Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Is the only way to get rid of trump a violent revolution , he seems intent of a coup

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 2
Description
Trump is a dirty cheater must we use force to rid ourselves of him? https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/watch-trump-wont-rule-out-shutting-down-the-federal-government-if-democrats-refuse-to-end-impeachment-inquiry/?utm_source=push_notifications Trump won’t rule out shutting down the federal government if Democrats refuse to end impeachment inquiry
Round 1
Published:
Trump seems intent on pulling every dirty trick in the book to thwart the will of the majority ,  maybe its time for people to arm and stage their own little coup, try him for treason jail him or exile him whatever i just want to be rid of him .. once we get rid of him one way or other we gear up for a truly free and fair election minus the electoral college and gerry mandering and big money
Published:
thanks, billbatard, for instigating this debate.

RESOLVED: The ONLY WAY to GET RID of TRUMP is by VIOLENT REVOLUTION


DEFINITONS:

ONLY [adjective] is "alone in a category." [1]

WAY [noun] is "a method or manner of doing something." [2]

GET RID of  [verb] is "to dispose (of); to abolish; to lose." [3]

TRUMP [god bless u] is an ex-television personality's highly customized presidency. 

VIOLENT is "involving physical conflict." [4]

REVOLUTION  [u say u wanna] is "the removal and replacement of a government, especially by sudden violent action." [5]

BURDEN of PROOF:

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.  This is also stated in Hitchens's razor.". [6]

In this case, PRO as instigator and claimant bears the entire responsibility of proof.

CON interprets the resolution to mean PRO advocates for the illegal and violent overthrow of the world's oldest democracy.   The stated purpose of this overthrow is to bring about  the end of the electoral college, gerrymandering, and big money in elections making elections more free.  Exactly who should overthow what by which means is left unconsidered,  

OBJECTION:

PRO's single source in not particularly objective or reliable.  mediabiasfactcheck.com advises:

"Overall, we rate AlterNet far Left Biased on story selection and wording that always favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to some promotion of pseudoscience"  [7]

VOTERS please keep in mind this rating when considering PRO's flimsy case.

PRO's CASE:

P1: Trump is corrupt
P2:  Violence is the only reply to corruption
C1:  Therefore violence is our only option

For P1, let's concur that the president is a real piece of shit, the most thoroughgoing liar ever documented by history.

CON's CASE:

For P2, CON argues that good citizenship requires the exhaustion of all lawful, orderly, and non-violent remedies before justifying violence in defense of republic.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [8]

  • Given that the president stupidly solicited a bribe in the telephonic company of dozens of witnesses and documented that bribery in writing and hid that document and hushed up witnesses and defamed witnesses and threatened witnesses and indeed, admitted to the criminal act on several occasions let's assume the question is less the degree of guilt than the degree of corruption within the republican Senate.  Why would PRO advocate for violent overthrow instead of allowing time for the facts to be uncovered for the due consideration of trial by Senate?

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. [8]

  • There may yet come a low to which Pence,Pompeo, Burr, Mulvaney will not sink.
  • Trump's support may be yet weakened by new sex or tax indiscretions are made public.
  • Ditto regarding Trump's strict adherence to Putin's foreign policy outlook.
  • Why would violent overthrow prove preferable to the 25th Amendment remedies?

  • PRO forgets that the 2020 Presidential Election is only one year away.
[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, 10 if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]
  • Certainly, an election would represent the least refutable or contestable change of power and the most likely to be perceived as the most legitimate to the largest number of Americans.
  • Why does PRO prefer violence to voting?

  • PRO forgets that non-violent resistance is more successful than violence in effecting change.
We do acknowledge that extreme regime brutality, regime economic domination, and sophisticated population control through harassment and intimidation are formidable obstacles to mobilization.  Under these conditions subtle acts of defiance and clandestine activities are more prevalent-- and, by definition, less observable.  But our main point is that regimes (like opposition movements) are not monolithic actors; rather, they are propped up by pillars made of individuals whose loyalties are malleable and shifting.  Whichever side (regime or opposition) is able to divide the opponent from its main pillars of support will ultimately succeed.  And nonviolent campaigns have historically had an advantage over nonviolent campaigns in this regard.
  • Historically speaking, violence generally locks in points of view and polarizes support.  Non-violent campaigns that provoke violent counter-reaction more often succeed in eroding support than violent campaigns.  Given the number of Trump supporters in the military and law enforcement- a non-violent resistance is more likely to shake soldiers and cops faith than fighting a violent act of treason.

PRO is quite mistaken. Violence is not the only way.  There are many lawful and non-violent alternatives, some of which far more likely to preserve the republic than PRO's adventurism.

I look forward to PRO's P2 response.


Round 2
Published:
 I would also like to see all the legal avenues exhausted, I never said I did not, my point is Trump fights dirty while we follow the rules, since he gets to break the rules maybe its time we break some heads, maybe
Published:
thanks, billbatard, for your tiny reply.

RESOLVED: The ONLY WAY to GET RID of TRUMP is by VIOLENT REVOLUTION


PRO argues:

I would also like to see all the legal avenues exhausted, I never said I did not,

  • CON refers PRO to the title of the debate:  "ONLY WAY" which precludes alternatives to violence. 
  • Further, PRO never discussed legal or peaceful alternatives. 
  • Further, if PRO is not advocating violent overthrow of USFG in the short term, PRO's argument is rendered unparsable.

my point is Trump fights dirty while we follow the rules, since he gets to break the rules maybe its time we break some heads, maybe

  • PRO has illustrated the dilemma of all law-abiding citizens everywhere- criminals enjoy a distinct competitive advantage.
  • If PRO seeks to improve political advantage by law breaking, then PRO has joined Trump on the side of the criminals.
    • Trump's particular specialty, it seems, is to corrupt all who have any dealing with him.  Trump repeatedly states that everybody engages politics with the same lack of morals as he, Trump claims that he is simply more forthright about his corruption.
    • If PRO stoops to violence or other criminality in opposition, Trump wins the argument whether or not he retains office.
If PRO genuinely suggests that law-abiding US citizens should exhaust all legal remedies first, then PRO has conceded this debate & CON declares win.

CON looks forward to PRO's R3 reply.
Round 3
Published:
i would prefer legal avenues its just obvious they have been blocked https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering gerry mandering for example all efforts to correct ths have ben met with mockery and obfuscation
the elctions and victory of the democrats despite voter suprrsion indicate the people ar on our side when the coup comes the massses must be rready
Published:
thanks, billbatard.

RESOLVED: The ONLY WAY to GET RID of TRUMP is by VIOLENT REVOLUTION


I. Concession:

  • PRO failed to refute  (or even discuss) any of the legal remedies recommended by CON.
  • PRO concedes that legal remedies are available.
  • PRO concedes that legal remedies are preferable.
  • PRO has not conceded the debate overall but has surrendered on the relevant particulars, denying CON engagement.

If VOTERS agree with CON that PRO has conceded the debate in word if not actually in deed, then VOTERS should award CON points for argument.


Thanks in advance to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Violence is never the only way.  Please vote CON!



Added:
That's just silly. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden's son, not outright make up dirt on him. If the investigation had happened, and then turned up nothing, Trump would've been like "dang it" and moved on. He was hoping something was there, of course. As a petty man and cutthroat politician hellbent on getting re-elected he was clearly hoping that the investigation would've turned up something. And he did threaten to cut off government aid for the sake of an investigation which would've pretty much only benefited him. But you are at least somewhat misstating what happened. Ultimately, we don't know whether Biden's son was involved in anything, since Trump was thwarted from making the investigation happen. Let's remember that.
Even if corrupt, Trump's investigation would've smacked of proportionality. No detail of Trump's life has been withheld from scrutiny, nor any detail of the lives of his close family. It's only fair that his opponent, a man trying to take his place as President, should have to undergo the same. The only question is by what means this proportional situation of mutual investigation was imposed (or, rather, by what means Trump attempted in vain to impose such).
#8
Added:
(slang) A dose of a drug such as ketamine or cocaine, when snorted recreationally.
The noise made by the bittern; a boom.
A disco dance in which partners rhythmically bump each others hips together.
(uncountable) A coarse cotton fabric.
A training match for a fighting dog.
(snooker, slang) The jaw of either of the middle pockets.
Contender
#7
Added:
yeah but i have the best pastes the best
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
He/she/they posts copy-pasted passages and usually types only 2 original sentences per debate Round.
#5
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
be a sport grab me a beer
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Makes sense.
#3
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
trust fund and a butler to empty my piss jar
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
How do you have the time to have 10 debates going on at the same time?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Concession
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Concession. Arguing that conceding doesn't mean he lost would be possible, but the concession was pretty explicit, and it does mean he lost. (This isn't a slip-up, this is the whole premise of the debate requires the legal paths already be exhausted to leave an outright violet revolution as the only path)