Instigator / Pro
28
1531
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#2821

Resolved: The Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump in the United States Senate was Unconstitutional

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

ILikePie5
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

RESOLVED: The Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump in the United States Senate was Unconstitutional

For this debate the Structure is as follows:

R1: Arguments Only
R2: Rebuttals to R1
R3: Rebuttals to R2
R4: Closing Statements (No New Arguments)

For the purpose of this debate:

Constitution - a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the United States is governed. It was drafted by the Constitutional Convention and later supplemented by the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Unconstitutional - not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

U.S. Senate - the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—constitutes the legislature of the United States.

Most definitions for the purpose of this debate will come in the debate itself from the U.S. Constitution; these are just some general definitions, which have been discussed with my opponent prior to start.

Pie wrecked this guy, lol. I am not sure why you commented on such an old debate, however.

as far as i can tell, there is no oversight of any impeachment trial

therefore no ENFORCABLE STANDARD and more specifically NO AUTHORITY TO WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE MADE

to hypothetically hold the house and or the senate to some "constitutional standard" or any other standard for that matter

they can do as they see fit

“Does the senate set precedent or not? You keep trying to have it both ways; you’re using the senate’s actions when you agree with them to claim it validates your argument, but when you don’t agree with their actions you claim it means nothing.”

I don’t see how it’s hard for you to understand something unconstitutional cannot be precedent lol. Convicting you or me isn’t a precedent—it’s unconstitutional and therefore has and never had any power. It’s a irrelevant argument.

“The framers were talking about a person presiding over a trial where they themselves had something personal to gain out of it. I know you understand that difference.”

This was pre-12th amendment. And the CJ could also be appointed by the President himself. The conflict of interest would still exist. Also, are you claiming Harris would have nothing to gain by presiding over a Trump trial? Cause that’s laughable

-->
@ILikePie5

“ Again, the Senate can’t vote on something and say it’s constitutional. The action itself has to follow the Constitution, which it did not. Belknap couldn’t be impeached nor convicted because he had resigned. Senators who voted to reject the very power they could’ve had shows far more precedent”

Does the senate set precedent or not? You keep trying to have it both ways; you’re using the senate’s actions when you agree with them to claim it validates your argument, but when you don’t agree with their actions you claim it means nothing.

If the senate can validate your argument it can also invalidate your argument. There’s no way around that.

Again, they held a vote on whether it was constitutional and they upheld it. They then proceeded to hold the trial. That means *if* we accept the idea that senate precedent is a valid contention here, it goes against your argument. The fact that they did not convict him according to the intentionally high standards of conviction is irrelevant, as are the reasons why the minority voted against conviction. Conviction is a different vote.

“Harris presiding over Trump would definitely be a conflict of interest lol. I don’t see how you can deny that.”

Because that is categorically different from what framers were talking about. A conflict of interest here is not when one politician doesn’t like another or when there is some sort of personal loyalty involved. If that were the case then literally every single Senator voting on conviction would have a conflict of interest. The framers were talking about a person presiding over a trial where they themselves had something personal to gain out of it. I know you understand that difference.

Okie

Looks like the debate is finished? I am not going to read through a finished debate just to opine on a continuing one in the comment section. Without having read the debate or any of the discussion I would say topically I agree with Con. But I also don't really care to get into it either atm. Also I wouldn't necessarily vote Con here just because I agreed with his side, it would have depended on who I thought made the better arguments.

-->
@Lunatic

Your perspective would also help if you wanna take a look

-->
@Double_R

Again, the Senate can’t vote on something and say it’s constitutional. The action itself has to follow the Constitution, which it did not. Belknap couldn’t be impeached nor convicted because he had resigned. Senators who voted to reject the very power they could’ve had shows far more precedent.

Harris presiding over Trump would definitely be a conflict of interest lol. I don’t see how you can deny that. Your entire premise was the CJ was there to avoid conflicts of interest, but then deny that this scenario is a conflict of interest

-->
@FLRW

I wonder why mods would think it should’ve been thrown out

-->
@ILikePie5

Yes, you had it thrown out.

-->
@FLRW

Wasn’t your vote thrown out lol

I think Double_R won and I am very glad whiteflame is reviewing this.

The threshold is 2/3rds for *conviction*. The question of whether one is guilty as charged is an entirely separate question from whether the trial itself is constitutional. To the latter, a separate vote was held and did in fact meet the standards to say it was constitutional.

It’ll never cease to amaze me how you continue to use an example where congress voted that a trial was constitutional and held the trial as precedent that the trial was unconstitutional.

There is no conflict of interest with Harris presiding. Trump was not the sitting president so a conviction would have changed nothing for her. If Biden were tried that would be a different story because she would then be in position to be elevated to the presidency. That’s why the Chief Justice is required to preside, and it didn’t apply to this case.

-->
@Double_R

I don’t know remember what you’re referring to lol. But if you’re saying that Senators voting NO for the SOLE purpose that the person wasn’t even in office at the time isn’t important, I can’t help you. 2/3s threshold failed for that exact reason. A majority of senators doesn’t matter if the threshold is 2/3s.

Also if Roberts didn’t preside, it would still create a conflict of interest with Harris. Imagine John Adams presiding over an impeachment trial of Thomas Jefferson.

-->
@ILikePie5

Here’s a crazy idea, if we’re going to continue going back and forth about this debate, then instead of “I would have won anyway”, we actually talk about the merits of the arguments? You still arguing that senate precedent makes your case when they agree with you but can be thrown in the trash when they don’t? Still ignoring my point about Robert’s not presiding because the entire point of the Chief Justice’s presence is to avoid a conflict of interest for the VP?

-->
@Double_R

“ I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.
One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.”

Hate to tell you this, but you weren’t gonna win even if you had your source. You can disagree with RFDs all you want, but you’re biased any ways. Doesn’t really matter.

Well, regardless of the reason, I am going to read through this and give feedback. I think there's some value in having a fresh set of eyes look at a debate after some time, though it shouldn't be for the purpose of trying to prove a point.

I've got one more debate ahead of this (promised to vote on it a while back and lost track), so it'll be a bit before I can get through it, but I promise I will.

-->
@ILikePie5

That’s because you seem to be focusing more on your interpretation of my motives than the point I am making.

I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.

One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.

-->
@Double_R

You can talk about your opinion all you want. But the way you’re saying it implies that people like Ragnar and Puachu neglected their duties as objective judges of the debate.

-->
@ILikePie5

This is a debate site. Expressing my opinion is what it’s for, so if you offer your opinion and I find it to be nonsense, I’m going to respond. That doesn’t mean I’m begging the entire site to jump in and “settle the score”.

-->
@Double_R

“ I am. I’m not telling them not to read it, I’m telling you that this whole thing makes both look petulant.”

I mean, you’re the one claiming that the judges didn’t do their job properly. So I brought in the main expert on voting

-->
@ILikePie5

I am. I’m not telling them not to read it, I’m telling you that this whole thing makes both look petulant.

-->
@Double_R

“ Like I said, if people want to read it and chime in I’m all for it, but you running around begging for more readers just makes both of us look petulant.”

Let’s let the readers decide that :)

-->
@ILikePie5

In most debates the instigator makes their case and the challenger is responsible for refuting it. That’s called the burden of proof, and it’s is a much more productive way of going about because it’s far easier for the judges to be objective when determining whether the BoP was upheld as opposed to deciding which participant’s case was better. It also narrows the focus of the debate so things like, say, dropping arguments are more difficult to get away with.

“You can keep being salty. I’m happy to have more objective debators vote chime in if you want.”

No, actually I don’t. This is just downright silly and childish - you’re running around the site asking everyone to chime in on a year old debate for what? So one of us can beat our chests and declare ourselves smart because someone else said so? I got over this debate a long time ago, clearly you need this to validate yourself.

If you actually care about the arguments I’m fine with continuing a discussion on the merits of the arguments, but this long drawn out discussion over who thinks who won by this point is just getting stupid.

Like I said, if people want to read it and chime in I’m all for it, but you running around begging for more readers just makes both of us look petulant.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks

-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R

Can't recall if I started reading this back when it was in the voting period and just ran out of time or what, but I'll give it a read and a brief opinion.

-->
@whiteflame

You are one of the most objective voters on this site. Can you please take a look at this debate and just give your opinion on who should win based on the merits?

-->
@Double_R

“So in the end, sure you won, I just don’t think you did so with any legitimate arguments. If you really want my opinion, the biggest problem was that your arguments were so full of nonsense that I didn’t have space to address it all, and the skill you displayed was shoveling it in in a way that made no sense but sounded good. You didn’t even respond to any of my criticisms of your points, all you did was repeat the same points over again essentially dropping my arguments and got credit for it anyway.”

It’s an art to stay within the characters of the debate. We both agreed on it too. I was under the same restrictions as you. This is a non-argument. Oh and I did respond to your points. Each one.

“The problem with the layout was that I was “not allowed” to respond to your arguments until a full round later. By then opinions tend to harden so it’s harder to refute. Ragnar also commented on this. Plus I’m not doing the whole two separate arguments thing. It’s just too much info in one debate so none of it gets proper attention and plays into the judges bias because it forces them to adopt their own understanding much more so than judging on our back and forth.”

Well guess what bud, that’s how debates work lol. Both sides lay out their constructive, then it’s rebuttals. That’s the reason why the first person that goes doesn’t get the “advantage.”

You can keep being salty. I’m happy to have more objective debators vote chime in if you want.

-->
@Undefeatable

Sure, I’d welcome a thorough reading and opinion on who should’ve won the merits of the debate.

-->
@Undefeatable

If you’re interested in reading the debate and providing your commentary I would certainly welcome it and appreciate you for your time. I just wouldn’t want you to do so as a favor to me because you or anyone else thinks Im in need some kind of validation. The only reason I’m engaging in this back and forth now is in response to ILikePie5’s comments here and in the elsewhere where he declared that he “destroyed me” because he didn’t like me pointing out his lack of seriousness in the forums.

So if you’re really interested then by all means I’d look forward to your input.

-->
@Double_R

I can try giving commentary. As I am a left winger and side with the impeachment of Trump, I believe I would have the least amount of bias towards Pro.

-->
@ILikePie5

I did not say you won the debate cause of your friends, I was responding to your childish chest beating about how you “destroyed me”, pointing to the margin.

Fauxlaw was obviously going to vote for you. The guy is a hard right winger who claims to have such a great understanding of the constitution and it showed in his RFD. He lists your arguments and then talks about how you ‘understood the constitution correctly’, in other words, you made the case he already believed.

I already broke down how coals points were not about the debate in the comments.

I accept Ragnars vote but it hinged largely on a false understating of my point because the link I posted was broken. That was the site’s error. He remarked that it was a “powerful bit and a shame” that happened, but he already voted so it’s possible that would have changed his vote or neutralized his verdict.

That leaves Pauchu. He’s the only vote I take as clear, I just think he didn’t understand the debate properly. The biggest piece he latched into was the senate precedent part, but I already explained below why that is an absurd and self defeating argument. The question of whether an act is constitutional is answered by reading and understanding the constitution, not by following what a bunch of senators 200 years later have to say about it. An argument you yourself explicitly made by calling it “tyranny of congress” for them to convict Belknap. But they gave it to you anyway, I find that insane.

Pauchu also gave you that its non-constitutionality was upheld in the verdict, not understanding the difference between a vote to try vs a vote to convict.

So in the end, sure you won, I just don’t think you did so with any legitimate arguments. If you really want my opinion, the biggest problem was that your arguments were so full of nonsense that I didn’t have space to address it all, and the skill you displayed was shoveling it in in a way that made no sense but sounded good. You didn’t even respond to any of my criticisms of your points, all you did was repeat the same points over again essentially dropping my arguments and got credit for it anyway.

The problem with the layout was that I was “not allowed” to respond to your arguments until a full round later. By then opinions tend to harden so it’s harder to refute. Ragnar also commented on this. Plus I’m not doing the whole two separate arguments thing. It’s just too much info in one debate so none of it gets proper attention and plays into the judges bias because it forces them to adopt their own understanding much more so than judging on our back and forth.

-->
@Double_R

What? You literally said I won this debate cause of my “friends.”

And what does I won “according to the rules” mean lol. In what terms did I lose. Every RFD I see shows that they agree with my arguments over yours for the reasons I said. Nothing they said was their own opinion. And if it was, you could’ve reported the vote.

The only vote you accept is Ragnar’s. Even if you take away everyone else’s I still win.

What part of the layout did you think was problematic? I mean you shot yourself in your foot with your own framework.

-->
@ILikePie5

I never said you did not win the debate fairly and squarely. According to the rules, you did.

I also was not implying that you went and grabbed people to come here and vote for you. I was mainly pointing to Fauxlaw, and perhaps Coal as your buddies.

The fact of the matter and my ultimate point was that if you read the RFD’s everyone here except Ragnar voted based on what they thought about the resolution apart from our arguments. You can call that a legitimate victory if you want, I would have preferred to hear what people had to say based on yours and my arguments, not their preconceived opinions.

The layout of this debate was also problematic, I will not agree to that again.

-->
@Double_R

Please affirm the fact that I won this debate fairly and take back your comment that I won because of my “friends.”

-->
@ILikePie5

Glad we agree

-->
@Double_R

“If it’s only precedent when it lines up with the constitution, then the constitution is the only thing that matters.”

Constitution always reigns supreme

-->
@ILikePie5

If it’s only precedent when it lines up with the constitution, then the constitution is the only thing that matters.

-->
@Double_R

“We’re arguing about whether senate precedent is relevant to the question of whether the senate trial was constitutional. You say it is but your arguments say the opposite. But whatever, we can agree to disagree I guess.”

The Belknap trial wasn’t constitutional but the vote in the Belknap Trial to acquit on jurisdictional grounds formed the constitutional basis and precedent. The vote itself is enshrined in the Constitution, while the vote on jurisdiction is not.

-->
@ILikePie5

“You tell me lol”

We’re arguing about whether senate precedent is relevant to the question of whether the senate trial was constitutional. You say it is but your arguments say the opposite. But whatever, we can agree to disagree I guess.

-->
@Double_R

Oops I meant Plessy v Ferguson this entire time, not Scott v Sanford. My b

-->
@Double_R

““I can’t”
Then what are we arguing about?”

You tell me lol. I already said when something becomes a precedent vs when it doesn’t. An unconstitutional trial with a constitutional vote sets precedent (Belknap Trial). An unconstitutional trial with an unconstitutional vote shouldn’t be regarded as a legitimate precedent (George Washington trial / Scott v Sanford).

-->
@ILikePie5

“I can’t”

Then what are we arguing about?

-->
@Double_R

“Provide a hypothetical example where a senate impeachment trial goes against the constitution but becomes constitutionality legitimate as a result of historical precedent.”

It can’t, as I already said. If you were to impeached and convict George Washington, it would clearly be unconstitutional; even if the Senate were to convict him, the trial would be illegitimate, and likely would be taken up by the Supreme Court. An unconstitutional action taken by the Senate delegitimizes the entire trial. However, even if the trial is illegitimate, the Senate can take a constitutional action in the form of acquittal to nullify this action because of the Constitution and its checks and balances.

Generally I tend to agree that awarding source points is bad form, unless there is a stark difference. I also agree it should be limited to extreme cases. For example, if one person cited law reviews and academic publications in recognized journals, but the other cited Q-anon twitter conspiracy theories then I could see awarding points. But that was not the case here. Not at all. Another example might be if one side cited no sources whatsoever, yet the other cited multiple credible sources. Also not the case here.

Voters can vote as they will, but the source points here do not pass the sniff test for me.

-->
@coal

I must say I agree, but not just in this debate. I don’t see why sources get two points, and even if they were one point I would still not award them except in extreme cases.

-->
@ILikePie5

Provide a hypothetical example where a senate impeachment trial goes against the constitution but becomes constitutionality legitimate as a result of historical precedent.

I do not agree with awarding source points in this debate.

“ I vividly remember the first impeachment of Trump, and the repeated claims by GOP senators that impeachment of a sitting president is unconstitutional... Which that level of unbridled stupidity in the senate, is suggestive of deeper problems with the system.”

If I recall correctly it was the idea that a sitting President cannot be indicted on federal criminal charges while he’s in office, not impeachment.

-->
@Double_R

“I don't know how else I can put it. Senate precedent either matters or it does not, yet you're arguing both at the same time. It matters to the resolution when it supports your position, but if it doesn't support your position then it doesn't matter because the trial is unconstitutional anyway. It's having your cake and eating it too.”

You’re analogizing the issue to a black and white case, when it really isn’t. It’s a nuanced issue. Precedent can be unconstitutional, in which case it’s rather stupid to cite it. On the contrary when the precedent is constitutional - voting nay on the grounds that the trial of a former official is in itself unconstitutional - is a constitutional action.

Citing Scott v Sanford as a precedent is obviously horrible because the ruling itself was unconstitutional. You could cite it before Brown v Board as precedent but that doesn’t divert from the fact that it is unconstitutional on so many levels - an issue the Court fixed in Brown v Board later.