Total votes: 210
RFD in comments
Concession
Full FF that's poor conduct
Full forfeit
Pro FF 2/3 rounds, that's poor conduct
Concession
Pro FF half of the rounds, that's poor conduct.
Pro ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct
Pro ff half of the rounds and spelled communism and you wrong.
Pro ff 2 out of 3 rounds, that's poor conduct
Con ff a round and just wasted a round by stating " no u ".
No arguments to provide a coherent debate, because of this I must award a tie.
Con ff the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct
Full forfeit, I really should be doing biology HW....
Pro ff the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct
Con called Pro a (pardon my language) a " pussy," " nigger," and a " libtard," that's poor conduct and excessive.
RFD in comments
Concession
Pro conceded the entire debate.
Con called Pro a " Jew",
That's poor conduct
Pro ignored 90 % of Cons argument throughout the debate which is poor conduct.
Example 1:
Pro never addressed R1 Truth and Knowing its true section by Con
Example 2:
Pro never addressed R1 The Primacy of science, the second half of the argument and instead only analyzed one sentence in the entire section which is poor conduct since they're ignoring 80 Percent of Cons argument which led the debate in a circle and completely ruined the rhythm of the debate.
Example 3:
Pro never addressed the Requirement for Empiricism section in R2
To conclude, Pro ignored 90 percent of Cons argument which made the debate tedious to read and lead the debate in circles.
That is poor conduct on Pro's part.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit, that's poor conduct
" I am going to go ahead and concede this debate and congratulate my opponent on his win."
- Nuff said
meh I don't know
Con ff a round which completely broke the flow of the argument, that's poor conduct.
Hardly a coherent debate, that said I must award pro arguments since con conceded and made no argument.
full ff on all sides, hardly a coherent debate
full forfeit
Pro conceded the debate
Pro conceded
Pro conceded the debate
Pro FF 3 times which is poor conduct
Tiwaz ff half of the rounds, this is poor conduct
Spelling and Grammar:
- Both had good spelling and grammar so it is a tie.
Reliable Sources:
- Both provided good and reasonable sources to back up their claims.
Conduct:
- Both had good conduct overall
Convincing Arguments:
- Pro was very dishonest in this point when he stated,
" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals and Con pointed this out in statements such as,
" The percentage matters a lot. If you're giving money out to homeless people and there's a 1% chance that they'll spend it on drugs instead of food or something, does that mean you shouldn't give out money altogether? No! That's absurd. However, if it was a 99% chance, then that would be a good decision."
and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."
Nextly Pro stated,
" So this is not just remarked towards Mexicans."
Con than argued,
" That doesn't matter. They're non-white."
- This is a very valid point since the debate is not on whether or not Trump is racist again Mexicans, this is on racism in general.
One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out.
Pro also misrepresented Con's point regarding his analogy on giving black people jobs by stating,
" The difference from a murderer is that they are convicted and it is proven. These "racist" claims are up for debate and I have debunked pretty much all of them."
To which Con responded with,
" You completely missed the point of that analogy. My point is that doing one good deed towards black people doesn't automatically excuse someone from being racist."
- This is obviously true since Con wasn't exactly making a claim, he was simply making an analogy and debunking the giving jobs to a minoritys argument. Very plainly Pro completely missed the point of Con's argument.
All of that aside, arguably the biggest reason I feel Pro completely lost the debate was on the " biased" sources argument. Pro stated,
" Maybe find a central source than, like I suggested saying "unbiased."
To which Con replied expertly by stating,
" That's completely unnecessary. I'm not taking an opinion from them, I'm taking the proof of the claims that I'm making."
- Pro very obviously doesn't understand that even if the sources Con used were " bias", Con wasn't using them for their opinion but rather for the statistics and data.
- This point completely makes Pro's argument regarding the sources fall apart.
Another point in the debate which absoulutely destroyed pro's credibility was with their response to Con's point being,
" As I said, my opponent must provide reasonable evidence to dismiss the claims. He has not, so there is no reason to dismiss the claims.
Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."
- To which Pro made a very baseless and downright absurd accusation with little to no evidence nor analysis by stating,
"Alicia Machado is getting paid off to say Trump calling her "Mrs. Housekeeping"."
- What's really ironic about this is that Pro seems to always talk about how Con is just making assumptions while Pro is doing the EXACT same thing.
- Pro, however, did this NOT once but TWICE in the debate with another accusation similar to this regarding the " pretty Korean lady" claim. To which Pro stated,
" The officials got paid off to say that."
- This is yet another absurd and baseless accusation made by Pro.
To conclude, it is obvious to anyone who reads this debate that Con has provided substantial evidence to believe that Trump is a racist as Pro throughout this entire debate relied on making baseless accusations and overall had little understanding of con's arguments.
All of this said I award Convincing arguments to pro.
Con ff 4 out of the 5 rounds which is poor conduct
Pro waived the entire debate in the final round
Full Forfeit
Pro FF the majority of the rounds, this is poor conduct
Full Forfeit
Full FF which is poor conduct
Con FF half of the rounds which is poor conduct
Pro FF all of the rounds, this is poor conduct
Pro ff 2 rounds which is poor conduct
Con FF a round in the middle of the debate which halted the entire debate since this means that Con couldn't post arguments in the last round. This is poor conduct.
Con FF a round and conceded