Instigator / Con
Points: 0

President Donald Trump should not be re-elected in 2020

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 0
Description
Virtuoso argues that Donald Trump should not be re-elected in 2020.
Round 1
Published:
Virtuoso has given arguments as to why Donald Trump should not be re-elected in a previous debate, which I addressed myself since Billbatard wasn't doing it, in a web archive of Google Docs.


Also, since this is a web archived version, that means that it cannot be edited or deleted, not even by me, so nobody needs to worry about this getting edited or deleted.

Virtuoso must either refute these counterarguments of mine which are highlighted in blue, come up with brand new arguments for why Donald Trump should not be re-elected in 2020, or any combination of both.
Published:
Thank you, Christen, for challenging me to this debate. I'm going to copy and paste my arguments from the last round and expand on them. I am adding some new arguments to them. I will then rebut my opponent's case in the next round and waive the final round. Remember that the burden of proof should be considered to be shared. 
 
I. Observations
 
The resolution of the debate is that Trump should not be reelected. The debate’s resolution is not about who should be elected but about who should not be elected thus it is my burden to prove only that Trump should not be reelected. Any arguments like “but Hillary” or “but Obama” are wholly irrelevant to the debate and should not be brought up.
 
II. Trump has shown signs of early dementia
 
The Mayo Clinic lists several signs of dementia including [1]:
 
  • Memory loss
  • Difficulty communicating or finding words
  • Difficulty with visual and spatial ability, such as getting lost while driving
  • Difficulty reasoning or problem-solving
  • Difficulty handling complex tasks
  • Difficulty with coordination and motor functions
  • Confusion and disorientation  
It is apparent that Trump has exhibited every single symptom listed here. I’ll only focus on the three that I find to be most egregious.
 
A. Memory Loss
 
Before Hurricane Dorian struck the Bahamas, Trump repeatedly claimed that he never heard of a category 5 hurricane despite the fact that multiple category 5 hurricanes occurred during his presidency [2].  To make matters worse, he made a doctored map that shows Alabama in the way of the hurricane when Alabama was not threatened [3].
 
This isn’t the first time he displayed signs of memory loss. A few months ago, Trump claimed that his father was born in Germany. His grandfather was born in Germany, but his father was born in NY [4].  
 
He also has shown that he repeatedly mispronounces names and forgets them [5]. Ironically, Trump claimed in 2017 to have one of the “greatest memories of all time” [6]
 
B. Difficulty Communicating and Finding Words
 
Trump has repeatedly shown that he is having trouble communicating and finding words, including calling the CEO of Apple “Tim Apple” [7] Earlier this year at CPAC, Trump hugged the flag and gave a 2-hour speech that went off script and was completely incoherent [8].
 
C. Confusion and Disorientation
 
In 2017, Trump got disoriented and couldn’t find his limo despite the fact that it was right in front of him [10]. He also climbed on Air Force One with toilet paper stuck to his shoes [11] and shown an inability to close an umbrella [12]. Trump also stated yesterday that Nancy Pelosi is "no longer the Speaker of the House." [12]
 
This alone should concern all of us and be enough to vote a President out of office.
 
III. Trump’s Tweets Show that He is Unfit for Office
 
If Obama tweeted even one of the things that Trump has tweeted, Republicans would have impeached him 2 years ago. Here’s a sampling of his worst offenses:
 
Picture these tweets as if they were tweeted by any Democrat, Republicans would be rightfully appalled!

IV. Trump has Committed Impeachable Offenses

On multiple occasions Trump's conduct and actions have warranted impeachment.

A. Ukraine Scandal

This just came to light a few days ago and is worthy of a mention here. Trump knowingly asked a foreign government to investigate Biden and threatened to withhold foreign aid if they didn't. We know that Trump previously frozen Ukraine's assets [13]. Senator Schiff noted that the call is a "mafia like shake-down" [14] and he's right. 

B. Violations of Emolument Clause 

Trump's refusal to divest from his company and encourage foreign governments to visit his property is quite alarming. To make matters worse, Trump refuses to release his taxes. If Trump was so innocent as he claims, it is ironic that he just doesn't produce his taxes to prove his innocence. The Washington Post notes that Trump has visited his properties over a dozen times since taking office [15]. NBC News reports that over 22 foreign governments have stayed in a property owned by Trump [16]. It is unknown how much profit the Trump organization made from this or what happened to the money. Again, if he's so innocent, what is he hiding?

C. Obstruction of Justice 

Oh boy, there is so many examples of this I don't even know where to begin. As a gentle reminder, the Republicans literally impeached Bill Clinton for obstructing justice in regards to a consensual blowjob [17]. The most obvious examples are Trump blocking former top aides from testifying to congress [18]. Again, what is he hiding? If Obama or Democrats did this, they would already have been in jail. 
 
IV. Conclusion
 
America needs a president who is fit for office and is competent to perform his duties. Time and time again Trump has proven that he is unfit for office. He thus should not be reelected.
 
V. Sources
Round 2
Published:
Most of Virtuoso's arguments are arguments copied and pasted from the previous debate, that I have already addressed in my Google Doc web archive, so I will just address his "new arguments" that were not originally there.

In 2017, Trump got disoriented and couldn’t find his limo despite the fact that it was right in front of him [10]. He also climbed on Air Force One with toilet paper stuck to his shoes [11] and shown an inability to close an umbrella [12]. Trump also stated yesterday that Nancy Pelosi is "no longer the Speaker of the House." [12]
This is one of Virtuoso's new arguments, that Donald 'Trump also stated yesterday that Nancy Pelosi is "no longer the Speaker of the House."'
This is likely because Nancy Pelosi is trying to conduct an impeach inquiry against Donald Trump and ruin his reputation for no reason. [1] So Trump says, and I quote, "Nancy Pelosi, as far as I'm concerned, unfortunately, she's no longer the Speaker of the House." I think I actually agree with Donald Trump. While I know that you can't literally speak someone out of being the Speaker of the House, I don't find Nancy Pelosi to be for the American people since she just wants to impeach Donald Trump due to not liking him or something, even though Donald Trump has been working hard to make America great again.

IV. Trump has Committed Impeachable Offenses

On multiple occasions Trump's conduct and actions have warranted impeachment.

A. Ukraine Scandal

This just came to light a few days ago and is worthy of a mention here. Trump knowingly asked a foreign government to investigate Biden and threatened to withhold foreign aid if they didn't. We know that Trump previously frozen Ukraine's assets [13].
Donald Trump explained his side of this story [2] which I have copied and pasted below in italics.

Trump admits he delayed Ukraine aid but claims it was unrelated to Biden
President Donald Trump admitted Monday that he delayed aid to Ukraine ahead of a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, when he pushed the leader to look into potential rival Joe Biden and his son's work, giving the excuse that he was waiting for European nations to contribute their fair share of aid and claiming there was "never any quid pro quo."
"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they're not doing it," Trump said Tuesday as he arrived at the United Nations ahead of his speech to the General Assembly.
Trump remained defiant Tuesday that he's done nothing wrong and has no regrets about his behavior when it comes to Ukraine and seeking an investigation into Biden's son's dealings.

In other words, not only did Donald Trump clarify that his decision to hinder Ukraine's aid had very little if anything to do with Hunter Biden, but Donald Trump also explained how he withheld the aid since he didn't think it was fair for only him to be giving aid, while the other places like Europe were not pitching in and giving their aid too.

There are also rumors that Ukraine has "a lot of corruption and cronyism" and that Hunter Biden was "engaging in corruption with Ukrainian officials." Then "Hunter Biden was discovered to have ties to the Ukranian natural gas firm, Burisma Holdings, which paid him $50,000 a month while it was under investigation for corruption." [3]

So it makes sense for Donald Trump to show curiosity and to want to look into this issue further and have Hunter Biden investigated to make sure that Hunter Biden is not engaging in corruption with a corrupted country, doesn't it?


B. Violations of Emolument Clause 

Trump's refusal to divest from his company and encourage foreign governments to visit his property is quite alarming. To make matters worse, Trump refuses to release his taxes. If Trump was so innocent as he claims, it is ironic that he just doesn't produce his taxes to prove his innocence. The Washington Post notes that Trump has visited his properties over a dozen times since taking office [15]. NBC News reports that over 22 foreign governments have stayed in a property owned by Trump [16]. It is unknown how much profit the Trump organization made from this or what happened to the money. Again, if he's so innocent, what is he hiding?
First of all, this has nothing to do with the Emolument Clause. The Emolument Clause is merely "a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives." [4] Just because someone forgot to release their tax returns doesn't mean that they violate this Emolument Clause.

Second of all, these two statements made by Virtuoso contradict each other:

"Trump's refusal to divest from his company and encourage foreign governments to visit his property is quite alarming."

"over 22 foreign governments have stayed in a property owned by Trump"

How is it that Donald Trump refuses to let foreign governments come to his property, but at the same time is still letting over 22 foreign governments come to his property? Either Donald Trump lets foreign governments into his property or he does not. Either one of those statements can be logically true, but not both of them.

Third, Donald Trump did release his tax returns, which show that he "paid $38 million in 2005, White House says". [5]


C. Obstruction of Justice 

Oh boy, there is so many examples of this I don't even know where to begin. As a gentle reminder, the Republicans literally impeached Bill Clinton for obstructing justice in regards to a consensual blowjob [17].
Bill Clinton was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and for "lying under oath and obstruction of justice, charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones." [6]
Did Donald Trump do anything like this? Did Donald Trump commit "high crimes," lie under oath, or obstruct justice like Bill Clinton did? If so, was he investigated and proven guilty of these things with forensic/DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) evidence, in a court of law? Also, how could "a consensual blowjob" be sexual harassment? If it's sexual harassment or rape, then that means it is was not consensual, but rather that it was forced upon, without consent.


The most obvious examples are Trump blocking former top aides from testifying to congress [18]. Again, what is he hiding?
Donald Trump was not blocking anyone from testifying to congress, but rather, it was another man named Pat A Cipollone who was behind this. Pat A Cipollone even clarified, in a document [7] that those former top aides were not going to be compelled to go to the congress and testify, stating that, and I quote, "in keeping with settled precedent and to protect the prerogatives of the Office of President for the future, the President has directed Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Porter not to appear at the hearing". Nobody is trying to hide anything. Donald Trump and Pat A Cipollone have clarified that this was done "to protect the prerogatives of the Office of President for the future," not to hide anything.

An article also explains in further detail why Donald Trump does not want these people testifying, which I have copied and pasted below in italics. [8]

In his interview with The Post, Trump maintained that the White House Counsel’s Office has not “made a final, final decision” about whether it will formally assert executive privilege and try to block congressional testimony. But he said he opposes cooperation with House Democrats, who he claimed are trying to score political points against him.
“I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this,” Trump said.

In other words, Donald Trump likely believes that cooperation with House Democrats would backfire on him, since they just don't like him and want to bring him down, which is another potential reason as to why Donald Trump does not want these people testifying.


As for why Donald Trump should be re-elected in 2020:

A youtube video of President Donald Trump himself shows President Donald Trump explaining many of his accomplishments. [9]

In another youtube video, Sean Hannity of Fox News also explains President Donald Trump's accomplishments that the media won't talk about. [10]

This shows that Donald Trump knows what he is doing, and he should (and will) be re-elected in 2020!

Sources:










Published:
Thank you for your response. I was really busy this week with school and Rosh Hashanah, so I apologize for the delay. That being said, I didn't have time to thoroughly go through everything. I generally utilize the second round only to rebut my opponent's opening arguments, so that is what I will be doing here. 

===> Rebuttals <===

I. Trump's Accomplishments

First, it should be noted that every President has their accomplishments. Even Presidents like Nixon, for example, founded the EPA [1] thus it is not enough to simply list accomplishments to determine if they should be reelected.

Second, and most seriously, I'm debating you, not your sources. If you want to talk about Trump's accomplishments, then list 2 or 3 of them and we can debate those potential merits against my negative points.  Your video on Trump is 6 minutes and 56 seconds long and the Sean Hannity video is 8 minutes and 18 seconds long. That is over 15 minutes worth of videos. Simply put, this is a gish gallop and poor conduct. The voters should treat it as such. 

II. Sources
Round 3
Published:
I didn't have time to thoroughly go through everything.
In that case, you should make up for it in the final round or something, instead of waiving that final round.

First, it should be noted that every President has their accomplishments.
Yes, and one of the things we look at to determine if they should continue to be president for another 4 years, is what they have done during the first 4 years, and whether or not they have followed up on their promises.

it is not enough to simply list accomplishments to determine if they should be reelected.
Your right. It wouldn't be fair to only list one side of things to determine if Donald Trump should be re-elected. That's called One-Sided Reference Bias, "when a study author cites only publications that demonstrate one side of the picture of available evidence." [1]

That's why we instead listed both "good" and "bad" things about Donald Trump, so we can then weigh them against each other to see if the good outweighs the bad, and then reach a conclusion. You listed his "flaws," while I listed his accomplishments. We then weigh them against each other.

If you want to talk about Trump's accomplishments, then list 2 or 3 of them and we can debate those potential merits against my negative points.  Your video on Trump is 6 minutes and 56 seconds long and the Sean Hannity video is 8 minutes and 18 seconds long. That is over 15 minutes worth of videos.
To summarize the 6-minute 56-second video, Donald Trump has "launched an unprecedented economic boom; a boom that has rarely been seen before." He has "created 5.3 million new jobs, and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs." "Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades and growing for blue collar workers." "Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps." "The U.S. economy is growing almost twice as fast" under Donald Trump. "Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century." It "has reached an all-time low." At least "157 million people" are employed. Donald Trump "passed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child-tax credit." He "eliminated the very unpopular Obamacare individual mandate penalty." He gave "critically ill patients access to live-saving cures". He "has cut more regulations in a short period of time than any other administration during it's entire 10-year." "Companies are coming back to our country in large country," thanks to tax cuts and regulations. He has "unleashed a revolution in American energy; the United States is now the number 1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world," "and now, for the first time, in 65 years we are a net exporter of energy." "After 24 months of rapid progress, our economy is the envy of the world, our military is the most powerful on earth by far, and America is again winning each and every day" all thanks to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump also worked hard to cut down on illegal immigration, he defeated ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton helped create, and improved the country.

People didn't think Trump would be able to succeed in securing our borders. People like Jorge Ramos said that "Trump’s plan to build a border wall is absurd," [2] people like John Oliver said, no stupid Trump "You Can't Build A Wall," [3] people wrote articles talking about how the wall is "an Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective Border Plan," [4]

On top of that, you have tons of articles across the internet saying with utmost faith and confidence that Donald Trump would never win the 2016 election. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Yet despite all of this, Donald Trump was able to overcome all the hatred, prove them all wrong, and not only win the election, but also fulfill his promise to build the border wall, and fulfill his other promises, despite all these haters, bigots, liars, and biased articles claiming that he would never succeed in doing any of this.

He has done what hundreds of people said would be impossible. He definitely has what it takes to get re-elected, and he has proven it with all of this accomplishments, and his ability to overcome all of these obstacles.

When you compare all of that to what you have described about Donald Trump, which is him showing vague signs of memory loss, showing vague unconfirmed signs of dementia, having a few situations where he doesn't communicate perfectly, getting confused on a few occasions out of context, and making tweets you don't like, you can see that his accomplishments far outweigh those so-called flaws of his.

Sources:









Published:
Thank you, Christien, for your response. I will begin by addressing his new arguments for Trump and then defending mine. 

===> Rebuttals <===

I. Accomplishments

There's more to judge a President for other than what he accomplishes in office. Richard Nixon accomplished a lot but indicted himself with his crimes. I'm sure we can all agree that Nixon's crimes outweighed any good thing that he did for the country.

A. Economic Boom

The idea of Trump starting an "unprecedented" economic boom is rather laughable. The strongest argument for Trump is that the economy was good. So what? It was already good when he came into office. But let's dig a bit deeper beneath the surface:

  1. We are now in a manufacturing recession
  2. Obama cut the deficit in half [2], but thanks to Trump's tax cuts, the deficit s now over $1 trillion [3]. So much for the GOP being the part of fiscal responsibility! 
  3. Under the GOP tax scam, billionaires paid a LOWER tax rate than the working class [4]
  4. The farming industry faces significant long-term losses from his trade war with China [5]
All in all, Trump's economic policy has done more damage than good. 

B. Foreign Policy

It is laughable to say that Obama and Hillary helped to create ISIS and is even more laughable to say that Trump defeated ISIS. Nothing could be further from the truth. ISIS was founded in 1999, during the last year of the Bill Clinton administration [6].  Indeed, even Lindsay Grahm recognizes that ISIS is not defeated [7]. Moreover, Trump's withdraw from Syria enabled Turkey to attack the Kurds, who actually helped fight ISIS [8]. 

C. Immigration

Here are some facts about this so-called "border wall":

  1. The southern border is 1,933 miles long [9]. In contrast, the distance from Portland Maine to Keywest Florida is 1,755.7 miles long [10]
  2. Trump said countless times that Mexico would pay for the wall [11] and is now moving vital funding from military projects to build his wall [12]. 
  3. The Trump Wall will be extremely damaging to the environment, including, but not limited to threatening landscapes, exacerbating flooding and cause damage to wildlife [13]. 
I could touch upon the ICE abuse and family-separation policy, but I feel like that's a topic for another debate.

I really don't have time or the patience to respond to the other bits of gish gallop and unsubstantiated claims. 

==> Defense <==

I will now defend my opening contentions.



Sources
10. Data gathered from Google Maps "Distance from Portland, Maine to Key West, Florida" 
Round 4
Published:
Richard Nixon accomplished a lot but indicted himself with his crimes.
Richard Nixon may have indicted himself with crimes but Donald Trump hasn't.

The idea of Trump starting an "unprecedented" economic boom is rather laughable.
There's nothing laughable about Donald Trump bringing back jobs and drastically reducing unemployment from tax cuts. It's referred to as Trickle-Down Economics, which is when you cut taxes on the wealthy so that they can have more money for themselves to use to hire more people. "Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term." [1] For example, if I own a business, and I hire some workers, but my taxes are high, I won't be able to earn much money to invest back into my business. However, when I get a tax cut, that leaves me with more money to hire more workers and/or invest back into my businesses. That way, I can hire more workers that can now pay taxes, which results in more taxes being paid overall.

At one point, Amazon even wanted to "split its coveted HQ2 project between New York City and northern Virginia, pledging to establish new headquarters in both locations and bring 25,000 high-paying jobs to each over the next 10 years" and "invest up to $5 billion in the new New York City and Virginia headquarters" which  "would provide a revenue boost of $27.5 billion total for the state and city over the next 25 years." In return, New York State would "provide Amazon up to $1.7 billion in grants and tax breaks to lure the major online retailer and cloud-computing giant to the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, making it the largest incentive package ever provided to a private company by the state." [2]

That's the whole idea behind Donald Trump's tax cuts. It's to allow companies to invest more time and money back into their businesses, create more jobs, and generate more revenue for the state, but when you have the wealthy paying taxes that are so high, and you make it hard for them to invest more back into their own business, they start to outsource their jobs to places like China, India, and Mexico, resulting in less jobs in America, which leads to more unemployment and hurts our economy. "The main negative effect of outsourcing is it increases U.S. unemployment. The 14.3 million outsourced jobs are more than double the 5.9 million unemployed Americans. If all those jobs returned, it would be enough to also hire the 4.3 million who are working part-time but would prefer full-time positions." [3]

Then there is also the fact that illegal aliens come to this country, and, not only steal jobs, [4] but also receive things like free healthcare that many ordinary American citizens do not receive, both of which hurt our economy even more, since taxpayers have to pay for these things with their tax dollars. [5]
Since Donald Trump has been working hard to crack down on illegal immigration, it means less jobs will be stolen by illegal aliens, and also that our tax dollars are spent elsewhere, so our economy improves.

The strongest argument for Trump is that the economy was good.
No, the economy got even better with tax cuts that led to more jobs for Americans, less outsourcing, and less illegal immigration.

We are now in a manufacturing recession
After reading through your latimes article that talks about this, I noticed a few things that stood out to me.

Firstly, it says that "Friday’s jobs report for September showed a slight drop in total factory jobs." A slight drop could mean just that; a very slight drop in total factory jobs, so maybe it isn't that big of a deal, and maybe factory jobs will rise back up since this could be a temporary thing. At the very end of your latimes article, it even says “We may not be in a full-blown recession, but enough that that could play a role in 2020.” So even your article itself doesn't seem to be fully sure if we're in an actual recession.

Secondly, it doesn't seem to specify what exactly is causing this. It says that "manufacturing has plunged into recession and is threatening to pull down other sectors, perhaps hitting hardest on supporters in those states that helped put Trump in office." It says that "Manufacturing today accounts for only about 10% of economic activity, and so far, the overall economy and employment in the U.S. are still growing. But the pace has slowed considerably this year."

The article seems to be implying that Donald Trump's so-called trade war is the cause of this, but then it goes on to say: U.S. and Chinese officials concluded high-level talks Friday in Washington, and afterward Trump announced that the two sides had reached a partial, tentative agreement on trade. He called it a “Phase 1 deal” that includes a big increase in Chinese purchases of U.S. farm goods. In return, he agreed to halt a planned tariff hike that was to take effect next week on some Chinese goods. The agreement, which must still be formalized in the coming weeks, isn’t expected to have a major effect on manufacturing anytime soon.

So Donald Trump's trade war can't logically be the cause of this, since, if it was the cause of this, then Donald Trump's agreement to stop his tariff (which would stop the trade war) should be expected to have the desired effect on manufacturing. This paragraph from the latimes article, that I copied and pasted in italics, also suggests that this recession is only temporary, and can and will be fixed by Donald Trump and China, through their agreement(s).

There could be many reasons for this little "recession". Maybe people are just getting bored with working in a factory, and are starting to find more interesting work to do. I found an article [6] that suggests that this could be the cause of it, which says:
From the 1950s through the 1970s, the manufacturing sector was the ship propelling the U.S. economy, but that ship has sailed which means the recent slowdown in factory activity is unlikely by itself to trigger a recession.
Early in the post-war era, cracks like that in the manufacturing sector usually would have widened to engulf the broader U.S. economy.
At the time, manufacturing accounted for one-third of non-farm jobs, Bureau of Labor Statistics figure show. Towards the end of the 1970s, the share of manufacturing jobs still topped 20%, when some 19.5 million Americans were employed in auto plants, steel factories and the like.
Now manufacturing employment is at an all-time low — representing just 8.5% of all U.S. jobs. The vast majority of Americans now work in service-oriented companies in fields such as health care, technology, advertising, retail, food services and personal care.

So while manufacturing may have been highly dominant back in the 1900s, that may be changing now, in favor of much different jobs/careers.

Plus, "Trump isn’t entirely at fault for the country’s industrial woes. Soft oil prices have probably played a role too, for instance, by leading energy companies to spend less money on drilling rigs and transport equipment. The world economy is also dragging for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump’s trade war". [7]

Based on an article that explains the trade deficit in more detail, parts of which I have copied and pasted in italics, It seems like China is to blame for this overall trade deficit as much as Donald Trump is:
If the United States implemented trade protectionism, U.S. consumers would have to pay high prices for their "Made in America" goods. It’s unlikely that the trade deficit will change. Most people would rather pay as little as possible for computers, electronics, and clothing, even if it means other Americans lose their jobs.
China sets the value of its currency, the yuan, to equal the value of a basket of currencies that includes the dollar. In other words, China pegs its currency to the dollar using a modified fixed exchange rate. When the dollar loses value, China buys dollars through U.S. Treasurys to support it. In 2016, China began relaxing its peg. It wants market forces to have a greater impact on the yuan's value. As a result, the dollar to yuan conversion has been more volatile since then. China's influence on the dollar remains substantial.
The Trump administration is developing further anti-China protectionist measures, including more tariffs. It wants China to remove requirements that U.S. companies transfer technology to Chinese firms. China requires companies to do this to gain access to its market.
Trump also asked China to do more to raise its currency. He claims that China artificially undervalues the yuan by 15% to 40%. That was true in 2000. But former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson initiated the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in 2006. He convinced the People's Bank of China to strengthen the yuan's value against the dollar. It increased by 2% to 3% annually between 2000 and 2013. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew continued the dialogue during the Obama administration. The Trump administration continued the talks until they stalled in July 2017.
The dollar strengthened 25% between 2013 and 2015. It took the Chinese yuan up with it. China had to lower costs even more to compete with Southeast Asian companies. The PBOC tried unpegging the yuan from the dollar in 2015. The yuan immediately plummeted. That indicated that the yuan was overvalued. If the yuan were undervalued, as Trump claims, it would have risen instead.

In other words, this deficit is facilitated by China rapidly changing the value of it's currency so they make goods at lower costs, while we tend to make those goods here at higher costs.

The farming industry faces significant long-term losses from his trade war with China [5
Your #5 source that I read through doesn't specify which farming industry is facing significant long-term losses, or how specifically it's facing significant long-term losses. This could also be a temporary thing, and could be resolved in the future through Donald Trump's negotiations with China.

It is laughable to say that Obama and Hillary helped to create ISIS
I found an article that explains the formation of ISIS in more detail, [9] and I've copied and pasted some important things from that article, in italics:

Democrats often blame President George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS, because al-Qaida flourished after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
But you could also argue Obama’s decision to leave Iraq after 2011 contributed to the security vacuum that gave ISIS the chance to put down roots and regroup.
The Trump campaign sent us links to articles about how the Obama administration handled the situation in the Middle East that influenced the rise of ISIS.
As for Clinton, Trump’s campaign has previously pointed to her vote as a senator to authorize force in Iraq in 2002. She later said she regretted that vote. While Clinton does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war that gave ISIS an opening, she isn’t solely responsible: The vast majority of senators — from both parties — joined her in supporting the intervention advocated by Bush.
"So yes, Hillary's vote for President Bush's misguided policy to build democracy in Iraq directly assisted the Republican decision that opened the door to the radicalization of Iraq and destabilization of the Levant," said Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma told us in July when Trump attacked Clinton. "Bush's destruction of the Iraq Army and state is the single-most important decision that led to the expansion of al-Qaida into the region and later emergence of ISIS."
Republicans have blamed Obama for not keeping 10,000 troops in place in Iraq, which they say could have deterred the opening for ISIS. However, Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from Bush, and that did not include an agreement to leave a large force behind.
Trump’s campaign has also pointed to Clinton’s positions on Syria and Libya as evidence for allowing ISIS to grow. As secretary of state in 2011, she echoed Obama’s support for regime change in Syria and said Assad needed to "get out of the way."
"Clinton's enthusiasm for regime change in Libya in 2011, which Obama endorsed, resulted in the collapse of order there, which ISIS and others have exploited," Christopher Preble, a defense expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told PolitiFact.

In other words, it was George Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton who have all contributed to the creation and/or growth of ISIS in their own ways.

George Bush contributed by giving Al-Qaeda the opportunity to grow after creating a power vacuum, and also by invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, "Had it not been for Bush’s catastrophic decision to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003, in defiance of international law, the world’s most feared terrorist group would not exist today." [10]

Hillary Clinton contributed by not only selling weapons to ISIS, [11] but by also voting to authorize the invasion and destabilize Iraq, which she later regretted. This allowed the terrorist groups to expand even more.

Barack Obama contributed by pulling troops out of Iraq without leaving any behind to keep the place safe, resulting in a power vacuum that enabled the terrorist groups to finally form and expand. Hillary Clinton was heavily supporting Barack Obama in doing this.

"The absence of a centralized ‘strongman’ with a well-organized army/secret-police etc allowed the expansion of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda." [12]

"the power vacuum in Iraq was a major reason that ISIL has gained a foothold in the region. This vacuum was created by the United States when the Bush Administration invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein and massively destabilized the country. ISIL (or at least the groups that evolved into it) predated the US drawdown, and although it can be argued that drawing down US military forces allowed them to grow, the entire situation that has led to their rise exists because the US invaded in the first place. The destabilization created by the US made Iraq a safe haven for terrorist groups, and opened up the borders to extremists, who never would have made it into the country at the rate they have with Saddam in power." [13]

is even more laughable to say that Trump defeated ISIS.
ISIS fighters "surrendered their final scrap of territory in Syria to US-backed forces, giving up land they once declared a caliphate in a watershed moment that opens a new chapter in Middle East power struggles as the US retreats." “Syrian Democratic Forces declare total elimination of so-called caliphate and 100 per cent territorial defeat of ISIS”. [14]

"The United States military has carried out twice as many airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Libya since President Trump took office as it has publicly acknowledged". [15]

Donald Trump has, at worst, severely crippled ISIS, if not defeated them outright, and made it much harder for them to terrorize us, since they lost their land and have to either flee or surrender. They are no longer as powerful as before. They may still have members at large, but they are, at best, defeated, and at worst, heavily disorganized.

Indeed, even Lindsay Grahm recognizes that ISIS is not defeated [7
Your #7 source requires me to pay money to view it. https://i.imgur.com/d2EleSq.png
Please stop using sources that require subscriptions/fees.

Trump's withdraw from Syria enabled Turkey to attack the Kurds
Enabled? Not really. Those troops were withdrawn because "Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces in Syria, estimated at 1,000 troops, would continue to work with Kurds in the Syrian Democratic Forces, but Americans would not intercede between them and the Turks." [16] In other words, Donald Trump probably doesn't want American troops getting involved in more fights and risking more lives, but America would still continue to work with the Kurds.

Donald Trump himself also explained that "The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory." [17] He's basically saying that America can't keep protecting these foreign territories forever, and that others need to pitch in an "protect their own territory" too, as well as work with places like Europe to watch over "the captured ISIS fighters and families."

Donald Trump also said "Turkey has been planning to attack the Kurds for a long time. They have been fighting forever. We have no soldiers or Military anywhere near the attack area. I am trying to end the ENDLESS WARS. Talking to both sides. Some want us to send tens of thousands of soldiers to....
....the area and start a new war all over again. Turkey is a member of NATO. Others say STAY OUT, let the Kurds fight their own battles (even with our financial help)." [18] He wants American soldiers to get involved in foreign conflicts less often, so ultimately, his decision to move troops out and resort to hitting Turkey "very hard financially & with sanctions" is a smart move that keeps more soldiers from getting killed.

Here are some facts about this so-called "border wall":
"MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL through the many billions of dollars a year that the U.S.A. is saving through the new Trade Deal, the USMCA, that will replace the horrendous NAFTA Trade Deal, which has so badly hurt our Country." [19]

now moving vital funding from military projects to build his wall [12
Again, stop using sources that require subscriptions/fees please. https://i.imgur.com/pdG1WIk.png

The Trump Wall will be extremely damaging to the environment
You care more about a few plants and animals, than keeping diseases/drugs/criminals/gangsters/terrorists/rapists out of the country?
Also that source never specifies how the border is "Threatening diverse landscapes" or "Exacerbating flooding".

I'm all out of characters now. Thanks for the debate!

Sources:



















Published:
waive
Added:
Saying 'here is my argument' and not making an argument but instead linking other peoples arguments should honestly be grounds for awarding conduct points.
#5
Added:
--> @Christen
Crap. I mis copied my word document.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Christen
Good luck, my dude.
#3
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
I am going to spam you. You better not forfeit.
#2
Added:
--> @Christen
Good luck!
Contender
#1
No votes yet