Instigator / Pro
1465
rating
25
debates
54.0%
won
Topic
#5497
Trumps trial proved that Rich elites are not above the law.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1515
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description
I only debate serous people.
Round 1
I will start by thanking Con for accepting this debate.
Opening argument
Donald Trump has recently been charged and convicted for his bribery of Stormy Daniels and over 35 hush money counts. This event works against the narrative that Trump and many others believed, which was, “Former presidents are exempt from criminal protection.”
We now know through Trump's conviction that former presidents are not immune to the long arm of the law, and Therefore, Trump’s trial shows the American people that Rich elites are not above the law.
Argument 1: The Rich can go to jail
If the narrative that you can get away with anything as long as you are rich were true, we would not see the mounting legal issues that former president Trump has been facing since 2020.
Trump lost in the civil case against Jean Carrol being ordered to pay 5 million. Donald Trump loses civil rape trial, ordered to pay $5 million | Courthouse News Service
Trump later lost to her again being ordered to pay 83.3 million. Trump must pay $83.3 million for defaming E. Jean Carroll, jury says - CBS News.
In addition to this Trump was also found guilty in Civil court for falsifying his wealth. Live updates: Trump ordered to pay nearly $355 million in civil fraud trial | CNN Politics
Aside from all of these civil cases, Trump also went to jail for falsifying business records. Trump was arrested today. Here are the key takeaways. (usatoday.com)
This is all prior to his current situation. What does this all establish? It proves that you cannot just “do whatever you want” just because you have wealth. Even if you are as Rich as Trump and are part of the elite class in the US, the Law still applies to you.
Argument 2: Lack of immunity
If the Rich could do whatever they wanted with impunity, why would they need lawyers? Or even appear in court?
The answer is simple: The rich do not have immunity for their actions. The law does not bend to those who have money. I acknowledge that having money makes it harder to prosecute because the best lawyers can win almost anything. However, we should not confuse the abilities that money affords for social class.
Having the best lawyers is not the same as society saying you can do as you, please because convicting you is hard.
We need to remember that the Rich are only 1% of the population and, like the remaining 99%, are citizens first and foremost, and no citizen is above the law.
Conclusion: The Rich elites are not above the law. The idea that the Rich can be immune from the law has foreverbeen dispelled. The many financial losses, incarceration, and recent criminal convictionsdemonstrate that there is no one above the law In America. For if someone asRich and powerful as Trump can be held and humbled by the court of law, then noone in America, regardless of wealth, can escape the consequences of theirillegal activities.
Quick disclaimer, I'm sorry I took so long in publishing this argument, but it has been pretty busy for me lately, and I probably shouldn't have accepted. That said, I will try my best to be a good opponent for you.
Interpreting the resolution.
I think there are two ways that we can look at the title you provided.
The first way I read it was, "rich elites are not above the law, and the Trump trial demonstrated that." I think this is what you're going for, but I'm just making sure. If this one were true, I would only have to demonstrate that either "rich elites are not above the law", and/or "the Trump trial did not demonstrate that they are above the law" in order to show that the resolution was false.
Then it occurred to me that you might be saying something else. The second possible meaning of this is "regardless of if elites are above the law, the Trump trial proved that they are not". In this case, I could argue that rich elites are above the law, or I could argue that they are not above the law, but the Trump trial did not prove this.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption, but from what I can tell, for either resolution I do not have to prove that rich elites are above the law, I simply must prove that the Trump trial doesn't prove this. For the first one, I can address either point, but i'm going to stick with the second one.
One final thing about the resolution, I'm going to assume that all I must do to render the resolution false in either scenario is to mention a single scenario where a rich elite was "above the Law". I don't really know if there is a time period on this or not. Perhaps I must provide an example that occurs after the Trump verdict, or I can choose any instance. Please clarify.
Arguments
Now that we've established that I only need to prove that the Trump Trial doesn't prove this (again, correct me if I'm wrong), then I'll start by defining some terms.
The word "Proved" is a very strong word, so I'm going to include my definition. If you have any complaints about it, we can agree on another one.
Prove: To create reasoning that makes something undeniably true or false.
By that definition, did the Trump trial make it so that rich elites are undeniably above the law with no way to make it go otherwise? I say no. It is still a possibility that a rich elite does not get prosecuted for a crime. Therefore, the Trump trial did not "prove" anything, it just demonstrated and provided some evidence that rich elites might not ever be above the law again.
Conclusion
The word "proved" is very strong, and should not be used in cases such as this. Therefore, my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof because they set out to say that one thing proves another, when in this case, it cannot possibly do that.
I yield the floor.
Round 2
The argument I presented was as straightforward as the title suggests. Donald Trump is among America's wealthiest and most successful individuals, placing him within the so-called "elite" class. Therefore, I am puzzled by Con's confusion when I declared in round 1 and reiterated in the title that the debate concerns whether wealthy individuals are above the law. In my initial argument, I clearly stated they are not, aligning my stance.
Rebuttals:
By that definition, did the Trump trial make it so that rich elites are undeniably above the law with no way to make it go otherwise? I say no. It is still a possibility that a rich elite does not get prosecuted for a crime. Therefore, the Trump trial did not "prove" anything, it just demonstrated and provided some evidence that rich elites might not ever be above the law again.
How does Trumps trial not prove anything? If the Rich can still be above the law, why wasn't Trump? And if you are going to say that Trumps trial proves that with evidence Rich elites CAN find themselves in legal trouble, how can you maintain that the trial did not prove "anything?"
he word "proved" is very strong, and should not be used in cases such as this. Therefore, my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof because they set out to say that one thing proves another, when in this case, it cannot possibly do that.I yield the floor.
Arguments:
I have presented a clear example that illustrates the wealthy are not exempt from legal consequences, as shown by Trump's trial. Even those opposed acknowledge that the trial has demonstrated that with adequate evidence, individuals can be held accountable, irrespective of their wealth or status. Consequently Con, you must reconcile the contradiction of claiming that Trump's trial proved nothing while also asserting that the wealthy can be held accountable. How can these two positions be logically consistent?
The truth is that America is neither an autocracy, an aristocracy, nor an oligarchy. It is a Republic governed by the rule of law. Time and again, individuals who were deemed untouchable because of their wealth or status have been held accountable. The trial of Trump is the latest example of this principle in action.
I challenge Con to substantiate their position, as all we have heard thus far is their confusion of definitions and a contradictory stance. They simultaneously deny the validity of Trump's trial while conceding that it demonstrated the fallibility of the elite.
Rebuttals
How does Trump's trial not prove anything? If the Rich can still be above the law, why wasn't Trump?
I concede that this trial was a major step forward in our American justice system, but there is still a long way to go. I feel that now if more elites are brought to trial for their crimes, they will be justly convicted, but there are still so many cases that have not been brought to trial, and are happening right under our noses right now. For one thing, Rich people hate paying taxes, and will find any way to get around it that they can. I don't think I will get any pushback if I say that it is probably that at least one rich person is currently committing tax fraud. If we look at the history of these things, we see that they have a chance of getting away with it, just because they are so rich and powerful, (and because Republicans are defunding the IRS, but I digress.) The point is, as long as this person has a chance of getting away with their serious crime, then rich elites are still not totally above the law. It's going to take more than one trial to make our justice system more fair.
Even those opposed acknowledge that the trial has demonstrated that with adequate evidence, individuals can be held accountable, irrespective of their wealth or status.
The key word there is CAN. Sure they CAN be held accountable, and hopefully will be held accountable more often in the future because of this, but they also CAN get away with it, and will get away with it more often than regular people because of their influence and money.
I challenge Con to substantiate their position, as all we have heard thus far is their confusion of definitions and a contradictory stance. They simultaneously deny the validity of Trump's trial while conceding that it demonstrated the fallibility of the elite.
I don't remember saying that the Trump trial was an unfair proceeding of justice. That's what I think you mean by "deny the validity". Otherwise, I do concede that it is a momentous step forward, but just because that may be true doesn't mean that we are all the way there yet.
Conclusion
I get where you are coming from, but you still have to recognize that just because Trump can be a criminal, that doesn't automatically make it so every rich elite will be prosecuted for their crimes.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
Round 3
Forfeited
Not published yet