Every option will NOT N/A from there not being a VP debate. Instead, no VP debate before election day would make all options describing something to happen resolve NO and the options describing things to not happen during the debate resolve YES.
Feel free to add answers, just know I may change it to keep the format and rules all consistent or make more sense. DO NOT add options that resolve after the debate ends such as: polls a week after debate, odds of presidential race after debate, etc. However, you can make options about anything that resolves before, during, and at the moment the debate ends.
Each answer will independently resolve to YES only if exactly what is described in the answer happens during the first official Vice Presidential Debate of 2024. Otherwise, the answer will resolve NO.
For all words/phrases: the person or people described in the answer must say the exact words or phrases between the quotes of that respective answer. They must say the total word(s) or phrase(s) with the same exact order and spelling (verb tense and pluralization) of the answer to resolve it to YES. Otherwise, that answer describing someone to say something will resolve NO.
For all subjective options: only I can add subjectively resolved options. I will not bet on these, and base my determinations off official debate polls combined with honest opinions and feelings I hold after the debate. as of now i think walz is gonna cook vance and ill update how i feel in the comments as we get closer to debate.
"Anyone" includes moderators but not the audience (unless specified)
To make the determinations above I will use a transcript of the aired debate in tandem with watching a couple times. Ill resolve within two days of the debate happening.
THIS WILL STAY LIVE THROUGH THE DEBATE AIRING. As the debate happens I will comment potential resolutions I believe to be true and ask if there are any objections. Then I will resolve based on the common truth presented in the transcript, video, and comments.
inspired by jacksonpolack
ask any questions or news you have below!
latest: Tim Walz Says He ‘Can’t Wait’ to Debate JD Vance: ‘That’s if He’s Willing to Get Off the Couch’
VP debate hosted by CBS News set for Oct. 1 between Vance and Walz
1,000
1.00uh why were quotes added here? i didn't intend for this market to be any specific way of phrasing it, just any new policy. and i feel like the most likely way it'd happen would be a "yes" to a question akin to "would you(r administration) support <new policy>," not them saying the words specifically
I really need new options to be objectively determined. Now that there are 100+ options to resolve im becoming more strict in following this rule in the description (that has been there forever) “For all subjective options: only I can add subjectively resolved options. I will not bet on these,-“
I’m sorry the new form of your question doesn’t match your intention. What do you suggest we could change that would make it a bit more objective?
Every slightly subjective option will cause some debate in the comments so im trying contain this now that we’re at this many options. Im open to suggestions on what to do with your option:
Originally, your option read:
Either candidate announces a new policy they (or their president) would support
Then, 11 days ago, I changed the punctuation to include quotes (around words that typically need to be said for the original highly subjective option to be true) in order to make the resolution more objective:
Either candidate announces a new "policy" they (or their president) "would (be in) support”
Also thank you for clarifying. Even with the quotes this will be a subjectively resolved option in more than one way. I do believe moderators asking a question about a policy and either candidate responding without the words “policy” and “would support” could resolve this if there is sufficient evidence to determine it is the only possible interpretation of what was said. I removed the quotes and added “subjective” 🫡
@OP Just to clarify this, even though “assassinations” has been put in quotation marks, the intent when I added it was for Pluff to subjectively resolve it based on whether the attacks on Trump were referenced.
@pluffASMR Maybe just remove the quotes to signify that it’s down to judgement?
For example “you have lunatics taking potshots at a presidential candidate on a golf course” should resolve YES.
“Its rhetoric like that that leads to people getting hurt” would be iffy, but I’d resolve NO. (Needs to be more explicit)
The reason for the question is that imo so far Trump’s side have been reluctant to proactively use the shootings politically, but it seems to be used defensively against accusations of being a ‘danger to democracy’. I was interested in seeing what others thought on whether it’d get brought up.
Walz points to Trump's claims about it as proof that his ticket is extreme. Vance responds by saying it was actually true and that the biased ABC moderators falsely fact-checked it to make Trump look bad. I believe he has already said basically that using the tweet from Chris Rufo as his "proof" that it was actually true.
@PlasmaBallin Vance has admitted that the claims are false and his defense seems to be that the lie is good because it's brought attention to the growing pains faced by Springfield due to the influx of Haitian migrants (the vast majority of which are there legally). Of course "I lied to get attention" isn't a great excuse.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/09/15/vance-defends-false-claims-about-immigrants-eating-cats-wanted-to-create-media-attention/
@JacksonSipple did everyone else start trying to think of ways you'd unintentionally say a planet? Pluto the cartoon character? 😂
@Shrewdan Mercury the element, earth as in soil, Pluto the dog, and then I guess you could reference Geek or Roman gods, Lol
@Shrewdan terror pronounced like Terra, Mars bars, Jupyter notebooks, sat on pronounced like Saturn, Pluto streaming service
@CraigDemel ya but why isn't he then doing it on the campaign trail? I think he'll stick with what he's been doing.