Which side makes a better case?
avatar
24 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
    • 2 years ago

      I watched all these and as usual it's an offense to basic human intelligence and logic... (from both sides). No one is responding to anything really, just diverting from the topic. I totally understand this tactic if the objective is to "win" a debate but I think they are so boooooring and unintelligent:confounded:

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj mmmm.. Who talked about collusion and how is this relevant to this debate...?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi @nellyj yeah I don't think I made any argument saying that collusion with Russia was happening (although that narrative seems a whole lot more likely today than it did a week ago). My argument was that Donald Trump Jr. was willing/trying to collude, which puts him on really questionable legal ground himself.

      The overall "Trump campaign colluded with Russia to throw the election" story is a separate issue.

      But the "Donald Trump Jr. was ready and willing to collude with Russia" is a proven fact.

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi I totally agree, of course Don Jr. meeting with a Russian lawyer is "problematic", the extent of the problem is what everyone is trying to figure out, through the "legality" of it. By definition, colluding is not illegal, now the extent of the collusion itself might be illegal, yet, still need to be determined.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 you said it was attempted collusion and that was your problematic and legality issue. The story is purely based on the fake stories of collusion created by the pretend news companies.

    • 2 years ago

      @pepelvmc never met with a person of foreign decent? I married a Chinese woman. Am I colluding with China? Haha He merely met with a woman who as it ends up is connected to the DNC.

    • 2 years ago

      lol she's not even remotely connected to the DNC. The tin foil hat conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

  • 2 years ago

    Thanks a lot for the debate, which I was dying to do myself but at least I got to watch two of our top debaters do it.

    My position before this debate was pro and remained to be pro, I say this loud and clear since I have often changed my position on various political and partisan issues on this site after watching some of the debates that truly changed my opinion on stuff. For the record, I'm not American, I'm a (legal) immigrant in the US but I lean left as far as my values and opinions, although I watch Fox News all the time.. however, I approach this topic exactly as @debateme13 did: when the left did it (e.g. With netinyahu), it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. This is not a partisan issue.

    There's no disagreement that what Donald Jr did was wrong and inappropriate, regardless of its legality. He even admits that he wouldn't have done it if he could go back in time, despite his arrogance in his somewhat partial confession that it was wrong.

    Nelson, you made lots of reasonable points but many were pivots to exhausted taking lines or false equivalences, in my opinion. I do appreciate you doing this debate as a favor to me (I loved it!) but you have to admit that it is, at the very least, debatable in as far as the appropriateness of his actions are concerned. I can only assume you belittled the importance of the topic as a pathos debate strategy, but I cannot believe you actually believe this is a ridiculous topic to debate.

    If the situation was flipped in the same exact level of detail: Hillary's daughter took a meeting with someone she thought was a Russian agent with incriminating evidence on Donald Trump, I personally highly doubt and would bet my life that CNN would've also covered this incident as problematic. If there's a comparison to be made , this is the comparison to be made here, apples to apples.

    Thanks a lot for the debate guys, that was awesome.

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz agreed. To further your example, If Chelsea Clinton met with a Saudi Arabian government official who promised to provide information that would destroy Trump's candidacy, the outcry from Fox News and Breitbart would be insane (and justified). This is the same issue from the other side.

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz another example I forgot about was in 1980 Ted Kennedy actively sought help from the USSR to defeat Reagan and the left never cared. He actively colluded with the Communists.
      https://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/amp/

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 you kept saying 'if they met with' but Donald Jr didn't meet with an agent or official or any of the related. He was contacted by an associate saying information on the criminality of HRC, which every sane person already knows about, may be available. It never mentioned any sort of collusion or anything related and never implied any sort of relationship with the Russian govt. it was not a foreign gift but just information, which there is no illegality regarding. Again, The DNC actually collided with and PAID foreign agents and foreign governments and nobody says anything about it.
      'Where there is a double-standard there is an AGENDA'

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj Stop trying to divert the issue. What the DNC does has nothing to do with this issue. And if you think it's so bad that the DNC does it, actually be fair minded and call out your own side when they do it.

      And Donald Jr. did meet with someone who he believed was "the crown prosecutor of Russia". Just because the person he met with didn't turn out to be the crown prosecutor doesn't mean he didn't try to do so. It's like if a pedophile sets up a meet with a kid for sex, and then it turns out to be a sting, so the pedophile is caught. According to your argument, the pedophile could turn around and say "well I didn't actually meet with a child for sex so I'm totally fine!" which is ridiculous and would have no legal standing because he was actively trying to make that happen.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 selective outrage. You didn't debate the actual collusion the DNC has had including with THIS very lawyer.
      He never "tried to meet with a 'Crown Prosecutor.'" You're completely distorting the events.
      He made NO Attempt to meet with Anybody. He was contacted by an associate about a possible meeting. Nothing more.
      You kept saying Russia collusion but there clearly was NO Collusion. Even if we really stretch our imaginations to the limits and pretend it had been an actual meeting with a Russian connected lawyer who had information then still no laws broken, no wrong doing, still no collusion. But obviously that's nothing at all even approaching what actually happened.
      And your analogy is absurd.
      End of story.

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj did you watch Shep Smith and Chris Wallace discussing this issue? I know you might think Shep's already Anti Trump, but surely you don't think Chris Wallace lacks credibility..? Chris said Donald Trump Jr. ATTEMPTED collusion, which is exactly what @debateme13 was saying...

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz most of them were "Never Trump" as was Graham, McCain and National Review which had an entire issue titled such. There is no "attempted collusion" and there certainly is no collusion but even the alleged collusion is meaningless, no illegal and without wrongdoing.
      It's just Trump Derangement Syndrome by people suffering from liberalism. "Treason," "Obstruction of Justice," .... all the other absurd claims by the truly mentally ill

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj you should pull up your pants. Your partisanship is showing :P

  • 2 years ago

    "they met with each other, so what?" - debateme13's reply to the accusation that the russian lawyer also met with obama

    classic leftist double standard

    • 2 years ago

      @kperfect01 naturally you would focus on Nelson's worst argument lol. In response to you,
      1. I'm a libertarian, not a liberal.
      2. There's nothing wrong with meeting with foreign nationals. That's how we conduct diplomacy. There is something wrong with accepting campaign contributions from these foreign agents, or allowing a foreign agent to become involved in the US democratic process. That violates the fundamental goal of constitutional governance.
      3. Nelson was somehow trying to say that because she met with Obama, therefore it was a set up against Trump Jr. This is hilariously illogical, and completely unproven, since there's literally zero evidence that Obama or anyone in the DNC put Nataliya up to this. It's a terrible argument, hence my response "so what". If you have no evidence that it was a set up, you're believing an idiotic, illogical conspiracy theory.

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 On your point 3 I wouldn't be that sure.. I mean it makes sense.. Set him up 13 months ago and wait after his father became President to actually use this against him..Perfect timing!:rofl:

  • 2 years ago

    Interesting this woman was brought in without a Visa, signed off by the obama administrator itself.
    https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4691306/amp/Russian-lawyer-detained-London-months-meeting.html

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj Please tell me that you are not implying that he was set up and 13 months later exposed by himself... So if I try to summarize your position you believe that what happened is normal/ non-problematic, doesn't deserve further discussion and everyone during a US political campaign can do?
      Personally, I honestly do not think that THIS specific event meant anything, no collusion or anything.. just shows the ignorance and stupidity of this guys that's all. If he was malicious, he would probably try to hide it better. But I'm astonished that people refuse to even recognize how it was at the very least stupid and try to come up with numerous irrelevant excuses..
      It's like loose-loose from both sides.. Liberals/ Democrats (whatever these stupid labels) exaggerating sooo much about everything (but I guess this is the opposition..) and the Trump camp thinking and trying to convince everyone that everything they do is right..Zero credibility from either!
      Has it always been like that in US politics btw?

  • 2 years ago