Sure, but again I don't think the question or the topic is wrong in itself. It's a legit question, and in fact, frankly, Trump deserves it.

But it's clearly a tough, hard question, and not having a single  equivalent question for Clinton is really a fundamental problem but not the most disturbing problem. It's not  just "5 toughs question for Trump and none for Clinton", it's him creating this false narrative about Trump being the only one having a liability, a bad jugdement regarding wars, regarding Irak, because Hillary get a free pass for her support and vote for Irak war, support for war for Syria, Libya, and ISIS rise. And really, I'm not trying to convince you Clinton is worst or whatever, I'm strictly speaking about how massive the bias was in this debate.

Please keep in mind that 'this' is not an "actual direct quote".  That is my paraphrasing of what he was saying.  The actual direct quote is as follows: 

Please let me know if you think I was fair in my paraphrasing, which was intended to be accurate but tongue in cheek. 

DNC?

I dislike when people use shortages (abbreviations) and assume everyone else know them. It's so common. Really, how long does it take to write the full meaning?

In lectures and guide books for discussion and rethorics actually they always advise people to only use extremely common shortages. Only use a shortage when you are 100% your reader knows what it is.

How the fuck am I supposed to be able to determine what DNC is? It's impossible to figure it out by myself without using Google and a combination of search words.

Dat National Conference. Dat Natural Cunt. It's fucking impossible.

I think you do have a point, but "5 to 0" is a significant exaggeration in my opinion.  The way I see it, there are only three hard questions I am certain the moderator went into the debate intending to aim specifically at Trump:  tax returns, the birth certificate, and the comment about Clinton's "look".  Even in the case of the question about Iraq, I'm not sure whether that would have been brought up if Trump hadn't brought it up in the first place.  (To be fair, it could safely have been anticipated he would do that.)  I also believe he probably would have asked Clinton about the emails but Trump beat him to the punch.  3 to 1 is still one-sided but not as bad as your claim.  And I hope you will admit that Trump has presented a very large target with the birtherism and refusing to release his tax returns; both completely self-inflicted wounds. 

I do think he could have thought up a question to aim at Clinton that would be the counterpoint of the "look" question. 

I really think "5 t0 0" is fair. We can't really count as a question a question he didn't ask but one think he would probably have asked, and rule out a question one believe he would not have asked if. We are counting the questions, but here you are changing the count based on your belief of his intentions. He didn't just ask, he fact-checked (so even for rules was on Clinton's side), he replied back. About the constitutionality of stop and frisk, it's not a fact-check, it's a debate he's having (see Giuliani in new york times), and he's interrupting.

I don't know what is the intention of someone that on first debate in front of millions people prepare at least 3 hard questions for a candidate, and is prepared to debate on that, and 0 or 1 for the other. He come here biased, it's strange to say he was more fair than it seems based on what he did not do but we assume he would have the fairness to do on other circumstances. 

What are the five that you count? 

4 direct, tough, prepared questions about the "the birther issue", "the Irak war he supported", "Hillary's presidential look" and "his tax return". And zero for Clinton.

Then, not exactly a question, but he forced him to answer to "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men", because that seemt to imply "you can't do stop and frisk", "stop and frisk is racist", or "stop and frisk is unconstitutional". In fact it would have a little better as a question. And in fact that should have been Clinton that is stopped when she said "Stop and frisk is unconstitutional", because that is false, and not what Holt was saying.

He could have just as easily done what Clinton did. He could have owned up to the birther thing, said he moved past it and it was time to focus on the campaign. Instead he did what he did. He also could have brought up Clinton fainting during the 9/11 service instead of just saying 'stamina'.

Also Clinton was asked about her server. Its not like it was all softballs for her.

He also didn't bother to follow up her 'stamina' response with Benghazi. Hillary had openings. He didn't take them.