Instigator / Pro

Resolved: Donald Trump ought to be removed from office


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 9 votes and with 38 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Resolved: Donald Trump ought to be removed from office

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

Good luck to my future opponent.

Round 1
I would like to thank Wylted for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to a fruitful debate!


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

These are the sacred words that the President recites when he takes the Oath of Office. The President of the United States is one of the most powerful people in the entire world. Article II of the United States constitution spells out the duties of the President. If a President is unable or is unfit, or is harmful to the office and to the Untied States, that person ought to be removed from office.

The Constitution provides two ways in which a sitting President can be removed: impeachment (Article II section 4) or via the XXV Amendment:

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.

Thus we come to my central thesis: Donald Trump is unfit for office and should be removed via the XXV amendment. Furthermore he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that would warrant Trump be removed from office via impeachment.

C1: Trump should be impeached

President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying in front of a grand jury and obstruction of justice. [1] Andrew Jackson was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act and even  “inflammatory and scandalous harangues” against members of congress whom he disagreed with. [2] Although Nixon resigned, he would have certainly been impeached had he remained in office. There have been several Articles of Impeachment proposed in the House of Representatives. I will borrow heavily from these resolutions.

A. Obstruction of Justice

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." In a further analysis by the Legal Information Institute:

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.
President Trump has repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice within the Mueller investigation. H.R. 438 in the 115th Congress noted:

The pattern of behavior leading to the conclusion that he sought to cause the hindrance or termination of said investigation(s) include the following:

(1) Requesting that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation curtail the investigation of the activities of General Michael Flynn under circumstances wherein it appeared that Director Comey might be terminated if he failed to adhere to such request.
(2) Making a determination to terminate the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and only thereafter requesting that the Deputy Attorney General provide him with a memorandum detailing inadequacies in the Director’s performance of his duties.
(3) Despite offering differing rationales for the termination of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, admitted subsequently that the main reason for the termination was that the Director would not close or alter the investigation of matters related to the involvement of Russia in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States.
(4) Stated that, once he had terminated the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the pressure of said investigation had been significantly reduced.
These are behaviors that are inexcusable for any sitting President. If Clinton was impeached because he obstructed his investigation regarding a blowjob, then President Trump certainly must be impeached for hindering investigation into possible illegal activities and colluding with a foreign government in the 2016 election.

B: Violation of Emolument Claus

Trump has been profiting off of the Presidency by refusing to separate himself from his private business. He repeatedly asks foreign governments to stay by his Trump hotels and has repeatedly profited off the presidency by visiting his own resorts and clubs during his time in office. This is, in my opinion, one of the most egregious and most reprehensible acts a President could commit. By profiting from the office, he is undermining the integrity of the office by turning it into a personal profit. Moreover, by accepting emoluments from foreign or domestic parties he is opening himself up to corruption and conflicts of interest. H Res. 621 notes:

Donald J. Trump refused to divest, place into a blind trust, or otherwise give up his ownership interest in his worldwide business holdings since becoming President.
Donald J. Trump refused to release his tax returns, with the intent to conceal the exact nature of his holdings from Congress and the American people.
Donald J. Trump acknowledged, through his personal attorney, that his businesses receive funds and make a profit from payments by foreign governments, and would continue to do so while serving as President.

Donald J. Trump owns approximately 77 percent of Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, which holds a lease from the General Services Administration.
The Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, has actively courted foreign diplomats for their business, and according to public reports, since the November 2016 Presidential election, diplomats have made plans to stay at the hotel to curry favor with Donald J. Trump and some diplomats have said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new President.

The Embassy of Kuwait canceled a “save the date” reservation for an event at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, DC, and held its National Day Celebration, instead, at Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2017. According to Reuters, similar events for a crowd of several hundred at the Trump International Hotel can run from $40,000 to $60,000.

On or about April 6, 2017, the Ambassador & Permanent Representative of Georgia to the United Nations tweeted, “Trump International Hotel Washington DC @TrumpDC – great #hotel and so far the best service I’ve seen in the United States! Keep it up! #travel”.

According to the Washington Post, in May 2017, business groups promoting Turkish American relations held an annual convention at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. The Turkish ambassador and a high-ranking official from the U.S. Department of State attended. The convention included a $95 per person dinner for 190 guests. On May 23, 2017, breakfast, dinner and drinks ran more than $30,000, including a “Banquet Event Service Charge” of 24 percent.
This conduct is unacceptable. Because Trump refuses to release any of his tax returns, we simply cannot know exactly how much he is actually profiting off the Presidency.

C. Undermining the Freedom of the Press

The 1st Amendment guarantees the Freedom of the Press and Trump has constantly attacked the Press and called it the enemy of the people! H. Res 621 further notes:

On February 17, 2017, Donald J. Trump tweeted, “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”.

On October 11, 2017, Donald J. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, “It is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.”.

C2: Trump is unfit for office

Throughout his tenure as President it is clear that he is unfit for office. His mental instability and his narcissism prove that he is mentally unsuited for the job of the Presidency. Trump's tweets have consistently undermined US security. For example, on 2 Jan 2018 Trump tweeted:

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!
This very well could have caused a disastrous war to break out between the US and N. Korea.

During the 2016 election, Trump tweeted:

Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?
No words can describe how awful and disgusting this tweet is. Suzanne Lachmann Psy.D. sums it up nicely:

In my view, Mr. Trump cannot uphold the duties of this office...his insight and judgment have disintegrated to the point at which his public statements, accusations and tweets seem delusional. Not surprisingly, Trump feels otherwise, declaring, “I think my strongest asset maybe by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament.” His distorted thinking, disorganized conduct, and erratic, impulsive behavior—combined with his fixation on his own importance—directly impacts our safety as citizens of the United States, and has led me to conclude that he should be removed from the line of duty.

Trump is unfit for the office and has committed severe impeachable offenses that should result in him being removed from office. A mentally unstable man who tweets at 3 AM without regard for life or limb has no place in the oval office.

Over to you, Wylted!

Ramblings of a rational mad man

My opponent’s rules are unfair to me and should be disregarded. They are also not conducive to a good debate culture. First of all BOP should not be shared in a policy debate of this sort. My opponent is arguing that we should give the bird to every American who voted for Trump by not only impeaching him, but by also removing him from office. This requires quite a bit more burden than my arguments for respecting the will of the people.

Also his rule about maintaining a decorous atmosphere is also unfair. What an elitist wealthy Jew who wants a more powerful government despite the fact a powerful government is literally what made the holocaust possible, is going to have a different world view than somebody who grew up without electricity and running water and who was forced to quit school after the 9th grade to raise a family such as myself. Decorum as subjective as it is, is just a way to persecute people from different or minority backgrounds. Even if that persecution is unintentional, it is real. The rule makes it so I have to suppress or filter my arguments, while he can just lay his out, as is. I have to work harder for a win than he does, which is unfair.

A have plenty of room to run a kritik here because of the unfairness of the rules, but I won’t. I merely ask that the judges disregard the rules so this is a fair fight. Besides that, I could argue my opponent has disregarded decorum when he started blaspheming Trump as unfit for office, when he full well knows being unfit for office is not an impeachable offense. Not that my opponent who actually supports establishment (illuminati) politicians has any good insight into what makes somebody unfit for office.

Hell, it has been proven that politicians like Hillary Clinton make policy decisions in  Bilderburg meetings, which is illegal and should be a concern for us all. Somebody my opponent blindly supports.

So why does he want Trump impeached, despite his illuminati buddies committing several inexcusable crimes such as the example of Hillary? The answer is simple. Trump is quite clearly anti-establishment. The illuminati hate him, and the Jewish controlled media hate him.

Since the Jewish controlled media hate Trump my opponent is like “DERP I am Jew, I must mindlessly have same opinion as CNN”.  Virtuoso, you can be a Jew without being pro illuminati. You can be a Jew without being a zionist scum who hates America. I encourage you to stop hating Trump, merely because he is pro America and then feeding into the illuminati’s attempt to discredit him by claiming he is some sort of manchurian candidate.


There have only ever been 2 presidents impeached, and neither one was removed from office. One was an accused rapist who most likely committed acts of rape, and the other was found to have violated a law which legal scholars now say was unconstitutional. Meaning it was an illegitimate law. Impeachment is just step 1 in removing a president from office. Step 2 is having the senate try the president and having them decide if the evidence of his crimes is good enough to mean he should be removed from office, if they determine those crimes are worth removing him from office for.

Some people think quite literally that the high crimes and misdemeanor clause of the constitution means that a president can be impeached for whatever the hell congress feels like.

The reality is much different. The president must have committed an indictable crime to be removed from office. The language of that section of the constitution is referring to actual crimes like “Bribery and Treason”. Further evidence that this is meant as actual crimes the president has committed is article 3 section 2 states "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." . This is clearly referring to real crimes when talking about impeachment. The same section also states the president can pardon people for “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." . Even bringing up impeachments here, shows the founders considered impeachment a response to criminal behavior.

In order for my opponent to win this debate on these grounds, he must prove that the president committed an actual crime, something that can not be done, because if it was done it would have been done by the deep state who is doing everything in their power to remove a Democratically elected leader, because he is not “one of them”.

The 25th Amendment

I won’t offer any direct rebuttals here, but just want to frame the debate. I was surprised my opponent would argue on these grounds because they are so silly but I want to educate people on what the 25th amendment is. If the president is unable to do his duties as president than his cabinet immediately tells both chambers so they can vote to remove him. Or sometimes the president if he feels incapacitated for whatever reason can voluntarily discharge his responsibilities so that the vice president can assume command of the nation. The amendment was added not long after Kennedy’s death as a response to the fear of what would have happened in a situation where Kennedy went into a coma instead of died and other such thought experiments.

The 25th amendment was not created in response to fears that half the nation would throw a hissy fit because they don’t like the demeanor of the president, and that a president should be removed because of their hissy fit. Plus if the president is not completely incapacitated, than he contest the temporary removal of his powers. The 25th amendment states the president can just put in writing he is capable of leading and then his powers are returned to him. (section 3).

So if my opponent is right, that the president should have his powers removed by the 25th amendment, than he still fails to meet his burden in proving the resolution, because it is not a removal from office, but just a discharging of powers that would occur.

The Missing Piece

The missing piece, ingredient for my opponent to win. The piece that is so frequently overlooked is, whether we should do something. Congress perhaps could use the 25th amendment to remove Trump, perhaps they could impeach him and the the Senate could remove him from office. Beyond proving these things have some sort of justification, my opponent must also prove they should in fact be done.

What could be done, often is not what should be done. Some legal scholars estimate that we each on average commit 3 felonies a day. Felonies, this excludes misdemeanors. . If we as a society sent everyone to prison for those felonies, merely because we could than we would all be in prison right now. If my opponent thinks we should prosecute everyone that commits a crime I encourage him to research the law so he knows what 3 felonies he committed today, so he can turn himself over for prosecution.

We need to know why Donald Trump was elected before deciding whether he should be removed from office. As somebody who voted for Trump and followed the campaign, I can tell you that people did it because they were pissed at the establishment, they didn’t trust the establishment. Bernie Sanders rise on the left also seemed to be a result of this anti establishment sentiment, running through the veins of this country. Michael Moore the guy that everyone on the left get’s their opinions from said it best:

“hey might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.”

“They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.”

We elected Trump because we are sick of the elite. We think they have destroyed the country, are corrupt and we don’t trust them. Now my opponent is advocating the president be removed by the very elite we voted him in as a fuck you towards. A democratically elected president removed in an undemocratic way. I think Charle’s Cooke a writer for the national review worded it better than I am capable of when he said:

“America is an angry, partisan, resentful place at present, and the ballot box is one of our most effective release valves. Should its utility come to be questioned by the electorate, we will see a desperate backlash of the sort we have not seen in a long while. And this time, it might not be peaceful.”

What my opponent is calling for would make the populace even more cynical and could even make people angry enough to riot in the streets. His solution is like using a grenade to kill a cockroach.

Round 2
Thank you wylted for your reply. Unfortunately Wylted dropped most of my case and hasn't responded to the crux of my argument.


Re: Ramblings of a Madman

I'm going to completely ignore the repeated ad hom. attacks against me. If he didn't like the rules, he should have asked to modify them prior to accepting this debate. The Burden of Proof is shared in this debate as I have the obligation to show why we have a moral obligation to remove Trump from his office while Wylted has the burden to rebut my case and defend the Trump administration. If this was a legal trial, I would be the prosecutor and Wylted would be the defense attorney. I have to actively prove that Trump committed the crimes that I have charged him with and Wylted has to defend Trump against my charges.

The Illuminati, Bilderburg, Zionist, etc. attacks are not even worth a response.

C1: Impeachment

My opponent drops my entire case. Wyled brings up that I must bring forth indictable charges for him. Well guess what? I did. Obstruction of justice and violating the Emolument clause are both indictable crimes. Undermining the freedom of the press is not an indictable crime, but it certainly is worthy of impeachment. If we have a President hellbent on becoming a dictator, then we have a moral obligation to remove him from office. Wylted is further wrong about what impeachment actually is. Impeachment and removal from office does not necessarily preclude impeachment. John Pickering was a federal judge who was charged with intoxication on the bench and unlawful handling of property claims
 and was subsequently removed from office. He was not indicted or jailed.

Since my opponent failed to respond to the obstruction of justice, violation of Emoluments, and undermining the freedom of the press, the case is extended across the board.

C2: The XXV Amendment

My opponent drops my entire case. Please extend across the board. Con is further wrong about the XXV Amendment. Let's look at what it says:

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.
So we see from here that Trump's powers can be usurped from this indefinitely thus removing him from his office capacity. The resolution says that Trump should be removed from office and having his powers usurped indefinitely certainly qualifies.

Re: The Missing Piece

Once again the resolution asks whether or not we have a moral obligation to remove Trump from office. Wylted talked here about why people voted for Trump. What he fails to note is that Trump lost the popular vote 2.8 MILLION votes - the biggest popular vote deficit of any of the previous presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

We have a moral obligation to remove Trump from office as he lost the popular vote and has committed impeachable and indictable offenses and is mentally unfit for office.
Round 3
Extend all arguments 
Round 4
vote pro!