Instigator / Pro
11
1515
rating
15
debates
86.67%
won
Topic
#5690

Trump would be a better president than Kamala Harris

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
0
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

itsnotago
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
7
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description

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

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:

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.

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:

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.