@iantreyparish @jacbenjGreat debate guys! Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far @debateme13 @josh808
@debateme13 incredibly fair and good voting, as always! Thanks for your input, Daniel. :) Also yeah, I thought it was hilarious that I'm the LU kid against Trump. Surprisingly, there are those of us there that seriously dislike him ;)
@the_chosen_one "cuck: someone who is smarter than and better looking than you"Accurate. I am a cuck.
@sharkb8 fight me sharkboy
@the_chosen_one I only fight people my own size. Sorry child.
@sharkb8 I'm 6'2....
@the_chosen_one No sweetie, this is a battle of wits. I will not engage in battle with one who is not capable of putting up a fight.
@sharkb8 lul, you are the one who won't debate me :P
@the_chosen_one @sharkb8 :wrestlers:
@iantreyparish @jacbenj Feel free to shoot me questions about my judgment. It was a great round.
@josh808 I'll listen to this shortly!
@jacbenj Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect details on you next debate tonight@iantreyparish Hard luck! We opened registrations for the $5,000 Championship starting in January: http://bit.ly/2hDadW8In the meantime, you can have some fun with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges
Pro really mucks stuff up at the beginning by declaring certain Rep. politicians as conservative or moderate based on their support (or lack of support) for Trump. [Flake is not a conservative based on his overall record...and his low ratings by conservative organizations.]PRO also messes things up by suggesting that voting for Trump vs. voting for Hillary are different things....when in reality - voters are looking at 2 choices. Here - we consider which candidate would have been more supportive or more abusive to the Constitution. Any person supporting the Constitution would be deathly afraid of a 3rd term of Obama (by having Hillary elected...) - Obama has trashed the Constitution far more than any President in recent memory. Hillary already has a great record of criminality in a number of different areas.
@jacbenj great debate man!Here's my evidence: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-constitution-guide-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/05/trumps-forbidden-love-singe-payer-health-care/?utm_term=.4493578d4f43 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/what-does-moderate-mean-in-the-trump-era/522642/Business Insider: Paid Maternity Leave.
@iantreyparish thanks, had a good time :) this is the gorsuch article i spoke about https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&source=web&url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-neil-gorsuch-likely-to-be-this-term/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjb4dfI0cTXAhUBipQKHSatAoAQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1-iqBECEq3zNJMORb3m97k&cf=1
@jacbenj oh dang that was fivethirtyeight XDNate Silver is literally one of the *best* pieces of evidence someone can use when it comes to politics debates. :P
(Not judging this round).Pro's evidence (concrete examples), overriding philosophy of anti-pragmatism, and arguments for framing won me over. Con was mainly on the defensive, and could have been much more persuasive about his own burden of proof if he'd come with solid evidence prepared.
@eli_mcgowan PRO should have had to prove that Hillary would be faithful to the Constitution more so than Trump. That would be an impossibility.
@mvineyard Like I said, I was persuaded by Pro's argumentation on framing - the resolution only talks about Trump, and is clearly talking about how conservatives should treat him in a vacuum. QallOut actually took this resolution from a Facebook status I wrote, so I happen to know the resolutional intent quite well. XD
@mvineyard Um ya'll there's more than than two candidates.
Maybe it's my LD background talking here, but I think that philosophy really matters in this debate. Pro goes for deontology, and Con goes for consequentialism (no pun intended). And in such a clash, I think that pro was wise for stressing the importance of principle in the conservative identity. Every party is defined by its distinctive beliefs, and the point of voting is to get representation for those beliefs. Con says that a compromise of identity via poor representation is justified by the achievement of select policy objectives. But don't those policy objectives necessarily stem from a distinct political identity in the first place? And by what metric does he determine that those particular objectives he lists justify a vote for Trump? I feel like these issues were not properly addressed. I vote Pro.
@scottishmaniac two points...yes - there were more than 2 candidates...but ultimately the choice was either Hillary or Trump. 3rd party candidate choice of getting elected - less than the proverbial chance of a snowball surviving hell. Given it was a choice of whether a conservative (or Constitutionalist) - which, BTW, I am one....I had a choice of voting either Trump or Hillary if I wanted to have ANY influence in who actually might end up in the White House. Yes - I could have 'stood on principle' and voted for a 3rd party...and thrown my vote away. Yes - I could have done the 3rd party vote and felt 'better' - because I live in WA state - a Blue State that the majority actually detest the Constitution and would vote for the criminal Hillary. BUT - I wanted everyone to know that I would rather have an orange haired reality show buffoon as President than an evil woman who violated the Constitution, who (through the Clinton Foundation handling of Haitian Earthquake Relief funds) - stole billions of dollars from the poor Haitians ...and who violated National Security (her illegal e-mail server) and who 'sold access to her office as Sec'y of State (see the book "Clinton Cash".) I would maintain anyone voting for Hillary knowing the above is also a person who doesn't believe in the Constitution and would be happy to see the Constitution thrown in the trashcan.Philosophy is nice to talk about in esoteric things...but if we are talking about who ends up as President....a great deal of pragmatism is more important than a philosophical discussion. The topic was that no Constitutionalist should vote for Trump....and the topic fails immediately when it can be quickly shown that the alternate candidate would be far worse to the idea of adherence to the Constitution....something that Pro never tried to prove otherwise.
@mvineyard The only two points I'll make:1) The resolution says "for," not against. I think my opponent didn't address that well enough, but that's for the judges to decide, not me. 2) Did my opponent bring up any of those claims or weighing mechanisms? Despite opinions, that is a resoundingly emphatic no. However, he brought up other excellent points. We should analyze the debate accordingly.As always, thanks for your comments, I do appreciate them. :)
@mvineyard Only because of people who think and act like you. And I hate to break it to you... but pragmatism is a philosophy. And it's a bad one because of its dependence on what has yet to pass. It's an inherent gamble.
great debate! i agree w @iantreyparish- lots of intelligent and useful arguments are being made here, but often they aren't exactly tied to anything either of us said in the debate :)