Donald Trump will not be impeached because the Democrats are incompetent
The voting period has ended
After 1 vote the winner is ...
Time for argument
Characters per argument
Trump may well be a crook but Democrats are even more incompetent than he is corrupt, what should be will not come to pass because Democrats lack backbone and unity, oh and a brain between them
Again just look at their track record the democrats are right to try to impeach that orange turd hes commited many acts of high crimes etc the problem is the democrats lack a backbone and a brain https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/impeachment-expert-law-trump-merits-removal-893358/
Id Democrats fail at this they have their own feeble minded ness to blame https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/midterm-elections-republicans-democrats-trump
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.
again it bot that i don't think he deserves to be impeached he does he is dishonest treasonous and possibly mad
if you look at the disarray the democrats are in and have been for decades , they are not the well oiled machine they were in the Nixon era too many factions to much disunity and quite frankly most of them are also dishonest, the few that are dont have a clue how washington dc work s "The Democratic Party lost just about everything in 2016, but so far it has offered only evasive regrets and mild apologies. Instead of acknowledging gross failure and astounding errors, the party’s leaders and campaign professionals wallowed in self-pity and righteous indignation. The true villains, they insisted, were the wily Russians and the odious Donald Trump, who together intruded on the sanctity of American democracy and tampered with the election results. Official investigations are now under way."
"While the country awaits the verdict, a new and quite provocative critique has emerged from a group of left-leaning activists: They blame the Democratic Party itself for its epic defeat. Their 34-page “Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis” reads more like a cold-eyed indictment than a postmortem report. It’s an unemotional dissection of why the Democrats failed so miserably, and it warns that the party must change profoundly or else remain a loser.
Reading the particulars of this critique, I had the impression that maybe the party got what it deserved in 2016. I do not mean that Trump deserved to win. Indeed, “Autopsy” mentions Trump’s campaign largely in passing, and the Russians only once. But this analysis does suggest that Trump became president mainly because the Democratic campaign was inept, misguided, smug, and out of touch with the country.
The authors are clearly seeking a straightforward repudiation of the governing strategy on economic issues by the last two Democratic presidents. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama attempted to challenge corporate and financial interests, and neither did nearly enough to address the lost jobs and wages that led to deteriorating affluence and fed popular cynicism and distrust. Obama, for example, gratuitously appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to the White House Jobs Council—an odd choice, given that Immelt’s company was a notorious pioneer in offshoring American jobs to foreign nations. Immelt subsequently admitted that he was motivated by GE’s bottom line: American wages were too high, he explained, so he intended to lower them. He succeeded."
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?
Con clarified his stance in relation to the resolution, which doubled up as couching pro how to win: "my only job is to prove that my opponent has neither sufficient evidencer nor proper to prove the resolution to be true." which he goes on to do.
Pro responds with plagiarism, taken in part from http://theglitteringeye.com/perspectives-on-the-2016-election/