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

    @ben @benmouse42

    Hey guys, please note the winner for this debate will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @edie_weinhardt

    • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @benmouse42 Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @ben Excellent job fighting one of the best debaters here.. Hope to see more of your awesome debates!

      • a year ago

        I am a republican and I think free trade is cancer.

      • a year ago

        Out of all the "laundry list" of Trump accomplishments Pro presented, it seriously would be intellectually dishonest to say that none of them are due to Trump's influence.

        The thing that stunned me about this debate was, Con presents 0 D/A's to what Trump has done. There's absolutely no offense coming from the Con side. His only hope would be to delink every single one of Pro's laundry list.

        Forget resolutional interpretations/standards, let's just look at the net benefits (the comparative as the Aussie's call it). There's 0 Disadvantages Con has presented to what Trump has done, and Pro has presented a humongous list of accomplishments. Even if I agree with Con that not all of those are the result of Trump, it would be utterly ridiculous to say that not one of those things are due to his influence.

        So I have 0 problems vs. a ton of successes. I vote Pro. Net benefits ftw.

        • a year ago

          @debateme13 The offense was
          1) contesting that presidents in general do not automatically merit commendings
          2) contending that you shouldnt commend people whose accomplishments could be ill-gotten gains
          3) a number of turn arguments (i.e. is Trump folding on DACA an accomplishment? certainly not for his own base)

      • a year ago

        Great debate gentlemen! Well delivered on both sides, well argued on both sides and lots of clash all over the place.

        What is commendation and when should we do it?
        Those are the key questions here.

        Pro says we should commend any success or good action. He argues we should do this because it encourages good behavior. He says that likewise, we should castigate failure because it discourages bad behavior.

        Con counters with the idea that a Commendation is something more than just acknowledging a success, it is about being overall superior within a field. He gives examples of school and military service.

        (I ended up looking up what you need to do to get a commendation in the military. Basically, have a long career or a clean record. Sort of a Good solid soldier award.)

        Pro brings up how not praising successes leads to a polarized culture and we should give credit where it is due.

        Con brings up that this interpretation places an incredibly low burden for con.

        Note: This kind of argument was what I wanted to see in the other Trump debate today. This is a real fight over what interpretation is better. It considers outcomes of the approaches, fairness of the debate, the definitions of the keyword etc...

        Is Pro's interpretation unfair?
        Good question. In a way it is. It's really easy to support that Trump accomplished something. That seems unfair... but....

        Pro needs to establish that there is a reason we need to praise wins even if there are losses. Pro has to justify this interpretation as being good in some way, and he does do that on two points, efficacy, and a healthy culture.

        Con has counters to that as well, that it renders significant success meaningless. And that it could be reduced to mere pandering over principle.

        Ultimately I find Pro's arguments a little more attractive, even if I tend to have more sympathy with the Con position. I do think there is a real reason to take a carrot and stick approach. But....

        I'm not giving Pro an easy win. If Con can show me he is utterly undeserving on balance, then I won't just vote Pro on any single example. Pro has to show men Trump has some significant wins.

        Pro runs a long list of wins here. Con fights back mostly on grounds that Trump is not uniquely responsible for them. He gives some examples of cases where he tried for something and failed. Pro has responses to this, and Con has responses to the responses.

        I think Pro's list of wins is a bit more exhaustive than Con's rebuttals of them and Pro doesn't really come with much negative to show Trump is actively bad (he's got the wall comment and failure to get AHCA repeal).

        So Pro doesn't really manage to show Trump is a super great president, but he does do a good job highlighting a goodly number of accomplishments. And con just doesn't put in the work to show these as overshadowed by failures. (partly because he relies on framing to tell us that the res fails unless Trump is shown to be top of the class matterial).

        My decision is for Pro... narrowly. Mostly because he convinces me of some good reasons for his framing, which doesn't cement an easy win for me, but puts the sides on pretty even ground where Con doesn't quite measure up on the Wins vs Losses game.