Instigator / Pro
GeneralGrant's avatar
0
GeneralGrant
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#1704

There Is No Evidence to Impeach Trump

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
14

After 14 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

Username
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Username's avatar
14
Username
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
Description

I will forfeit the first round so that Con can tell us why Trump should be impeached.

Round 1
GeneralGrant's avatar
GeneralGrant
Pro
#1
forfeit
Username's avatar
Username
Con
#2
Roadmap 

Here are two parts of my case. They fundamentally work together. 
1. What is evidence?
2. The evidence


BoP

Since my opponent has failed to set a Burden of Proof, I’ll set one here: I say that we share the Burden of Proof. Since we are both making truth claims here (I contend and make the positive claim, he instigates and makes the negative claim), he should have to prove that there is no evidence to impeach Trump, and I should have to prove that there is evidence to impeach Trump. 

If Pro would like to dispute this claim we can come to an agreement. 

Definitions 

Since Pro has failed to set definitions (which means that he forfeits his rights to the definitions) I will do so here. 

Evidence - something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim 
Impeach - to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office

Framework

I’ll be basing my evidence here around what constitutes an impeachable offense. Per Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, an impeachable offense is defined as: 

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.

Let’s get into my Negative Case. 


What is Evidence?

Per our above definition of evidence, evidence is everything that could be presented in support of a claim. This means that if there is evidence at all to impeach Trump, I have negated the resolution, and thus, should win the debate. The validity of the evidence is irrelevant, that it exists is what matters.


The Evidence 

I won’t give too much evidence here, as that is Gish Galloping, which would be unethical. 

Per PBS, the House has released a report detailing Trump’s interactions with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky which lays out evidence for Trump impeachment. 


There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

First, this is evidence, because I am presenting it in support of the claim that it is “to impeach Trump”. Pro frankly worded his resolution poorly, so the could be “to impeach Trump” or that Trump should be impeached. Both are correct, as the House report is being used to impeach Trump by the House and being used to support the claim that he should be impeached, which I am doing right now. 

Second: just in case Pro says something along the lines of “Well it’s not good evidence so it’s not evidence” (which is false) this actually is an impeachable offense. It is bribery, defined here as: 

"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

Which Trump did. 

P.S.: If we’re just going by whether there is evidence or not, there are plenty of other examples of evidence against Trump -  there is this, a testimony from William Taylor, the top American diplomat to Ukraine. It is explained: 

On Day One of public impeachment hearings, the top American diplomat in Ukraine revealed new evidence that President Donald Trump was overheard asking about political “investigations” that he later demanded from Ukraine in exchange for military aid.

This is both evidence used to impeach Donald Trump and evidence that he should be impeached.

 Lewandowski's testimony and Comey's testimony both were made against Trump, were used to impeach Donald Trump (as they were made in the hearings) and were used as evidence that he should be impeached, fitting the above criteria. 


Conclusion

The crux of my case is this: Even if you don’t ultimately agree that the evidence I presented for Trump’s impeachment is good evidence, it should be agreed upon that it most certainly is evidence, and that is all Pro’s resolution requires; Pro claims there’s no evidence, I’ve proved there is evidence, so I should get argument points in this debate. Tbh I put in that other stuff simply to bolster my case. 

Anyways, I’m getting tired, and I didn’t sleep well last night either. So it’s back to you, GeneralGrant!




Round 2
GeneralGrant's avatar
GeneralGrant
Pro
#3
I thank Con for taking this debate.

I will prove that there is no evidence that supports the impeachment of Donald Trump. The argument the Dems are making is that Trump withheld demanded that Ukraine look into Hunter Biden in exchange for aide for their country.

1. Con mentions the transcript which clearly shows Trump wanting an investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma. No one denies that, not even the White House. However, the transcript clearly shows that there is no bribery. Infact, Trump does not even demand an investigation, he is only encouraging one.

2. Con fails to mention that Bill Taylor did not hear himself that there was a demand for military aid, but that he heard it from someone else (who was not the President).

3. Con mention Lewandowski's Testimony and Comey's, but before I address it he will have to explain further.

4. As far as evidence, I wonder if Con would call it evidence if he were accused based on hearsay and not on something that can be proven. Evidence is something that furnishes proof (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence). What was brought before the House did not furnish proof to Impeach a president.

5. As for Bribery there is no evidence for it.
Username's avatar
Username
Con
#4
BoP

Pro has not contested the Burden of Proof in this debate, so my BoP passes. Per our above definition of evidence, (I argue for why it is the correct definition in my rebuttals), evidence is:

“presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim”

Since the Burden of Proof is shared, Pro is not fulfilling his BoP. This is because the only thing that Pro has been doing in this debate is rebutting my claims, not presenting claims of his own. Pro must somehow prove that there is nothing that is presented to support Trump’s impeachment in order to fulfill (he has not done so) his BoP. Pick your resolutions carefully guys. 


Rebuttals

Basically, the issue with Pro’s rebuttals is that, like I said, he is arguing for the evidence not being good, not that there isn’t evidence at all. To counter this, Pro argues for Marriam-Webster’s definition of evidence which is something that furnishes proof. There are three main issues with this argument: 

  1. Pro had essentially forfeited his right to definitions by failing to present them in his description and his R1, so it’s immoral to provide definitions now. 
  2. My thesaurus definition is better than his, plain and simple. Let’s use a real world example to demonstrate why this is so: 
Say that there’s a court, and there is a trial going on in the court. Evidence is presented that a man/woman committed a crime. However, this person is later found innocent. Does this evidence all of a sudden cease to be evidence? It would be accurate to say that there was evidence presented in support of that case, or at least faulty evidence. What is that information if it is not evidence? 

  3. Pro’s dictionary definition is also just absurd; if evidence furnishes proof, and furnishes is:

to provide with what is needed [for proof, in this case]

So if evidence doesn’t prove something definitively (or provide what is needed), it is not evidence? And if Pro says, “No! It is evidence, even if it doesn’t prove something,” then it fits my definition, something presented in support of a claim. 

Now let’s defend my definition. Pro says:

 "As far as evidence, I wonder if Con would call it evidence if he were accused based on hearsay and not on something that can be proven." 

Yes. Per Marriam-Webster, hearsay evidence is still evidence. Also, if hearsay is a rumor, I would also say yes. A rumor can still be evidence; it is just bad evidence (it fits our above definition of evidence)

Con mentions the transcript which clearly shows Trump wanting an investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma. No one denies that, not even the White House. However, the transcript clearly shows that there is no bribery. Infact, Trump does not even demand an investigation, he is only encouraging one.

OBJECTION #1: It is still evidence, because it is being used to support Trump’s impeachment by me and others. Refer to my definition of evidence above.

OBJECTION #2: Pro does not source his claim. Even if he used my source, he’d still have to provide it. Until he does, this point is null. 

 "Con fails to mention that Bill Taylor did not hear himself that there was a demand for military aid, but that he heard it from someone else (who was not the President)."

Literally the same objections as above. 

"Con mention Lewandowski's Testimony and Comey's, but before I address it he will have to explain further."

No I don’t. All I needed to do was prove that they were evidence, which I did: 

"...both were made against Trump, were used to impeach Donald Trump (as they were made in the hearings) and were used as evidence that he should be impeached, fitting the above criteria."

I don’t have to elaborate anymore on the evidence because I’m not trying to prove that the evidence is good, which, as Pro says, would require further elaboration, but since I was trying to prove that it was evidence as they were made in the hearings and via my definition of evidence, I don’t have to elaborate. 

"As for Bribery there is no evidence for it."

OBJECTION #3: Baseless claim. 

I actually did provide evidence in my R1. Here it is: 


There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

First, this is evidence, because I am presenting it in support of the claim that it is “to impeach Trump”. Pro frankly worded his resolution poorly, so the could be “to impeach Trump” or that Trump should be impeached. Both are correct, as the House report is being used to impeach Trump by the House and being used to support the claim that he should be impeached, which I am doing right now. 

Second: just in case Pro says something along the lines of “Well it’s not good evidence so it’s not evidence*” (which is false) this actually is an impeachable offense. It is bribery, defined here as: 

"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

Which Trump did. 

* lol this literally happened

If Pro is more curious, here are some other reasons why this is bribery: 

There are two main parts to this definition: 

  1. Persuasion, which is: 
cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

Which Trump did in the bolded section: 

(>) There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.

(Obviously reasoning) and

     2. by a gift of money or other inducement.

Trump withheld aid from Ukraine around the time of the Trump Zelensky phone call when the aid had bipartisan support. There is no other reason for Trump to do this besides getting Zelensky to investigate Biden; it should also be noted that this money went through after the call. 

Furthermore, Trump’s phone call is in violation of this part of the FEC, here:

  Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

It should further be noted that an impeachment is an accusation , and not a guilty verdict. So even if you are not convinced by this evidence but you recognize that it has substance to it, there is reason for an impeachment. 


Conclusion
P1. If I provide evidence suggesting Trump should be impeached, I win the debate 
P2. I’ve done so
P3. I should win the debate. 

The validity of my evidence is very much secondary, in case the voters remain unconvinced by my definition of evidence. Pro has also failed to fulfill his BoP, which he has not contested.

Back to you, GeneralGrant.



Round 3
GeneralGrant's avatar
GeneralGrant
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Username's avatar
Username
Con
#6
:( It was a pretty fun debate leading up to this point. Hopefully my opponent responds soon. 

Extend all arguments. 


Round 4
GeneralGrant's avatar
GeneralGrant
Pro
#7
Forfeited
Username's avatar
Username
Con
#8
axe10ndo argumento
Round 5
GeneralGrant's avatar
GeneralGrant
Pro
#9
Forfeited
Username's avatar
Username
Con
#10
alright...………………………………