These options resolve YES if Donald Trump says the exact sequence of words during his first debate with Kamala Harris.
If Donald Trump & Kamala Harris do not debate before the election, all options resolve N/A.
This will follow the same rules as the original Trump-isms Debate Megamarket—see the original market for more detailed resolution examples.
You can add your own responses, but note (1) I intend to be strict with resolution (following the rules below), & (2) I reserve the right to edit all entries to better match the spirit of the market.
Resolution might take a few days because I'd like to consult the transcript.
This will likely close before the first debate to return liquidity to submitters (but no promises).
Resolution examples:
Needs to be exact same words (in order): "laughing at all of us" does not count for "laughing at us".
Needs to match tense & pluralization: "winner", "won", or "winnings" do not count for "winning", and "Project 2025's ideas" doesn't count for "Project 2025".
However, any punctuation is fine ("Billions! And billions..." counts for "billions and billions"), and contractions count as the expanded words ("what's" is equivalent to "what is").
An abbreviation is its own word: "MAGA" does not match "Make America Great Again", "LGBT" does not match "LGBTQ".
Different ways of transcribing the same word count: "January 6th" matches "January sixth".
To add flexibility to an answer, use parentheses or an "or". So " 'Free lunch(es)' or 'school lunch(es)' " matches "free lunches", "school lunch", & etc.
Context
1,000
3.00Resolved all options. Please let me know if you think I made any mistakes. It's always possible I missed something.
TRIVIA
Biggest YES whiff: "Project 2025", at just 26%.
Biggest NO whiff: "Illegal immigration" at 78% (he did say "illegal immigrants").
Most amusing miss: he said "Billions and billions, hundreds of billions" rather than "billions and billions and billions". Very close!
@jim https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542&cid=social_twitter_abcn
This one seems pretty accurate in all the spots I checked
@Ziddletwix oh yeah looks good i got tripped up by the bit where it said it was a partial transcript
@jim yeah if it looks like it's missing anything LMK, but I think the page was updated after a bit to be more full (there was an exchange missing earlier that was then added), and elsewhere it's described as the full transcript (e.g. this links to it as a full transcript). so afaik it's got everything but hard to be certain
As we wait for the debate, Kamala just agreed to her first interview—here's an ultra short-fuse market (just 48 hours away) for anyone who wants to place some quick bets:
i normally space them out a bit—let interest in one subside before i add another, so focus doesn't get split too much.
(tho there's already a kamala words/phrases one made by someone else. i'll still ~most likely make my own because there isn't much issue with overlap these days, different rules, etc)
and "Project 2025's ideas" doesn't count for "Project 2025".
It hasn't come up yet, but added this example. Possessives are tricky—intuitively they of course feel like the same word. But the goal of these rules is to be super strict. So if I don't count plurals as the same word, I don't think I should count the possessive version (that seems like a closer comparison than allowing different punctuation, although I don't know much about grammar).
Mostly, I think it makes sense to be strict because submitters can always allow possessives in the submission. "Project 2025('s)" will match both. So I think "start strict, allow flexibility" is better than starting with flexibility, given my current rules set. But if people feel strongly otherwise I can reconsider.
@DiscoDan note that under the current rules, "DOJ" refers to the abbreviation, and "corrupt department of justice" would not count. I assume that's intended, but LMK if not.
Check out other debate markets:
/jacksonpolack/first-trumpharris-debate-prop-bets