Trump would be a better president than Kamala Harris
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
I (pro) argue that Donald Trump(Republican candidate) would be a better (more capable and efficient) president than Kamala Harris (Democratic candidate)
Con argues that Kamala would be the better candidate
Burden of proof is shared
he will launch the largest deportation effort in U.S. history to send illegal migrants back to their country of origin
Trump will also require asylum-seekers from Mexico to remain there until their cases are fully processed
he says he will have all migrants without authorization detained
He would also enact travel bans for migrants that originate from countries that threaten national security
He will block communists and marxists from entering the US
The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3% in 2020
The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016
The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion, increased by almost 8 trillion
Handgun production rose 12.5% in 2020 compared with 2016, setting a new record. This contributed to crime and suicide.
The murder rate in 2020 rose to the highest level since 1997, which caused further damage to economy and survival
"Claims which weren't backed up by sources"
"Covid-19 is to solely blame"
"Trade deficit increased by 17%"
trade deficits aren't necessarily bad
Trump - Biden debt comparison
you could also say this contributed to the economy
Covid caused social unrest and economic problems so it makes sense that murders increased.
"The fact that you didn't use sources"
we never actually saw her take decisions as a president like we saw Trump do.
Under Biden, more people have died from Covid-19 than under Trump
Trump is old, which increases chances of him dying, being ill or developing mental illness as US president
Trump isnt famous for telling the truth
Smart people, people with high education are more likely to be democrats
The action to stop polluting planet is crucial, since pollution also harms humans and increases healthcare costs and deaths
Young people with more interest in future prefer democrats
Economists in 2016 predicted that Trump's plan will increase debt by 8 trillion
Biden reduced inflation, reduced budget deficit
Kamala supports Ukraine and opposes Israel
Only Kamala supports body ownership
Her policies are popular
Trump ...shown no problems associated with age
Trump's age shows that he has more experience than Kamala
some voters don't have fancy college degrees, it means they're dumb
Trump attended U-Penn and JD Vance attended Yale
everyone can vote and all votes are equal
Then why did Biden cancel the Keystone XL pipeline
Then why did Kamala call young people (aged 18-24) stupid
Trump increased debt by 0.1 trillion less
By the time Trump's term finished (2021), Covid had slowed down by a lot
Biden increased inflation
As far as budget deficit goes, it is higher than what it would be
She doesn't have a clear position on this war
Harris and Zelensky don't tend to agree with each other
he said he would put both wars to sleep
He is actually punishing those who supply such a dangerous substance
tax foreign companies
because under his leadership, unemployment was at an all-time low
ARGUMENTS
I don't really have much to say about arguments. Pro builds a decent case which rests on Trump's proven track record with the economy, his hardnose approach to immigration, and Harris's checkered history, among other points. I have a hard time giving any credit to Con whatsoever because he never builds out any cohesive narrative with his huge catalogue of facts. He addresses the 'what' but seldom touches on the 'why' or 'how.' In contrast, Pro bolsters his points with specific examples, including Harris's failed withdraw of Afghanistan, her administrative incompetence regarding the border crisis, and Trump's consistent streak of low unemployment. Pro then elaborates further and tries to either explain the significance of his argument (why the issue he is discussing should be considered important) and/or draw a comparison between Trump and Harris. There is little to say about Con's case because it never really goes beyond a loose collection of facts with no clear direction.
SOURCES
Con decides to build his case with a gish gallop of completely unsourced factoids. While he does go back to retroactively source his R1, he makes no effort to establish which sources substantiate which claims. Pro's sourcing was not perfect, but it was obvious he at least tried to format his sources in a manner which was both convenient and eye-pleasing.
LEGIBILITY
Putting one line in between each and every sentence, as if the one line constitutes a paragraph, makes Con's argument practically unreadable at points.
Both r doing well , but one thing that I'm not like to apricate u :
pro do wronge is that , U use positive and negative decisions of trump to say that overall trump is positive and better. Mostly facts that u share is actually not in the favor of trump at all. -1 x 1 = -1 , but over all your logos is very well.
con use facts against trump that r not due to trump leadership
1 + 0 != (is not equal to ) 10 , alright one thing that I like is your pathos is better.
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.