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

Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 347 times Debate No: 92836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Hello everyone! This will be one of my biggest debates ever!
R1: Will be Con's acceptance and the introduction to the debate by Pro
R2: Opening Arguments; NO REBUTTALS
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and Conclusions no new arguments
No trolling
No swearing
No arguments in the first round
If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to the opposition

I will be arguing that Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States. Con will be arguing that Donald Trump is qualified for president of the US.

This is a closed debate. If you find a way to accept the debate all seven points go to the opposition.


The Constitutional requirements are very clear (except perhaps in the case of Ted Cruz, but that's a topic for another day and a moot point regardless since he's dropped out.) Donald Trump is a natural-born citizen, he is at least 35 years old, he has lived in the country for at least 14 years, he has not served two terms as President, he has never been an impeached President. Even the more common but still non-legally-binding arguments wouldn't prove him unqualified. He has no criminal record. Any claim that the President should have held public office before fails both in the fact that this is stated nowhere in the Constitution and on precedent; both Grant and Eisenhower's tenure as POTUS was their first public office.

If you're asking whether or not Donald Trump's credentials imply that he will be a good President, that is a very different question.

Also, while I fully realize it's not germane to this debate I feel obliged to make the point anyway since certain GOP candidates such as Marco Rubio and Trump himself have made a claim to the contrary, but Hillary Clinton is also legally qualified to be the POTUS.
Debate Round No. 1


Con has violated a rule that I outlined in round one all points go to the opposition.

I clearly stated that there is to be no arguments in the first round. Then I said "If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to opposition." Since con accepted the debate he agreed to the rules thus meaning he agreed with my rules but refused to follow them.

This is breaking the rules which I clearly stated. All points to Pro.

By the way..... By qualified I mean "Fit to the president" and that he is presidential and would be suitable for office.


I didn't post an argument; I posted an opening statement. What else was I supposed to write for Round 1 other than a response to your allegation? You as the pro made a statement, I as the con rebutted it. That is the way civil debate works. Now you have a chance to rebut any points I made.

And you should have better defined qualification if in fact what you're asking for is a debate about whether Trump will be a successful President. If you'd like to have that debate that's fine; define your allegation better. Of course that would be a much more subjective debate rather than the legal one your original premise implied.
Debate Round No. 2


That statement further shows that you did ignore the rules. My rules state that round two is opening statements/arguments. When you accept a debate on DDO when it is acceptance only you say "I accept" and greet your opponent. You clearly did not read any of my rules in round one. Which were clearly stated.

I understand that Con. But, the rules clearly stated "No arguments in the first round". Thus, all seven points go to the opposition which would be me in this case.

You can signal your defeat now by rule violation or the voters will handle it.


You're correct, I misread the original posting. Too bad, could have been fun. Enjoy your hollow win.

On a side note, I can't believe you had the unmitigated temerity to send me a friend request. Rest assured I'm ignoring it.
Debate Round No. 3


"Enjoy your hollow win."

Oh please, give it a break. You broke a rule that I clearly defined in Round one. I sent you a friend request so I could message you and tell you to post an argument. Which took you over two days to write one paragraph.

Enjoy your loss.


Read your profile. "Quite frankly doing nothing at all". The reason I took longer than you to write something is because I work. Given what I've read in your profile, it's probably a fair bet you're going to grow up to be a leach on society and "doing nothing" will be considered your career.

OK, fair. You won because in my haste to squeeze this debate into a working, meaningful life contributing to society I didn't get your round order nonsense right. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get some sleep so I can wake up tomorrow morning and work so that I can generate tax dollars for the government to pay for lazy liberal leaches like yourself so you can sit on your rear end and never have to contribute to society.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SM29 4 months ago
If you want to re-issue this debate I'll accept your challenge and we can debate it for real.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 4 months ago
Thirteen* Thirteen*
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 4 months ago
Well actually 13 but they changed the age limit after I joined when I was 13.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 4 months ago
I am 14 years old. I am not allowed to work at most companies and corporations meaning that I go to school, watch the news and spend my time on DDO.

SM29 I accept your apology and would love to debate you again on this issue. I would also like to apologize saying "It took you two days to write a paragraph." I shouldn't have said that and I apologize since you obviously are an adult and work in a functional society.
Posted by SM29 4 months ago
I can't retract it so I'm posting an apology here both to my opponent and anyone reading my final comment. It was out of line. Out of frustration and thinking "well I've got nothing left to lose" I posted that. It was not civil and I sincerely apologize.

For the record, I was not frustrated so much about a loss as I was about missing out on the opportunity for a fun debate. This was a very interesting topic and I would have enjoyed hashing it out, win or lose.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 4 months ago
Jeez. Con took a drastic turn in the last round... LOL
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
He is qualified, easy win.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 4 months ago
Lord Megatron, as qualified I mean suitable for the job. If he would actually be presidential and be a well rounded president
Posted by SM29 4 months ago
Open it to me and I'll be happy to debate you
Posted by lord_megatron 4 months ago
Anyone is allowed to run for president, therefore he is "qualified" as such to become president.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 months 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I dissaprove with the conduct on each side of this debate, the rules stated that with the R1 violation that all 7 points have to go to Pro. I have to do so under the rules.