The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Donald Trump Would be an Amazing President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 84132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I would first like to state that I in no way agree that Donald Trump would be a good president - I am simply arguing this side because I wish to argue with someone in full possession of their mental capacities. (no offense, Trump fans)

I will be arguing the side of Pro (Donald Trump would be a great president). Anyone can accept this debate

R2-Opening Arguments
R4-Closing Arguments

No new arguments may be posed in the final round
Preferably, no forfeits, but I understand that sometimes life happens and something pops up.
If you choose to use sources, please paste them all at the very bottom of your argument. Sources are not required.

I look forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to state that the kind of president we need now is one who can bring us security, especially from ISIS. Donald Trump can bring us safety through policies he will implement, such as his plan to temporarily keep as Muslims out of the country. This is not a racist measure, it is simply to insure the safety of Americans from terrorists. He will also deport many of our illegal immigrants, namely from Mexico. This will open up more jobs for legal immigrants and citizens. He will also take measures to insure that betterment of our economy, such as reforming the trade relationship with China. Because of all these measures, Donald Trump will be one of the greatest president's the US has ever seen.


I'll approach this in two ways. I will first refute my opponents arguments and then present my own. I intend to do this using simple language and I will not, like many others on this site, over complicate my argument with unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. That is not directed at my opponent today, it is simply a passing point.

Firstly, my opponent believes Trump is the only presidential candidate to give a robust policy for security measures, I disagree. Not a single presidential candidate has assumed that security threats are not an issue, and instead of proposing a policy in which an entire ethnic and religious group is banned, republican candidates have offered simple solutions. The debate between Ted Cruz and increased surveillance demonstrates an individual who recognises the balance between State power and individual liberties. Trump's policies return the U.S. to a state of constant fear and turmoil due to the scaremongering of his policies.

He has continued to seek out minorities and foreigners as targets for his claim that the U.S. is returning to a ethnically mixed melting pot of religious belief and cultural diversity. A principle the U.S. is founded on, yet Trump is re-writing history to slot in his narrowed ideology of 'us vs. them'.

It also must be asked how can Trump be 'an amazing president' when he violates the First Amendment of his constitution? For Liberals, Trump encapsulates their cynical idea of a Republican. Loud, obnoxious and consistently bigoted and narrowed minded. For Republicans though, Trump is offering policies that as Pro said would 'ensure our safety', meaning secure our liberties and freedom with the knowledge of our safety. Yet, to ensure our safety, Trump has decided to undermine the basic liberties of the country he so loves. The First Amendment forbids any law that qualifies a person's rights through religious tests. Trump's ban on Muslims is completely unconstitutional and decries the Tyranny of the majorities that the Founding Fathers sought to remedy.

I simply must ask, to whom is Trump an amazing president? He is going against the Republican values of limited government and upholding the constitution and for Democrats he is is blunt and anti-thesis to social democratic and progressive movements.

I also fail to see how Trump, who has, throughout his campaign, denounced China and criticized its growth will be to the betterment of our economy'. He has burned bridges with British parliament, Chinese government, Mexican workers, Muslim workers and so on. The climate of a pseudo-isolationist policy is present in Trump's economic policy. A policy roundly slammed on both sides when it was proposed by Ron Paul in the previous presidential elections. The best scenario is that Trump does not, if elected, live up to any his promises as they offer no practical or long term benefit.
Debate Round No. 2


This round, I will be focused mainly on refuting arguments my opponent has brought up in his above statement.

My opponent has stated that Trump is not the only candidate that will provide our country with the security it needs from foreign threats. It's true that almost all of the candidates place a huge stress on national security, but I would argue that Trump would implement the most effective strategies for protecting us. My opponent mentions Ted Cruz as an example - yet as Cruz stated himself during the recent Republican debate, the only difference between his policy and Trump's (regarding the influx of Muslims, at least) would be that Cruz has already set a specific amount of time that he would prevent Muslims from entering our country. Therefore, Ted Cruz is a poor example if you wish to show that other GOP candidates have policies that deal with these problems in a better way.

My opponent has also stated that Trump "seeks out minorities and foreigners as targets for his claim that the U.S. is returning to an ethnically mixed melting pot..." Trump is not 'seeking out' minorities - he is simply bring forward issues that happen to deal with these minorities, such as ISIS terrorists and illegal immigration from Mexico. Trump has never stated that he wishes the US to not be ethnically diverse.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." My opponent specifically mentioned the first part, regarding religion. Broken down, this simply means that Congress must have the state separated from religion, and anyone can practice any religion they want. Trump's proposition is not affecting either of these - he is simply going to allow us to monitor the actions of Muslims in order to prevent any more terrorists attacks like those at San Bernardino. This is hardly much different from what the government is doing with the NSA, monitoring any citizen they feel like.

My opponent also asks, "to whom is Trump an amazing president?" To that, I reply the 34.4% of Republican voters who said they would vote for him in the polls.

Finally, my opponent asks how Trump's criticism of foreign powers will help to conduct foreign matters well or to better our economy. Maybe it won't - but it is the duty of the American president to denounce things they see in the world that is perceived as wrong. We are one of the most influential countries in the world - which is why we had better start acting like it.

Thank you for your time.


My opponent admits that Donald Trump is not the only individual who offers security details about how to keep the U.S safe, with that in mind, my opponent must believe not simply that Ted Cruz's policies are worse than Trump's policies but rather that Trump himself will be an amazing President. So, I do not need to show any GOP candidates are better suited to the job than Trump, merely that Trump is not special in his policies by virtue of pro's emphasis as such.

Therefore, Pro must show why Trump would be an amazing president, not the best of a bad lot. An amazing president offers unique solutions, leadership skills and a nuance that allows them to navigate the global political sphere. With that in mind, let's look at the qualities of a leader in reverse as compared to Trump.

Does Trump has an endearing, nuanced and intelligent approach to politics? The answer is obviously he doesn't. He attacks his opponents with a blunt and inaccurate hammer calling for even his own GOP candidates which in general support each other's approach to completely, and out of friendly competition but rather fear for his popularity, admonish Trump's wild claims. It must be unsurprisingly that those who are skeptical about calling Trump a good candidate for the Presidential elections, to see the two main parties unite in their dismissal of his attitude and claims. This ought to be enough, Ed Miliband was slammed by the Conservative party for his weak and limpwrist-ed approach to political issues. Trump on the other hand, or other extreme, cannot see nuance or political strategy and while he is happy to preach to the choir of his 34.4% voters, he will not be speaking to them when he is trying to discuss the Palestine/Israel settlements, Sanctions on Iranian Nuclear programs, cultural/social de-progression of the former Soviet Union or even the British& European Lisbon treaty.

Whether Trump explicitly stated he doesn't like minorities is not at issue, Trump has and does engage with minorities when it benefits his pocket. Note the investments in Saudi Arabia, the unofficial threat of Islamic Extremism. Which is funny, that Trump lambastes Muslims or Arabs, he doesn't unfortunately separate the two terms, yet he is happy to make private dealings when constructing his gold courses in Dubai to cater for the rich Muslim elites. Is it not self-evident that Trump is simply preaching to the choir, or perhaps scare-mongering to the unfortunates who are sweeped up in his rhetoric?

My argument about the first amendment is so simple is ought to be on a t-shirt. Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Trump's ban on Muslims entering the U.S. is his proposal of a law to prohibit the free expression of one's faith. You can duck and dive the argument, claim he is doing it only for a few months, or you can say it is 'just keeping on eye' on people, but in reality it is a law motivated on the prohibition of Religion. I suspect my opponent is well-aware of Trump's consistent calls of Islamic terrorism, yet do you really want to pigeon hole your argument to say 'well it's not really about religion' when Trump bans Muslims? You cannot have it both ways. Either Trump's ban on muslims is due to their religion, therefore the first amendment stands and he is in violation of his constitution or Trump is banning Arabs because of his racial prejudice, I think the former is more reasonable, but you have to pick one. Either choice just shows how poor of a candidate he is.

There really is not much more to say, my opponent cannot get out of the first amendment bind, and in my mind, it is reasonable to conclude an 'amazing president' ought not to violate the very first of his officially recognized constitutional freedoms. This affects everyone, a limitation of one individual's freedom is a limitation on all, and that is why Trump would be not simply an okay president, but rather a poor president.

None the less, even if he did become president, his policies would be filters and softened and the man you see now will not be able to simply build a big giant wall across the country because he promised his 34%. Universal Health Care took months and years of planning and only barely got through, yet you think Trump will deliver on his promises? It's simply wishful thinking, and at that stage, while he is president, the backtracking will almost certainly not making him amazing. I look forward to my opponent actually breaking down his polices, it is not my job to seek out his specific polices, and I wait for a more detailed analysis of why Trump of Security/Immigration/ISIS is so amazing, beyond the assertion of that statement.
Debate Round No. 3


StatsAndFacts forfeited this round.


I'll close on the fact my arguments were not addressed nor my counter points rebutted.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 1 round, but Con didn't forfeit any rounds. Therefore, Con wins conduct.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.