6th insurrection had no involvement of Trump. I debunked this argument in round 1 by showing Trumps Tweets not only organize the insurrection but also encourage fighting words such as, "Fight like hell." I have asked Pro to show how he can back this claim up and they have failed to do so.
Donald Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th; he orchestrated and incited them, and reportedly remained inactive during the occurrence. He faced an additional impeachment and was found guilty in civil court across multiple states, leading to his temporary removal from two state ballots due to his actions. If this does not establish Trump's guilt, our standard for evidence has become so elevated that it is unattainable.
Trumps guilt is so unarguable in fact, that Pro is forced to try and make up a fake identity just to make an argument. Trumps lack of innocence is clear to the Courts, clear in this debate, and should be clear to you voters. Don't be swayed by Pro's nonsense and focus on the evidence at hand.
Vote Con!
Pro
#6
There’s a lot to be cleared up that Con confuses/misuses, which I shall do so in my first round.
Firstly, the title clearly indicated “Donold Trump”. While this may be obvious to Con that it is Donald Trump, that assertion cannot be justified as it is an assumption of the premises of the debate. Additionally, this, like I’ve said before,
What may be “obvious” as Con indicates may not to me. Con fails to acknowledge this. This is still moving the goalpost, a logical fallacy.
Additionally, let it be known that Con refers to not only “Donold Trump”, but also “Donld” (see Con Round 1, Argument 1). His evidence still fails to match up to his real argument. His evidence attributes to Donald Trump, but neither Donold nor Donld are reflected in his evidence.
Lastly, Con is strawmanning my argument about Donold Trump’s lack of involvement and misinterpreting it as Donald Trump’s lack of involvement. There is a clear difference. One is not known publicly, and one is an ex-president.
I have asked Pro to show how he can back this claim up and they have failed to do so.
Actually I have, repeatedly. The tweets you mention belong to Donald Trump, not Donold. There is a clear difference which you are failing to acknowledge.
If this does not establish Trump's guilt, our standard for evidence has become so elevated that it is unattainable.
Which establishes DONALD TRUMP’s guilt, but not DONOLD TRUMP.
In this debate, I’ve sufficiently proved Donold Trump’s lack of involvement as he is not known publicly. Con has not refuted this point.
I’ve sufficiently proved that this means Donold Trump is innocent. Con has not refuted this point.
These simple two principles mean that I have sufficiently satisfied my unrefuted BOP.
Vote Pro, at least the one who argued about Donold Trump as opposed to Donald Trump.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro had 1 argument: the innocent until proven guilty argument. This would be eligible but con debunked it saying that a state clearly found him guilty, using the necessary sources. While i am not fully convinced that Trump is fully responsible since we live in an era with free will, the tweets clearly show that trump encouraged the incident, which pro didn't really talk about. I will not address the argument concerning the spelling mistake which pro bases his/her whole case upon since it is outrageous and that justifies why i gave conduct to con. Pro could have simply made a reference to the mistake and continued but decided to make it his/her whole case so from that point on, they had lost the debate for me.
damn since when did yall start having rocks for brains?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to con, 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "Pro had better argument but con was better at conveying the arguement."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Got to say I respect that the vote attempts to be fair with use of multiple categories. They each need detail, and might not be warranted even if the debate or part of it leans in their favor.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
I had a debate just like this open for a week and nobody would accept!
Haven't heard anyone called "Donold" recently. Could be one of the redder necks during the raid, though.