• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    @debateme13 @ldrbyks

    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: @edie_weinhardt

  • a year ago
  • a year ago

    @sharkb8 Congrats for advancing to the next round and on the new username :-)

    @ldrbyks Awesome debate, thank you so much for participating!

    • a year ago

      Comments -
      PRO defines what constitutes a 'win' - and I disagree ....any President should be commended based on their overall 'track record' - wins and loses - good and bad. Having 2 or more accomplishments would be inadequate if there were 3 or more serious 'screw ups'.

      That said - PRO makes a good showing of many major accoomplishments by Trump.

      CON defines a 'win' would be requiring a President to meet his campaign promises -again - I disagree.

      Makes an interesting separate debate - each side arguing what conditions are necessary for either side to win. No agreement...so what is it.

      CON shows various areas that Trump has not done well.
      Con - finally makes a better definition of 'accomplishments' - but PRO doesn't agree. (I like CON's defining a win based on an overall record - more good than bad as necessary to be commended.)

      PRO keeps beating on the literal wording of the debate - rather than considering the 'overall' (good vs. bad).

      [Pro keeps re-iterating that he would NOT vote for Trump tomorrow if he had a chance....but then again - would he vote against Trump if the alternate was a hard-core socialist who had plenty of corruption and possible criminal activity in her past? Would he vote for a re-incarnation of Stalin over Trump? If not -then he should not make such grandiose sweeping statements.]

      CON doesn't understand that the QE was big in Obama era and has been diminishing over the past 2 years. HERE - Trump de-regulating and eliminating many of the oppressive Obama regulations and Executive Orders is a cause for the expanding business and growing stock market.

      around 16 minutes into the debate - more debate on the terms of the resolution...this is getting tedious. (Maybe the opposite of the resolution is "Trump should not be commended because his negative actions far outweigh his positive accomplishments" - rather than what PRO insists. Con's argument would be closer to my suggested wording.)

      Around 21 minutes- Pro does a fair job of handling the Hitler analogy for debate resolution terms...but I think he over-reached when he brought in North Korea and Kim Jong Un...that sucked!

      (I disagree with several of the "bad things" that CON listed as down-checks on Trump's record - I think he got them wrong and they would not be the responsibility of Trump and should not be used to diminish his many positive accomplishments. I think PRO should have been prepared to refute some of those 'detractions' that CON stated.)

      Both PRO and CON discussed accomplishments or non-accomplishments of Trump that would be on CONGRESS.....Congress writes bills. Trump can only sign or veto. SO - the tax bill - Trump can push for things, but ultimately - the SWAMP is responsible for the real problems that CON pointed out...not Trump. CON is upset over Atty Gen'l Sessions deciding to enforce a law related to marijuana - but the Executive Branch is technically not supposed to cherry pick which laws they enforce.....it is COngress's job to get rid of those laws.

      How to vote....tough choice.... I was leaning PRO 30% of the time, DRAW 30% of the time - and CON 40% of the time. CON wins...even though I agree with the resolution. (I do disagree with PRO's definition of how to determine how to 'judge the resolution' - I will go with CON's definition as finally established.)

    • a year ago
    • a year ago


      I mulled over this during the debate - then after the debate and I posted my original comments - I tried to resolve in my mind how the debate terms should be resolved.

      In a debate - the terms of the debate have to be agreed upon...and it would almost be nice to have 'fine print' as a part of the debate terms as to what constitutes the resolution terms.

      If we interpret this resolution to PRO's 'definition' - then it means that almost any person debating the PRO side has an almost automatic win; it is too difficult for any person debating the CON side to ever win. If the debate resolution is approached by CON's interpretation - then it becomes necessary to weigh the first year record - and it requires more effort by each side to show how the good is better than the bad (or CON to show the bad outweighs the good.)

      I think I might have voted PRO if PRO had accepted CON's definition of resolution and then showed how the good outweighed the bad.

      • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @mvineyard I think I did that though, although it was later on in the debate. In the last 6 minutes I did contrast the benefits of Trump with the flaws that Con presented, and I do think the accomplishments do outweigh, even if we accept his interpretation.

        And also, this is what the resolution means. Had the resolution been "Trump has been a net negative to America during his first year in office" I would probably have avoided the topic, or gone con. I only chose Pro because that's what the resolution means.

      • a year ago

        @chandlebrowning My opponent himself made the point during the debate that Hitler did good things before, and then he did bad things. This proved my point about judging people's accomplishments over a time period, and not cherry picking. I stated that commendable actions would be by objective analysis. And the "time period" parameter for this debate was Trump's first year in office.

      • a year ago

        @debateme13 I understand where you are coming from....but consider evaluating a resolution from both very 'legalistic' - which you did - and you debated that way more than adequately. BUT - consider it from other perspectives - find the most reasonable - and then be prepared to defend it from that perspective also. You didn't do that well from that perspective. (AND - consider that if you had to be debating this proposition from the CON perspective - you would hardly agree with your own approach from PRO - it is a sure guaranteed loss given the interpretation you were calling for.) Had you done, in addition to the 'legalistic' approach - also defended a 'overall - more good than bad - and successfully refuted CON's 'bad calls'....it would be a slam dunk. As is...I was looking at 30/30/40....

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard yeah I see what you’re saying. It’s a valid perspective. I realized I should respond to his approach later on, and honestly I feel like my points did outweigh his even if we accept his interpretation. But I can see why one would disagree if they accept his interp. I don’t think that’s actually what the resolution is saying, but if you agree with him on his interp, I can see why you’d prefer his side. It’s a fair vote on your part. Thanks for watching :)

    • a year ago

      @debateme13 you start by defining 'commended' and 'accomplishments' and leave out the entire part about 'in his first year' and 'as president'
      *Selective* resolution analysis
      Waiting to hear if your opponent captures that (just tuned in)

      • a year ago

        @truthbetold that has nothing to do with it. This resolution would grammatically be broken down like this:
        Subject: Trump
        Verb: deserves commendation
        For what: Accomplishments (plural meaning more than one)
        When: “within the last year”

        It’s not selective resolution analysis. It’s literally what the resolution means.

    • a year ago

      @ldrbyks fully agreed with your totality argument, but you had sooooo many missed opportunities to compare Trump's accomplishments in his 1st year as President to other past Presidents. That would be the most acceptable benchmark or bar to compare against IMO

      • a year ago

        Wow. Just finished watching this. How anyone could vote CON is beyond me.

        The analogy to Hitler is juvenile at best. Comparing someone who has done objective bad plus enough bad to someone who has not, isn't really sound logic. Based on CONs interpretation never should any president ever be commended by the opposite party?? Give me a damn break.

        Now. Even going on the retarded assumption that no president should ever be commended unless they have done more subjective good on a scale than bad (again, retarded assertion), CON has made no such coherent case. What CON does is try to set up the argument where it's a win/win. If Trump fulfilled his campaign promises on something which is subjectively bad then it's bad, and if he didn't do so....then it's also bad...because he didn't fulfil his campaign promise???!! Not how logic works my friend. Either you are basing your arguments off whether you agree with what he's done, or just by whether he has fulfilled promises. You can't dance from one issue to the next. Plus are you saying that every president who has not fulfilled promises should jot be commended for the good?!?! There is so much to debunk on the actual misrepresentation on each individual case that you were wrong on, but I can't even get through your baseline argument. How can anyone vote CON?!?!

        • a year ago

          Pro came up with the perfect argument that legalizing cats was a perfect accomplishment

        • a year ago

          I didn't take this topic because it is so "squishy" in terms of what it really means to commend someone or why you should or should not do so. Perspective is everything and it is hard to make any common appeal.

          I commend both debaters for great decorum and a deep level of engagement in their arguments. This was a good debate overall as a result.

          I commend both for their clarity. All the arguments here were easy to understand and follow.

          Con could use a little more case organization. His rapid-fire examples came across a little too fast to make note of in the opening and that can mean they just get lost. In the end they mostly stood as examples so no great loss, but any individual example didn't come with much weight.

          Interpretation Issues
          Both debaters present a clear interpretation. Neither really gave us a reason to prefer one or the other, both simply pointed at the wording and claimed it supported their interpretation. And they are both correct. It could be read either way.... so you two should probably tell me why one is better than the other. It comes down to me to make my own decision for my own reasons.

          Ultimately I think Con's interpretation is more meaningful and substantive, though much harder to judge with any clear line. Pro's take on it pretty much becomes something of a non-debate if you accept the interpretation. If we accept it and trump managed to pass wind in the oval office then he's accomplished something and we should commend him for it.

          I looked up the root of command and it comes from the idea of you recommending someone. I commend you to him and the like. It has something of a "net" connotation to it and that tends to be how I think of the word. Praise or compliment would be a bit more of a specific citation.

          The Hitler argument brings this to mind. Do we really Commend Hitler, as in do we recommend him? No. It's a lot more like we "acknowledge" his successes and accomplishments than we commend them. Or we recognize his strengths even if we do not commend what he did.

          Con offers a standard that we should use a comparison of promises made to those kept. Pro doesn't address this directly, just tries to subsume it due to his framing. (a good tactic but didn't quite persuade me to accept the framing) So I'm definitely looking at this and seeing a lot of failed aspirations.

          Con agrees that Trump has had some successes and that we should at least consider those. Con doesn't do a great job weighing wins and losses here, but he makes some effort to attack Pro's examples. Pro doesn't spend much time on Con's examples, again, because framing.

          I think Pro puts a bit too much on his frame, which while well established, didn't win me over vs Con's framing which I found more compelling and got the better of the Hitler argument. As a result, Con gets to flow a bunch of critiques of Trump vs Pro's Trump wins which Con did some work to attack, though he acknowledged at least one of them (the courts).

          So that has me voting Con. Pro put in the better performance in organization and speaking, but he put a lot of faith in that framing without giving me a clear reason to prefer it and while Con admitted some of Pro's points, Pro pretty much let all of Cons points against go uncontested.

          If pro had sold me on his framing, He'd clearly win hands down. An all or nothing pivot there.

          • a year ago

            @sigfried I think the idea of commend you have here is a little off. When we commend people such as commending Hitler like the Con brought up, it is true that no it implies a net look on the subject. The problem here is that the resolution does not say that we should commend Trump, it says that we should commend his accomplishments. I really think Daniel's interpretation (while harsh) was fair game under this resolution.

          • a year ago

            @chandlebrowning @sigfried

            What Chandler said. I wouldn’t have taken the topic otherwise.

          • a year ago

            @chandlebrowning It says "Trump should be commended for his accomplishments" Trump is the subject of the word "commend", aka we are commending Trump. Accomplishments are the proposed motivation for the Commendation rather than the object of the commendation.

            It's fair, but he didn't do anything to sell me on it other than the semantics and the semantics work both ways. And without a compelling reason, I was left to figure it out for myself. In the other debate on this, I went the other way because there was a consequential reason offered right off the bat for why we should read it this way (it encourages good behavior).

            But I'm not saying you can't read it that way, only that I found the language of it entirely ambiguous.