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.
https://smallcaps.com.au/bilderberg-group-2018-worlds-power-elite-business-politics-turin/
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.
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/10/six-jewish-companies-control-96-of-the-worlds-media/
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.
Impeachment
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.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
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”.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec4.html 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.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment25.html (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.
http://thecrux.com/the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws/ . 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:
It almost feels like you guys are posting your arguments at the same exact time to maximize how hard this is for me. Thank God I had a manic episode and destroyed my life, so I have time for this
How can you say I dropped points when you said that r2 was for rebuttals not R1?
I agree with ya, if people don't like him, just don't vote for him next time.
I like this guy.
Congrats! YOU won the debate in your first commentary ! your intellectual capacity is far beyond the Kindergarten level rant by this petty CHILD
MINDSET....hiding behind of all things VIRTUOSO ! (one who excels in the technique of an art) yes the ART of RESENTMENT = LOSER...congrats !
thanks,
>Sick of the elite
>https://kaptur.house.gov/sites/kaptur.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Trump%20Admin%20GS%20Execs.jpg
Your arguments were pretty good!
Posted!
Arguments will be up by 11 pm est
He'll probably respond. Be patient.
Bring it