A GOP Presidential debate will be held on November 8, 2023. This market resolves to the winner of the debate, according to CNN.com.
The most prominently featured article about the debate, linked from the homepage and posted the day after its conclusion, will be used as reference. "Live updates" about the debate are excluded. If the article covers "5 winners and 5 losers" or something similar, then the winner must be listed first (or last, if the order is counting down) in the list of winners. As long as (s)he is referred to as the sole or the most prominent winner, the reason is irrelevant, even if all (s)he did was meet expectations and even if (s)he didn't attend. A headline that outright states that a candidate won the debate will be considered to be more prominent than any mention of a candidate in the body text of an article.
The winner will be selected solely from the list of candidates in the market; a most prominent mention about some other candidate will be ignored and the next more prominent mention considered in that case.
If CNN does not post any articles about the debate on November 9, 2023, if the debate is so uncivilized that no article provides an opinion as to who won or lost, or if the debate is cancelled, then all options resolve to N/A.
NOTE: By these criteria, Nikki Haley was the winner of the August 23, 2023 debate and Donald Trump was the winner of the September 27, 2023 debate.
RESOLUTION: This is by far the most difficult of all the debates to resolve.
It is clear that Scott, Ramaswamy, Pence, and Trump did not win the debate, because they were referred to negatively or not at all.
Haley was mentioned positively in one article, but she was not mentioned first in that article, nor was she the only one praised in that article.
Chris Christie was rated as the top performer of the debate in an article "grading the candidates." However, the word "winner" was not used to refer to Christie in that article. Instead, the only use of the word "win" was "won me over," which does not state that Christie was the winner. Christie's name was not mentioned in the headline of the article.
The only article that refers to anyone as a "winner" is located at https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/gop-debate-iowa-voters-desantis-haley/index.html. Here, multiple Iowa voters state that DeSantis won the debate. The headline of the article includes DeSantis's name, and this article does not include praise for other candidates.
The only logical resolution for this market, therefore, is DeSantis, because of the following text in the description:
"As long as (s)he is referred to as the sole or the most prominent winner, the reason is irrelevant, even if all (s)he did was meet expectations and even if (s)he didn't attend."
The Christie article did not refer to Christie as the winner, and because being referred to as the winner was a requirement in the market text, the only possible resolution is DeSantis. The prominence of the article does not come into consideration because prominence can only be considered for articles that actually declare a winner.
Although this decision is likely to result in one-star reviews and upset some, I don't believe that a market open for months should ever resolve N/A unless it is completely impossible to resolve, and that is not the case here; it would be unfair to revert a large number of trades from people who fairly bet during that time.
PROP BETS ON THIS DEBATE:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,410 | |
| 2 | Ṁ354 | |
| 3 | Ṁ332 | |
| 4 | Ṁ119 | |
| 5 | Ṁ115 |
RESOLUTION: This is by far the most difficult of all the debates to resolve.
It is clear that Scott, Ramaswamy, Pence, and Trump did not win the debate, because they were referred to negatively or not at all.
Haley was mentioned positively in one article, but she was not mentioned first in that article, nor was she the only one praised in that article.
Chris Christie was rated as the top performer of the debate in an article "grading the candidates." However, the word "winner" was not used to refer to Christie in that article. Instead, the only use of the word "win" was "won me over," which does not state that Christie was the winner. Christie's name was not mentioned in the headline of the article.
The only article that refers to anyone as a "winner" is located at https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/gop-debate-iowa-voters-desantis-haley/index.html. Here, multiple Iowa voters state that DeSantis won the debate. The headline of the article includes DeSantis's name, and this article does not include praise for other candidates.
The only logical resolution for this market, therefore, is DeSantis, because of the following text in the description:
"As long as (s)he is referred to as the sole or the most prominent winner, the reason is irrelevant, even if all (s)he did was meet expectations and even if (s)he didn't attend."
The Christie article did not refer to Christie as the winner, and because being referred to as the winner was a requirement in the market text, the only possible resolution is DeSantis. The prominence of the article does not come into consideration because prominence can only be considered for articles that actually declare a winner.
Although this decision is likely to result in one-star reviews and upset some, I don't believe that a market open for months should ever resolve N/A unless it is completely impossible to resolve, and that is not the case here; it would be unfair to revert a large number of trades from people who fairly bet during that time.
@SteveSokolowski I think there was a good case to be made for either Christie or Halley but your careful explanation sounds perfectly reasonable. I actually think it’s a model of an honorable resolution. And as far as I can tell, you didn’t profit from it.
@SteveSokolowski It seems it should be N/A because the previous debates had a clearly listed winner and this one didn’t.
The way I see it, the only reasonable resolution here is Chris Christie. It's not that that article was especially prominent, and an opinion article is also problematic, but the other article simply doesn't qualify as declaring a winner, and I don't even think it's close. The only good thing said about DeSantis there is that he didn't perform as poorly as in the last debates. That's from from "winning". Other candidates, most notably Haley, also received faint praise in that article. Overall, that article surveyed different analysts and there was no clear picture of a winner coming from it. There is only only one article which talks about anything like winners, and it says Chris Christie had the best performance.
@Shump I think it's N/A even though my money is on the most popular Yes. One opinion piece grading debate skills would be enough if it were more prominent but it's really not, by the standards laid out in the description (which were also why my point about the viewer vote was discounted).
@Panfilo I have no issues with a possible N/A but I have a hard time seeing an argument for other resolutions.
Well, maybe Christie isn't done for yet. Now things are even more difficult. This might be the "miracle" from below.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/opinions/debate-coach-grades-republicans-graham/index.html
@SteveSokolowski I don't think this is "the most prominent article". The other articles were above it on the front page when the debate had the top spot, and now it's in the secondary stack while the "Six Takeaways" article is still in the top stack.
@Panfilo That does seem to make sense. When tomorrow comes, I'll read all the articles again and try to make sense of this.
This is going to be the most difficult of all these debates to resolve. There's that poll article that says Haley got the most votes, and then there's the article where the first person discussed positively is DeSantis. There aren't any headlines (yet) stating that anyone clearly won.
One could also see another headline like last time being posted later today stating that nobody clearly won so Trump was the winner.
Keep making arguments below. So far, I think the only part that's pretty clear is that it would take a miracle for Scott, Christie, or Pence to resolve as anything other than NO.
@SteveSokolowski The poll is part of the "live updates" page, which the description says is excluded.
@SteveSokolowski This article is not a ranked winners and losers list, but it leads with a pro-Desantis and a pro-Haley section. The rest is more mixed. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/opinions/debate-analysis-republican-candidates/index.html
@Panfilo Someone pointed out above that this poll is not valid because it is part of the "live updates." Readers should ignore that post; perhaps you can edit it to avoid confusion.
Worst comes to worst, it could be appropriate to do a multiple percentage resolution - the "Winners and Losers" article definitely states some winners (and losers), but no consensus from the opinionists on who was who. I see Desantis, Haley, Haley and Christie(?), Not Ramaswamy, Maybe Haley, No one, Maybe Desantis, Trump, No one, No one(?), and Israel(?).
@SteveSokolowski Sure, I deleted. I figured since the poll was post-debate, that was the spirit of the question.