Kamala is more likely to become president (pro) VS Trump is more likely to become president (con)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
No information
I think the big problem with this debate was a lack of sources. If you want to prove that Trump will win because of his superior grasp on policy, go for it, but you have to justify why policy matters to voters. Con starts going in the right direction in round three when he cites Trump's ability to appeal to certain demographics, but this is the only point Con offered that felt faithful to the resolution of the debate, and it just came far too late. Other attempts at directly assessing Trump's electability felt equally hollow. For example, saying "[Trump's] speech is persuasive" is so vague that it cannot constitute an argument without further substantiation, which is not offered.
Pro's arguments were more relevant to the resolution, but he never adequately establishes the irrelevance of policy in determining electability. Doing this would have been a good debunk to Con's case. Pro does gracefully note that "the average voter is a retarded piece of shit with horrible understanding of politics and shitty sensibilities," but he never substantiates this claim with a source/anecdote. Basically, why is Kamala being a black women more relevant to electability than policy? Pro never adequately addresses this question. That being said, Pro does talk directly about electability. Con does not do this, and thus, it is ultimately incumbent upon Con to justify the significance of policy in discerning electability. Pro's arguments about Trump's polarizing presence in American politics, Kamala's identity as a woman running for president, and the unique dynamic created by her being an ex-prosecutor and Trump being a felon were Pro's strongest points.
In short, Con's case needed a paragraph justifying why policy matters when determining electability. This was never supplied.
I support trump.
I oppose healthcare budget because it costs too much.
2 trillions for healthcare?
No thanks.
After you read that article you will realize that only an evil person can support socialized medicine. It would cause more death and more suffering
Actually that has already been debunked along with virtually every left-wing policy position
https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/
I mean, what would Con even argue here? Electoral votes are the only thing that matters.
Oh believe me it's true and she has made many similar mistakes as a prosecutor. Democrats main argument is that Trump is a felon and well if kamala isn't a felon i don't know who is. Democrat has become a buzzword while Trump is constantly called a fascist and a white supremacist.
Don't get me wrong Kamala will probably win and if she doesn't it will be close but i'm not quite sure if she's the most eligible. All i have seen her do is dance and laugh at herself, no politics whatsoever
I have heard about stuff like that but at this point I'm not sure if that is the whole truth or just a way of framing it to make her look bad. I haven't looked too deeply into it.
@Wylted the only thing inherently left wing that you mentioned there is the socialized medicine, and socialized medicine is good. It's fucked up for the value of people's lives to be determined by how much money they have.
He is debating who is most likely to win, not who is best fit to serve as president
My question is who almost condemned an innocent man to death and then concealed evidence as a prosecutor?
They aren't fake leftists. They really do want to cut the dicks off of children. They really did have the feds try to end free speech on social media. They really are turning to harm standard of care by bringing in socialized medicine
The thing you are missing here is that Kamala is the moderate and Trump is the radical. In the grand scheme of things, Trump is closer to being far right than Kamala is to being far left. Americans have this weird misconception about the political spectrum where social democracy (center-left) is considered communism and staunchly right wing candidates are considered balanced centrists.
It would be a good thing if America turned into a social democracy, it's a lot better than having a false two party system where both parties are right wing and both parties are in favor of the status quo except one loves virtue signaling about race and gender and the other loves virtue signaling about being Christian. Since both main parties are status quo supporting and the others literally NEVER win it wouldn't make much difference if we only had one party, the real problem is that the democratic party is full of fake leftists.
no it has more to do with the party than her. I do think we will essentially have a one party nation if Trump does not win.I can see the chess board and the moves the left are making and this is the last election before the demographics permanently favor the democrats and the left is holding the party hostage so even if moderates win, they still have to obey.
You're extremely incorrect about this. Kamala isn't that different from any generic democrat, she may even be better. What you're saying would make more sense if you had said it about Biden before he was elected.
They are going to have to cheat pretty hard for that to happen, but I wouldn't doubt it. If so it's the end of america being a 1st world nation