Since you forfeited as well, I consider that bad conduct. If you had just said extend all arguments, I would’ve given you the points. Forfeit is an immediate loss of conduct points for me because it’s disrespectful
“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
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
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.
“ 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.
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.
“ 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.”
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?
“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.
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.
“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.
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).
“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.
“ 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.
“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.
“So in other words... the constitutionality of a senate trial isn’t determined by what previous senates did.
Did I hear wrong?”
I don’t know what you’re trying to insinuate. If the Senate declares something constitutional, it doesn’t necessarily make it constitutional. I explained this. If their actions are constitutional per the Constitution, then the precedent matters
“So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
That’s all. Thank you for explaining.”
Precedents aren’t absolute. If they were, Scott v Sanford would still be the law of the land. I already mentioned that precedents that are inherently unconstitutional should not be entertained. The Belknap trial would be a constitutional precedent that showed former holders cannot be convicted. If a future Senate were to convict they’d still be acting in an unconstitutional manner.
“Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?”
No. The Constitution doesn’t allow impeachment’s and convictions of private citizens period. If they did, it would be unconstitutional and I’d personally sue all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide.
I can’t vote for some reason
I cant Vote for some reason
Always
A Double_R debate that isn’t against me
All good bro, no worries
Since you forfeited as well, I consider that bad conduct. If you had just said extend all arguments, I would’ve given you the points. Forfeit is an immediate loss of conduct points for me because it’s disrespectful
Debate’s not over yet…
Shame. I really liked this topic
Should be an easy vote
Good luck to you!
I’ve seen countless Pakistani flags lol. I’m not offended by them
Only people who want to get offended by a flag get offended. It’s just a flag dude. Deal with it
Easiest position for Con win ever
Send me the link and keep spamming me reminders
“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
Okie
Your perspective would also help if you wanna take a look
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
I wonder why mods would think it should’ve been thrown out
Wasn’t your vote thrown out lol
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.
“ 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.
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.
“ 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
“ 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 :)
Thanks
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?
“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.
Sure, I’d welcome a thorough reading and opinion on who should’ve won the merits of the debate.
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.
Please affirm the fact that I won this debate fairly and take back your comment that I won because of my “friends.”
Anything for my favorite incel
Based
Go shave you hobo.
Also cute kid
Genuinely a good topic. Lemme know when voting period comes
Love this topic
Who tf cares lkl
Your welcome!
Easiest vote of my life
“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
“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.
Very close debate. It was hard to vote
Oops I meant Plessy v Ferguson this entire time, not Scott v Sanford. My b
““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).
“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.
“ 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.
“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.
“So in other words... the constitutionality of a senate trial isn’t determined by what previous senates did.
Did I hear wrong?”
I don’t know what you’re trying to insinuate. If the Senate declares something constitutional, it doesn’t necessarily make it constitutional. I explained this. If their actions are constitutional per the Constitution, then the precedent matters
“So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
That’s all. Thank you for explaining.”
Precedents aren’t absolute. If they were, Scott v Sanford would still be the law of the land. I already mentioned that precedents that are inherently unconstitutional should not be entertained. The Belknap trial would be a constitutional precedent that showed former holders cannot be convicted. If a future Senate were to convict they’d still be acting in an unconstitutional manner.
“Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?”
No. The Constitution doesn’t allow impeachment’s and convictions of private citizens period. If they did, it would be unconstitutional and I’d personally sue all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide.