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:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
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.
In one way I'm glad pro forfeited; otherwise I suspect I would be having to remove votes which are based on the conclusion of the case, rather than debate content.
R2 Analysis?
Never a good sign for a case when one side does exactly what the other said they'd do.
R2: Pro says something along the lines of “Well it’s not good evidence so it’s not evidence.”
R1 analysis.
Forfeit:
Around here we would call that a waived round. A truly forfeited round is misconduct to the degree that it results in a default negative point allocation.
BoP:
Had con tried to say BoP is on wholly pro, I would side against him. Shared BoP is what we end up calling this. But yes, pro cannot prove a negative, so his BoP is to disprove anything offered as not being evidence.
Definitions:
These make sense, and intuitively set a good scope limit (what Trump did 30 years ago, has nothing to do with any conduct in the presidency, so is not evidence related to it).
Contentions:
I'll withhold reviewing these until pro has responded to them. This breakdown was just of the preamble, and basically to say it's a good setup.
The BoP on pro is yuge.
Please don’t drag this one out with Gish Gallops...
ruh roh
Oh you for sure want to change the wording of the res before someone snipes this for a free win.