Trump would be a better president than Kamala Harris

if u say i'm wronge , then apologize to correct u

Short description: A political debate

Trump : enact travel bans for migrants that originate from countries that threaten national security (Gaza STRIP, Yemen, Syria...).
He will block communists and marxists from entering the US
He will also continue to build border barriers and finally block Pro-Hamas Protests by sending deportation officers.

Harris: Will do absolutely nothing new

in simple words my respected Debater : politics is not straight forward line , first thing is that here __ clearly show that __ consider trump a better president becoz at least he say something that's cool thing according to __ but not according to diplomacy , second thing is that the things above , u consider them good policies but its not .
__ argue that Trump would be a better , more capable and efficient president after these policies , these only weaken __ argument , if __ know the ground reality

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote cannot be removed as the voting period has ended. The vote also did not effect the outcome out the debate (otherwise I would have procrastinated far less).

What about the pathos was better and worse would vastly improve the vote. Please do review the voting standards before voting again. That said, the vote by doing a mixed allotment to both sides implies the absence (or at least minimalistic amount) of bias.
**************************************************

“ It is unfortunate that I must only give a better legibility vote for Pro because the topic itself is highly subjective and thus I cannot give either side the better argument vote.”

Legibility needs to be explained. Like what in con’s case made reading it difficult?

I have no disagreement with that argument allotment. While it could be expanded, not awarding arguments has a much lower burden of explanation.

I disagree with this vote because you say i provide facts that are not in favor of Trump but this is bcuz i wanted to focus on policies which i proved whose was better (Trump). This is the format i wanted to follow but con just started throwing cheap shots without a format, mentioning no format, so i rebuttled and debunked some without breaking character limit while i also threw some of my own directed at Biden. You have to understand that there are things like inflation or federal debt that every single president has increased bcuz it is impossible to decrease. I use these two examples of cheap shots that con threw because con clearly said trump increased inflation and federal tax but it was in fact the other way around completely. As far as Con goes, you say you liked their "pathos" better than mine while they didn't mention any policies bcuz they knew they had nothing to say to save themselves and most of the cheap shots they threw without format were debunked

For all

I am okay with any amount. Do you want that only for first round or for all rounds?

And i would also rly appreciate if we kept characters low, preferably under 5-6k

Two days response time will be hard, but I will manage. I have plenty of material from before.