Instigator / Pro
1
1551
rating
26
debates
57.69%
won
Topic
#1428

President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Patmos
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,100
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1588
rating
23
debates
67.39%
won
Description

Definitions:
Donald Trump - Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. (Wikipedia)
United States Constitution - The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. (Wikipedia)
Impeachment - a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office. (Merriam-Webster)
Removed from office - The position of President of the United States becomes vacant and Vice President Mike Pence would take the Oath of Office.
Rules:
No new points in R4.
BOP on Pro (Innocent until proven guilty)
Forfeit = instant loss

-->
@Username

I'm very busy. I have a lot of studying to do. I don't have time for challenges at the moment.

-->
@Christen

You really think that democrats' end goal is to take over America? That they have a more authoritarian trend than the republicans? That's absurd. I hope these views didn't have any effect on your vote for this debate.

Also I find it hilarious that you stopped posting when you were challenged.

-->
@Christen

I'm happy to have this as a formal debate if you want.

-->
@PoliceSheep
@Sir_Pigeon

"the damage they can cause" is precisely why some law-abiding citizens would want to own a gun in the first place.

If you're hunting buffalo, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to your target so that you can kill it quickly and efficiently, and have something to cook and eat.

If you're defending yourself from a criminal that wants to harm you, you're gonna want something that can quickly deal enough damage to the criminal so that he/she can no longer harming you.

If you're fighting against an oppressive government, you're gonna want something that can deal damage to them so that they can't oppress you that easily.

Also, Sir_Pigeon is correct.

According to the CDC there are 300,000 uses of offensive gun use in the US, while guns are used by citizens 500,000 to over 3 million times defensively. The police can't be everywhere at once, their average response time is around 10 minutes. Even though the argument is lost by the liberals on self defense alone, that's not even the reason the 2nd amendment was created, it's purpose is to prevent government tyranny. I don't think tyranny is possible today or tomorrow but 50 to 100 years from now it could absolutely be a problem.

Also if someone invades your house, the first thing your going to do...

is call someone with a gun.

-->
@Christen

I have many arguments against number 2 and 3.

Number 1 is just not worth having them for due to the damage they can cause.

-->
@PoliceSheep

We need the second amendment for:
number 1: hunting
number 2: self-defense
number 3: fighting back against the government if they ever become tyrannical

-->
@Christen

I'd be happy to debate your point on guns as I believe in the US, the 2nd Amendment should be abolished with heavy and general restrictions but on guns - including forcibly taking them from people who don't hand them in.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@bmdrocks21

You two should at least vote on this, since you both seem to be very passionate about this issue.

The Democrats' ultimate end goal is to take over America and achieve absolute power over this country and everyone in it. The only reason they have not yet succeeded is because our country has several lines of defense that stand between the Democrats and absolute power, and President Donald Trump is one of those lines.

First, they want to let as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, into this country as they can so they can give those immigrants voting power, which will make them all vote Democrat and ensure that Democrats win every future election. President Donald Trump has been combatting this since he was elected into office in 2016-2017.

Next they want to restrict free speech as much as they can and only allow speech that agrees with their point of view. We're already seeing this kind of thing happen with people getting attacked/harassed over wearing Maga Hats, as well as certain phrases being banned from college campuses.

Then they want to bribe people with stuff like "free college" "free healthcare" and all sorts of other (not) free stuff, so that more people vote for them, but they will use our tax dollars to pay for all of it, and tax the wealthy unfairly.

Finally, they want to restrict our access to guns as much as possible, since the second amendment is our last line of defense against them. Without guns, we are vulnerable to both criminals and oppressive governments. Nations like Venezuela, China, and North Korea all disarm their citizens so that their governments can oppress them freely without them being able to fight back. We can't end up like them, but the Democrats know they can't ban guns outright, so they do the next best thing, which is to restrict them as much as they can by passing hundreds of worthless "common sense gun regulations" that do not stop criminals, and only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

-->
@David

Thanks.

Ramshutu keeps deleting my RFDs/votes everytime they aren't "thorough enough" so I had to make sure I explain things in much greater detail so that it meets the site's requirements.

-->
@Christen

I glanced at your RFD and must say that from what I've read, that is one of the most thorough RFDs that I think I have seen on the site.

Consistent headings would have been very useful in following each major point. Generally I advice major headings bolded and underlined, and subheadings just underlined (that way when someone is reading the debate, they know when say the Perjury section begins and ends, so they can follow it between rounds to see how it begins and ends):
tiny.cc/DebateArt

-->
@Barney

Any tips would be appreciated!

-->
@Patmos
@PoliceSheep

Just skimmed this, and while the formatting could do with some improvement, good job all around.

-->
@PoliceSheep

No, I don't do many debates anymore. Just wanted to give my opinion.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I'm more than happy to have this debate with you, if you want to prove your argument.

-->
@bmdrocks21

lol MAGA

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I'd say there would have been at least 30,000 reasons to impeach the other choice.
#MAGA

-->
@dustryder

No, you socialists should. We all know this impeachment stuff is bs and has been fake from the very beginning.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You should probably reevaluate your beliefs then. The Pro here made a case based on US law and you spouted that TDS nonsense at him anyway.

-->
@dustryder

I agree it is not an argument. I don't believe it is legitimate criticism. Or maybe people are just uniformed because of the media that portrays things a certain way.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Spamming TDS is not a defense or argument against legitimate criticism.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Though it may be a mild form, since you are socialist and naturally do not like conservatives getting elected, you have TDS. If you support the rule of law then you should investigate the Democrats for starting a fake witch hunt to undermine the presidency. Since they can't win themselves they resort to other things that they 100% know are cheap and un-american.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Then I must protest. I do not have "TDS". I'm not even American - it barley affects me. I just support - unequivocally - the Rule of Law.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Both.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Is that comment aimed at me or someone else?

Sad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Just can't get over the fact he is President.

-->
@Patmos

Nice rebuttals, my dude.

-->
@billbatard

No accusation with no evidence is credible. especially not in the legal system. Also, it's a little weird to just show up lob an accusation, start a media frenzy, then jump ship before you have to answer any questions. Also, this claim contradicts the testimony of other women who say that President Trump banned Jeffrey Epstein from his properties after he was inappropriate with an underage girl.

-->
@Patmos

the accusations were credible and so were the death threats from the trump machine A copy of the California lawsuit (filed on 26 April 2016) shared via the Scribd web site outlined the allegations, which included the accusation that Trump and Epstein had (over 20 years earlier) “sexually and physically” abused the then 13-year-old plaintiff and forced her “to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts” — including being “forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump’s erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm,” and being “forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe, age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump” — after luring her to a “series of underage sex parties” by promising her “money and a modeling career”:https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpstc9r_esA

-->
@billbatard

That's a lot of nonsense. First off, the accuser of the 13 year old rape allegation not only provided no evidence to back up her claim, But also dismissed her lawsuit before it could be investigated. It was a lie.

If you did Policy debate in school, then you know just as well as I do that the absence of evidence is not evidence. You have no idea what President Trump pays in taxes because no one has seen his tax returns.

-->
@Patmos

hes crazy enough to be ruled unfit he is a tax cheat a traitor he raped a 13 year old girl, the list goes on forever for got sake he raped a 13 year old girl how can you defend that?

-->
@billbatard

Yes, But the president shouldn't be impeached if there are no legal grounds for the impeachment. Which is what my argument is all about.

Fiat (Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical construct in policy debate – derived from the word should in the resolution – whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given plan, allowing an affirmative team to "imagine" a plan into ...
Glossary of policy debate terms - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Thanks! It's only my 2nd full debate.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Great argument by the way.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Something being founded by something doesn't make it good. For instance:

Slavery isn't good because America was founded upon it.

I think I'll pass on the debate. Don't want to accept too much.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

We could have a debate on this, if you want.

What's wrong with being a Christian and a socialist. The UK Labour Party was founded on the principles of the New Testament and is a democratic socialist party.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Christian socialist??????????

Just rare and bad. Christianity can flipendo away and socialism can be tried by another country only for it to fail again given it has been demonstrated the government is not best at running markets.