Firstly, if this debate was "Donald Trump Will Not Be Impeached," I believe it would be fair to assume that the burden of proof would lie with both parties in the absence of the debate description assigning the burden of proof. However, in this case the resolution is that "Donald Trump Will Not Be Impeached Because The Democrats Are Incompetent." In this case, I believe it is fair to assign the burden of proud to my opponent because he has a positive claim, but also because it is not clear whether I am arguing against Donald Trump's potential impeachment wholly or specifically the incompetency of the Democrats being the cause of Trump not being impeached. As such, my only job is to prove that my opponent has neither sufficient evidencer nor proper to prove the resolution to be true.
As well, it is important to point out that my opponent's argument lies crucially on the incompetency of the Democrats. Even if he proves that Donald Trump won't be impeached, if the reason for that is not a lack of competency on the Democrats' part, Con ipso facto wins.
Incompetent: not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.
Evidence of this incompetency must be shown to prove the resolution. As such, Round one can be dismissed as bare assertion.
Citing an article without adequate interpretation is not an argument. However, in light of my forfeiture, I will respond anyway.
Firstly, the first article given, if anything, supports Con. The conclusion itself says that we must be reluctant to impeach - exactly what the Democrats are being right now! It also outlines how easily an impeachment can fail, implying that impeachment must be done carefully in order to succeed. Again, this supports Con.
However, most importantly, the article does not mention anything about Democrats being incompetent. As such, it does nothing to prove Cons claim.
Secondly, the second article given is an opinion article, as seen when the author says "I think" and "[t]o my mind." Besides this, only one paragraph is devoted to the alleged incompetency of the Democrats. In said paragraph, very little analysis or evidence is given, and it is mostly just the author stating his opinion. Because of that, this article can be written off as bare assertion.
In light of these facts, I believe I have sufficiently proved that Pro's argument has no merit. As such, voters should vote for Con.
Just click report vote, and/or tag the moderators (virt., Ram, and Bsh1) in a comment.
con fiefeited i wish to file a protest against raganr
This debate is not a FF, so you still need to analyze arguments.
It never showed up in the admin panel. There isn't any check box that let us know that it was reported. I'll handle the report now.
Why wasn't Franklin's vote judged, I reported it some time ago
conduct forfieture hello?