CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
He’s morally unfit. He speaks off the cuff and it’s often something stupid. He tweets stupid shit constantly. He doesn’t understand the economics of international trade. He ran primarily on border security and bringing Hilary to Justice but he has done neither. The things that I think are going right I also think can hardly be credited to him.
The Dems had their Kennedy’s and Clinton’s and elevated them without a blink of a scruple. Republicans decided the moral high ground was a loosing strategy. The problem with Trump is that they may be right.
He's trying to protect the border. The Marxists are fighting him like it's WW3. He's been attacked for keeping families together and for seperating them, even sued.
and bringing Hilary to Justice
Have you noticed that each one of these people brought in by Mueller has connections to Hillary Clinton? Yeah, me too.
The things that I think are going right I also think can hardly be credited to him.
Well let's give credit to Obama and blame the financial crisis during Bush 2 on Bill Clinton. Obviously...
You have no argument for how to explain the DOW hitting 26000 without invoking Trump in that explanation.
The Dems had their Kennedy’s and Clinton’s and elevated them without a blink of a scruple. Republicans decided the moral high ground was a loosing strategy.
There is winning and losing. Morality is some imaginary semantical word that barely means anything in secularism. If we lose, the country is gone. Not much in between. The Marxists are foaming at the mouth and growing.
The problem with Trump is that they may be right.
So tell us all of the mortal dangers of a guy who takes no salary, cut taxes, which gives government less money to waste and us more to put back into the economy, tries to neuter lawless sanctuary cities, and puts judges on the courts who defend the Constitution rather than making their own rules by feelings. Then tell us who would have been better at opposing these militant, leftist goons and maniacs.
Name some immoral things he has done since becoming President and why these things actually matter.
In this thread, I’ve named what’s wrong with him and why I believe it matters.
So you'd prefer someone more like Clinton
No. I believe Clinton and Trump were the two worst candidates in US history with Clinton being the worst. It doesn’t follow that if I dislike one discussing thing that I must therefore like a different discussing thing. Hating Communism doesn’t imply I like Fascism.
You disagree that He doesn’t understand the economics of international trade
I don’t have time to watch your YouTube videos, but I do know what’s wrong with his international economic policy while he apparently does not.
Well let's give credit to Obama and blame the financial crisis during Bush 2 on Bill Clinton. Obviously...
No, the things that are going right are a product of the party he happened to win with, which I believe was opportunistic. If he could have won as a Dem, he would have. If the Dems win majority this year, see if you still like Trumps policies.
You have no argument for how to explain the DOW hitting 26000 without invoking Trump in that explanation
See directly above.
There is winning and losing. Morality is some imaginary semantical word
All words are semantical. If we forego right principles to win, we are no better off in the long run. It’s may be fine for short run. But staying that course is how nations fail.
So tell us all of the mortal dangers of a guy who takes no salary, cut taxes, which gives government less money to waste and us more to put back into the economy, tries to neuter lawless sanctuary cities, and puts judges on the courts who defend the Constitution rather than making their own rules by feelings. Then tell us who would have been better at opposing these militant, leftist goons and maniacs.
Trump lacks the character to continue being the person you think he is if Dems control the house and senate.
The Republicans did none of these things or manifested anything like what is happening now, pre Trump.
What, enforcing laws, rolling back regulations, and tax cuts? Much of what he’s doing is based on pretty standard conservative concepts.
He claimed to be a Republican and said he would only run as a Republican for 30+ years
Trump was a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009.
That's probably why you are saying things that don't match reality.
Of course I am. I’m referring to his international trade policy right now. He’s wrong. He consistently speaks incorrectly on the topic. I don’t need to see what he said in 1991 to know that his current policy is wrong. If he knew it, presumably it wouldn’t be his policy.
Show us one thing Trump has done that is fascist.
Nothing that I’m aware of, why? Do you dislike fascism? No? You must have a communist preference then, right? If not, then you must see how disliking Trump does not necessitate a preference for Hillary.
Sounds like a rather pragmatic mindset rather than ideologically driven.
That's probably why you are saying things that don't match reality.
Of course I am. I’m referring to his international trade policy right now. He’s wrong. He consistently speaks incorrectly on the topic. I don’t need to see what he said in 1991 to know that his current policy is wrong. If he knew it, presumably it wouldn’t be his policy.
Maybe he knows more about it than you do because he's actually delt with these situations and people and can adjust accordingly.
Bronto, you just said that he’s been Republican for 30+ years. Now when I point out that he was a Dem a decade ago, you claim my statements don’t match reality, but Trump is pragmatic. That’s a fucking joke. If he goes full blown Progressive for a different House and Senate, I’ll be looking for Brontosnowflake to cheer this pragmatic hero.
Bronto, you just said that he’s been Republican for 30+ years.
He was and is. He's over 70 years old.
Now when I point out that he was a Dem a decade ago
He was mad at Bush and disliked Bush on the war. In reality he's really neither in any pure ideological way. He's really more of an Independent, but you can't win as an Independent.
Your not reality statements had to do with foreign policy, not ideological alegiance.
but Trump is pragmatic.
He is.
That’s a fucking joke.
Trying to attach a statement on reality concerning foreign policy to a statement about party affiliation is a clever tactic, but won't work here.
If he goes full blown Progressive for a different House and Senate
Back to not living in reality. If this were reality, he would have never faced down the media and Hollywood, refused to take his salary, or basically scrapped receiving any glory from the ones who control the cultural megaphones.
I’ll be looking for Brontosnowflake to cheer this pragmatic hero.
If he suddenly goes Stalin, Hitler, Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, I'll condemn him and look for the leader to oppose him, but that's not reality, now is it? That's you going full banana sandwich.
Maybe he knows more about it than you do because he's actually delt with these situations
Based on his tariff war, he does not know more about the matter. His dealings would have given him the perspective of a particular actor with particular micro-economic incentives. Basing macro-economic trade policy on micro-economic experience leads to bad policy, as it apparently has here.
Nothing that I’m aware of, why? Do you dislike fascism? No? You must have a communist preference then, right? If not, then you must see how disliking Trump does not necessitate a preference for Hillary.
You said, and I quote, "hating Communism doesn't imply that I like Fascism" which implied Trump was doing something Fascist.
You said, and I quote, “hating Communism doesn't imply that I like Fascism" which implied Trump was doing something Fascist.
Disliking Communism doesn't imply that I like Fascism. It’s a true statement. I was hoping it would be clear enough in the context to illustrate the argument that I was making when I said this. Disliking Trump does not imply that I like Hillary. But you take every criticism of Trump as an endorsement for Hillary. It isn’t. When I say something critical of Trump, it is not a legit argument to say “well I guess you like Hillary then”. Got it?
When I say something critical of Trump, it is not a legit argument to say “well I guess you like Hillary then”. Got it?
Not really. My reference to Clinton was in regards to someone who reads off prompter, not her ideological viewpoint. You said he goes off the cuff as though that's a bad thing. You never know what a prompter reading leader really thinks or wants. I pretty much know what Trump thinks at every given moment. I like the stream of consciousness. When he streams sometimes he gets extreme criticism and rethinks his position. If it's a hard position, he seems immovable. Good. Just how I like it.
That's because you're an irritating Zionist dickhead here to push the false dichotomy of left v right wing capitalism as if that is everything which exists in the known universe.
My reference to Clinton was in regards to someone who reads off prompter, not her ideological viewpoint.
Every single time anybody criticises Donald Trump you respond by attacking Hillary Clinton. It's retarded. You are retarded.
You said he goes off the cuff as though that's a bad thing.
It is a very bad thing if you're a fat overprivileged one percenter who has literally made a career out of ripping people off.
I pretty much know what Trump thinks at every given moment
Disliking Trump does not imply that I like Hillary
What would make you more comfortable? Bush? Wandering back into a housing crisis and a war over absolutely nothing? Would you like a RINO? Someone who is afraid of media criticism? I'd bring back Reagan for you, but he's gone.
You understand that the same statement you’re responding to applies here right?
There’s a number of people I would have voted for other than Trump. I was very happy to see Hillary lose. I was not happy that it was Trump who won. None of this implies any preferences other than those stated. You cannot infer a particular alternative from my statement.
The Republicans did none of these things or manifested anything like what is happening now, pre Trump.
What, enforcing laws, rolling back regulations, and tax cuts? Much of what he’s doing is based on pretty standard conservative concepts.
Nope. Taking on the media on head to head, getting Kim to the table, a DOW that hit 26000 and has consistently stayed above 24000, called out the Bushes in debates, verbally attacked the previous President, took on political correctness, called CNN fake news... Not really Bush-esque would you say?
If Kim blew up his nuke mountain under a Dem, they could easily have been the first to the table. That’s not a left/right issue.
The economy often does better with free market principles, which Conservatives support. But no Republican has ever had the fortune of following the slowest recovery in US history.
He is the only one who verbally smacks the biased media, that’s true.
Donald Trump’s fascist ideas have an audience.Ever since he signed on to the idea of a federal database and visual identification for Muslims in America, some of Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans have deemed him a fascist.
No, the things that are going right are a product of the party he happened to win with
The Republicans did none of these things or manifested anything like what is happening now, pre Trump.
which I believe was opportunistic. If he could have won as a Dem, he would have. If the Dems win majority this year, see if you still like Trumps policies.
He claimed to be a Republican and said he would only run as a Republican for 30+ years. That is demonstrated in those videos you refuse to watch.
Trump has never been able to conduct himself in a manner that is particularly defensible, which makes him unfit for many leadership positions (especially the highest), on moral grounds. He isn't the first president to have low moral character, but Tu QuoQue is not an argument.
The "Me Too" movement started as a backlash against Trumps character and has affected numerous other morally unfit people, who are over-represented in Hollywood and the Media, where his circles used to be.
Looks like you say a community organizer is more fit to lead
You will not find a single account of me defending Obama's Presidency. You might as well claim that my opposition to Trump's character proves that my favorite Sesame Street character is Big Bird. The two are completely unrelated.
1)Define "moral grounds"
When I say that his conduct is not particularly defensible, that is to say it is not moral. Morality is the reason he is unfit. On what grounds is Trump unfit? On moral grounds. Got it?
He constantly insults people. He constantly cheats on and divorces wives. He is a whore monger (stormy). He is a faux-capitalist who abuses eminent domain. In a debate he literally admitted to being the flip side of the crony coin to illustrate that Washington is corrupt.
These are moral failings, which are the grounds upon which I find him lacking.
2)You don't believe in any objective morality.
There's probably a books worth of debate on this site featuring me defending objective morality.
When I say that his conduct is not particularly defensible, that is to say it is not moral. Morality is the reason he is unfit. On what grounds is Trump unfit? On moral grounds. Got it?
He constantly insults people. He constantly cheats on and divorces wives. He is a whore monger (stormy). He most likely is a sexual harasser. He is a faux-capitalist who abuses eminent domain to throw old ladies out of their homes. In a debate he literally admitted to being the flip side of the crony coin to illustrate that Washington is corrupt.
Tu quoque is Latin for "you also". It is the fallacy you invoke most in your response.
Conservatives get sttaCVked verbally like Jews in Germany
Yeah. That’s wrong. The people who do it are unprofessional and lacking the qualities of good leadership. This fact doesn’t change just because the target changes.
Infidelity Has nothing to do with being a good President
I agree with Conservatives of no so long ago, that a person who cannot be trusted to keep their oath to one person whom they profess to love cannot be trusted to keep their Presidential oath to strangers
and was in the past.
Everything that everyone has ever done wrong is necessarily in the past. The temporal nature of causality does not absolve misconduc.
So were Clinton and JFK.
If he was a cult leader, pointing out that Manson was too wouldn’t be a defense. One person being shorty doesn’t make another shitty person less so.
Conjecture.
Conjecture doesn’t make it incorrect or even unlikely. Based on his words and other credible though unsubstantiated accounts, he is likely as shitty in this regard as I have said. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean actually innocent of the crime.
In response to the fact that Trump is a faux-capitalist, you pointed to a bunch of irrelevant shot about the Clintonsthat does nothing to absolve Trump of this short coming. Obama beat out Hillary in 2008, did that make Obama a good president? No. The fact that Hillary was the worst candidate in US history doesn’t change the fact that Trump was the second worst. Nor does the anti-capitalist positions of the left make anti-capitalist behavior on the right better.
Washington is corrupt and made the rules he was playing by.
Yes, while claiming he is different. Meanwhile, we could be trying to elect statesmen who actually are different rather than apologizing for Trumps bullshit. When Dems have the majority and all of Trumps policy begins to follow suit, will you still apologize? Are you for Trump or for principles?
Infidelity Has nothing to do with being a good President
I agree with Conservatives of no so long ago, that a person who cannot be trusted to keep their oath to one person whom they profess to love cannot be trusted to keep their Presidential oath to strangers
Hardly true. A brilliant and wonderful human being of a man can turn stupid in 5 seconds over a woman. A hard on and a massive sex drive doesn't affect your politics. It affects your sex life.
Hardly true. A brilliant and wonderful human being of a man can turn stupid in 5 seconds over a woman. A hard on and a massive sex drive doesn't affect your politics. It affects your sex life.
That kind of impulsive fuck up is more than a moral hazard, he’s a practical hazard. He can’t even contain his emotional drives enough to keep his own life in order. If he didn’t give a shit about his wife he would only be a moral hazard
Conjecture doesn’t make it incorrect or even unlikely. Based on his words and other credible though unsubstantiated accounts, he is likely as shitty in this regard as I have said. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean actually innocent of the crime.
I could use this mindset against any candidate you would like Trump replaced with who could have had any realistic chance of winning.
Secondly, having hidden deviant sexual behavior doesn't make a candidate better. It makes them uncaught. Not that this makes them any better as President even if they were pure as the driven snow.
The fact that Hillary was the worst candidate in US history doesn’t change the fact that Trump was the second worst.
The pro slavery, "n" word using, kkk funded and supporting, Trail of Tears enforcing, Japanese internment camp creating Presidents of America past aren't on your list? Neat.
No bronto, your ceaseless wave of far right Jewish supremacist propaganda is the problem, and the multitude of different accounts you use to proliferate it.
To win the debate, one simply has to prove that either "Trump is the problem." While the debate has not been thoroughly defined, the clear intention is to determine if the current president or the Democrats are more to blame for the current issues within the United States. Because of the vagueness of the topic, no declaration could adequately be made. If the question is implying that wither Trump or the Democrats are the sole problem within American society, then the entire discussion is a non-starter. Failures could be attributed to both sides. For instance, one could easily make the argument that certain components of liberal policies, such as Obamacare, are burdensome and/or exacerbates the issue it is trying to fix. Liberal politicians, in some respects, could be criticized for allowing political correctness to become widespread. All the while, one could argue that our soft power has decreased due to problematic rhetoric from the executive branch. One could also argue that Trump's use of executive order, much like his predecessors, is problematic in its implementation. Regardless, the political establishment, Trump, and the US populous that elected incompetent people into public office can share the blame. Ergo, since there is no one cause of "the problem," the negation has to be favored because it fulfills the burden within this debate. Since there in no solitary cause of "the problem" within the US, and the affirmation's stance guarantees that one party is attributed to "the problem," (that being the democrats,) the logical answer has to be no.
