The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
warren42
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Donald Trump should be 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 1 vote the winner is...
warren42
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 93977
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

warren42

Con

As Pro did not set up any guidelines for this debate, I will take the liberty of doing so.

Definitions:
Donald Trump- Donald J. Trump, businessman and Republican presidential nominee
should- I assume this not to be a traditional definition of the word, but rather one implying the best possible path of action. Therefore, the BoP falls upon Pro, as they must prove Trump is the best option as the next POTUS
president- as in the head of the United States of America's executive branch of government

*Counterplans amay be used by Con*

Round 1: Acceptance/Definitions
Round 2: Constructive
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Up to each debater, likely defense of constructive/extension of rebuttal
Round 5: Closing Arguments/Voting Issues

NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE FINAL ROUND
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Let's examine our alternative options:
Hillary Clinton- A war criminal who committed treason against the United States on multiple occasions, sold US military technology to China in the china gate scandal, and who has sold Uranium through Uranium One to Russia, then selling it to Iran to help them get a nuclear weapon.
Bernie Sanders- A communist who wants to tax our brains out, nationalise healthcareand drive its price through the roof, and destroy our right to bear arms.
Jill Stein- A liberal doctor who doesn't believe in the constiution.
Gary Johnson- wel I actualy like this guy but he wants free trade with China which will kill us.
warren42

Con

Alright. I'll start with a constructive, and will wait until the next round to attack Donald Trump as well as the arguments my opponent has provided.

Though I believe literally any candidate would be better than Trump, my counter-proposition will be Gary Johnson, and I will provide Johnson's stances on major issues facing the United States.

1. Drug War
Gary Johnson is a proponent of legalizing recreational marijuana and decriminalizing other drugs. [1] As Colorado has seen, this would decrease arrests [2], freeing up space from our nation's incredibly overcrowded prison system. [3] It would also create revenue from taxation to be spent on schools and youth drug prevention efforts, as well as create jobs. [2] It has also been correlated with decreased traffic fatalities and crime rates. [2] Legal marijuana would also help deal a blow to drug cartels. [4]

2. Spending
Johnson vetoed many bills that included excessive spending while governor of NM and balanced the state's budget. He has experience balancing a government's budget. [5]

3. Taxes
Johnson advocates a simplification of our tax system. [6]

4. Abortion
Johnson is pro-life as an individual, and pro-choice when it comes to other people. Like most Libertarians, he's just going to leave you alone if elected. [7]

5. Education
Johnson believes eduation should be left to the states, as it does not fall under the Constitution's outline of the role of the federal government. [8]

6. Environment
The health of the environment is directly linked to our health as a species, and as government has a role to protect its citizens from harm, it has a certain role in ensuring a healthy environment. [9] Johnson also acknowledges the existence of global climate change. [9] [10]

7. Immigration
Johnson advocates a simplified process to obtain legal status upon entry to the United States [11] and has stated on the Stossel Forum as well as the CNN Libertarian Town Hall that illegal immigrants would have some sort of punishment, likely a fine, then given a chance to become legal, rather than deporting them.

8. Terror
Governor Johnson advocates a lessened global military presence, and believes in engaging in fewer conflicts and lessening support to rebel groups, as this has caused trouble in the past (ISIS, al-Qaeda). [12]

9. Bonus Points
As a Libertarian, Johnson believes in personal liberty.
Johnson and Weld combine for over a dozen years of executive experience [13], and not a single other candidate has any.

[1] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[2] https://www.drugpolicy.org...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[6] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[7] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[8] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[9] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[10] http://climate.nasa.gov...
[11] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[12] http://www.johnsonweld.com...
[13] http://www.wsj.com...
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Hold on a second here, you were supposed to prove that doinnald trump should not be president! Not that Gary Johnson should.
warren42

Con

Rest easy, harrytruman, I'm getting to that.

Within my framing of the debate, I made special note that "*Counterplans [may] be used by Con*" (sorry for the typo) therefore, I was setting up the grounds for why Johnson should be president, my counterplan. (Also, only one of the two can be elected, therefore if Johnson should be president, Trump should not, so it most definitely falls under this resolution.)

I'll start by attacking my opponent's constructive. It essentially lists all other major contenders and a short synopsis of why they are unqualified to lead our nation. I'll it down really quickly.

Clinton- I agree, Clinton is not the best potential leader of our country (I still find her superior to Trump, but that's irrelevant, as this has evolved into a Trump-Johnson debate)

Sanders- Not a communist, seeks a middle ground when it comes to gun legislation. Sanders supports a ban of assault weapons, looks to close the gunshow loophole, and is in favor of instant background checks for mentally ill and felons to keep such individuals from acquiring guns [1] (Trump also supports more background checks [2]). In this case also, I'm not Feelin' the Bern, but would rather have a socialist government under Sanders than an authoritarian one under Trump.

Stein- If being a doctor disqualifies her as she is not of the political class, this should disqualify Trump as well. If not believing in the Constitution disqualifies her, it should disqualify Trump as well. Trump has acted or made comments that conflict with the 1st Amendment via free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of protest "After a fight erupted between protesters and police last year in Birmingham, Trump said: ""Maybe he should have been roughed up." Of a protester in Nevada last month, Trump said: "I"d like to punch him in the face." In Kentucky, he said: "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I"ll defend you in court. " Are Trump rallies the most fun? We"re having a good time." [6] [3] [4], 5th Amendment [3], and 14th Amendment [3] [5]. In the Meet the Press interview, it is made painfully obvious that Trump doesn't know the 14th Amendment [7].

Johnson- In the only attack my opponent has made on Johnson so far, he has provided a vague statement with neither evidence nor warrant. Either way, prefer it to Trump's vague anti-China rhetoric (and vague rhetoric on just about everything).

Now for general attacks against Trump:

1. Trump vs. Islam
Trump not only says that Islam "hates" the US [8] but that we should ban all Muslim immigration, as well as banning American citizens who happen to be Muslim from returning here if they have traveled abroad. [9] Not only does this destroy freedom of religion, the "US vs. Islam" attitude actually helps ISIS recruiters. ISIS even said in their publications that they benefit from such an attitude. [10] Furthermore, Trump said he would kill the families of ISIS members if he were president [11] because "They're using them as shields." Not even because Trump thinks their family members are more prone to radicalization, but because he promotes killing more of the enemy no matter what the civilian casualty rate may be.

2. Trump admires tyrants
Donald Trump openly praised Russian president Vladmir Putin [12]. If you don't get why that's not ok... [13][14][15] Trump also kept a book of Hitler quotes on his nightstand when married to now ex-wife Ivana. [16]

3. Trump has literally no foreign policy
Trump told reporters he'd like to be "unpredictable" when it came to foreign policy. [17] Essentially, he doesn't have one.

4. Trump sucks and everyone knows it
His unfavorable rating is around 60%. [18]

I'd add more, but I'm tired and feel comfortable with my current position.

[1] http://feelthebern.org...
[2] http://www.ontheissues.org...
[3] http://reason.com...
[4] http://money.cnn.com...
[5] http://www.politicususa.com...
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[7] https://memory.loc.gov...
[8] http://www.cnn.com...
[9] http://www.cnn.com...
[10] http://www.vox.com...
[11] http://www.politico.com...
[12] http://blogs.wsj.com...
[13] http://www.pravdareport.com...
[14] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[15] http://www.forbes.com...
[16] http://www.vanityfair.com...
[17] http://fortune.com...
[18] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro


  1. Hold on a second, you honestly believe that Trump will establish an authoritarian government? I wonder where you dug that up, do you honestly believe whatever the liberal television tells you.

  2. Trump isn’t anti constitution and I never said that because Jill Stein is a doctor she shouldn’t be president, I said that because she is a liberal she shouldn’t be president, you cannot elect a president who does not believe in the constitution.

  3. Banning Islam isn’t a violation of the freedom of religion because, first of all, the 1st amendment protects American citizens, not foreigners. Second of all Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology, invented by Muhammad for political and militant gain, it’s no different than Nazism, and should be treated likewise.

  4. Trump doesn’t admire Vladimir Putin per se, but China and Russia are enemies, Russia is afraid that China will destroy them, so Trump prefers Putin above De-zong, Bernie Sanders admires Barrack Obama and Joseph Stalin, who were real tyrants.

warren42

Con

Sorry it took me so long to get back.

First off, once again, I'm far from a Bernie supporter, but I don't think he has ever publicly admired Stalin, and you shouldn't be dragging his name through the mud by saying he does. Just because he's a socialist and may support certain aspects of communism doesn't mean he admires Stalin.

1. Trump as an Authoritarian
Yes, I do believe Trump would be an authoritarian. Under the second definition from Merriam-Webster [1] authoritarian essentially means a ruler not abiding by, or not bound to, his or her nation's Constitution. Pull through all my Trump is anti-Constitution arguments and you have a perfect match to the definition of Authoritarian. Throw in his admiration of Putin (which he definitely does, as via my sources you can find his outward admiration he himself admitted), and it's almost like he'd appeal to Americans who favor authoritarianism. [2]

2. Defense of Trump vs. Islam

A. Islam is a religion. [3] The definition of religion is essentially belief in a deity. [4] Islam is a monotheistic religion, as is evident not only as common knowledge, but also if you take a look at the Quran. [5] (Evidence can be found in the first verse on the page the link takes you to. English translations appear under the Arabic). Comparing Islam to Nazism is ridiculous.

B. Trump's ban originally applied to literally every single Muslim not currently in the US, but he took a step back, saying it would apply to immigrants and American citizens living overseas. If they are only visiting a foreign country, they may return, but if they are citizens residing elsewhere, they wouldn't be allowed. {Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said Trump’s proposed ban would apply to “everybody”, including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country. Another Trump staffer confirmed that the ban would also apply to American Muslims who were currently overseas – presumably including members of the military and diplomatic service. “This does not apply to people living in the country,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News, “but we have to be vigilant.”} [6] Citizens residing overseas are entitled to the same rights as those living within our borders.

Voters please remember, no new arguments in the final round, as per my framework.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.politico.com...
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://quran.com...
[6] https://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

1. Totalitarian Trump:

Give me some examples, how is Trump not bound by the constitution? What does he want to do that violates the constitution? If anything this proves that it is Hillary Clinton who is a totalitarian, because I can give you examples of how she has no regard for the Constitution. Such as how she received money from China in exchange for US military technology, committing treason against the United States, and violating Article 1 Section 9, last paragraph:
“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Vladimir Putin is not a dictator, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, it’s called the Russian Federation, and it has as a constitution, which Putin obeys, meaning he is not a dictator. In fact he is a likeable guy, I also like his foreign policy, and how he is prepared to g to war at any time, by building his military, increasing military spending, but always choses peace first. He is a leader that will protect his nation and is loyal to the citizens, this is the kind of leader we need, in this case, Donald Trump.

He is also kind of funny, because when Hillary Clinton said that Vladimir Putin “has no soul,” he said “I have no soul? Well, at least I have a brain.”


2. Trump vs. Islam:

First of all, the First Amendment is only ensured to American citizens, we don’t have to, neither should we, grant it to foreigners. Second, just because Islam believes in a G-d doesn’t mean it deserves status as a religion, Manson founded a cult based on him as a god, but we didn’t grant his cult status as a religion, we arrested all his followers.

I see no difference between Islam and Nazism, both are political and cultural ideologies devised by a mad man seeking political and military authority, which justifies horrendous things, and which contains occultic and spiritual beliefs, which Hitler did prescribe to. Both hate Jews, abuse women, and attempt to present its followers as the best people (Qur’an 3:110).



warren42

Con

Thanks harrytruman.

Quick review of my opponent's R5:

1. Totalitarian Trump

I have given numerous examples in my rebuttal of Trump having violated or likely to violate the Constitution, specifically Amendments 1, 5, and 14.

"Trump has acted or made comments that conflict with the 1st Amendment via free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of protest "After a fight erupted between protesters and police last year in Birmingham, Trump said: ""Maybe he should have been roughed up." Of a protester in Nevada last month, Trump said: "I"d like to punch him in the face." In Kentucky, he said: "Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I"ll defend you in court. " Are Trump rallies the most fun? We"re having a good time." [6] [3] [4], 5th Amendment [3], and 14th Amendment [3] [5]. In the Meet the Press interview, it is made painfully obvious that Trump doesn't know the 14th Amendment [7]."
-Warren42, rebuttal

We'll have to agree to disagree as far as Putin is concerned. I provided sources in my rebuttal proving my position as to why he is not an ideal head of state.

harrytruman also put a few words in my mouth in R5. I called Trump authoritarian, not totalitarian. I called Putin an authoritarian and a tyrant, not a dictator. Though these are similar words, they are not the same, and I'd like to make the distinction as this may be an attempt by harrytruman to make a straw man argument against me.

2. Trump vs. Islam
I know who the Constitution applies to (though Trump doesn't, see 14th Amendment argument in rebuttal) but the Trump plan also applied to American citizens living overseas. Just because they don't live here doesn't make them non-citizens.

Islam is widely recognized as a religion. The argument against it is yours and yours alone, as you have provided no evidence to supplement your claim. The Atlantic, a highly respected publication, was referenced in my R4 arguments to support Islam as a religion. I don't think any further evidence is needed.

Islam and Nazism are not comparable. Trump and Hitler are though! Both used bigotry and hatred to rise to power, and Trump admired Hitler according to his ex-wife Ivanka (see rebuttal).

Now for my voting issues. I ask the voters to consider these key points when deciding the winner of this debate.

1. Trump is Authoritarian

I referenced Trump's ideology conflicting with the First Amendment in three ways- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of protest. harrytruman argued that Trump's ban of Islam does not violate freedom of religion, yet as I have proved that Islam is a religion and that Trump would also turn back Muslim American citizens living abroad, it does. Note that harrytruman dropped freedom of speech and freedom of protest. Also note that he dropped my 5th and 14th Amendment arguments. As Pro did not address them, Con wins these arguments and in turn, this issue.

2. Trump vs. Islam

Again, I proved that Islam is a religion, and that Trump would restrict the rights of Muslim American citizens. This alone should prohibit him from being POTUS. Vote Con.

3. Trump's Foreign Policy

It doesn't exist. This was unrefuted by Pro. I prefer a leader with foreign policy. Con wins this issue.

4. Trump vs. Johnson

Remember my constructive. Only one person can be elected President. Therefore, if Gary Johnson is better than Trump, Con wins this round. The only criticism of Johnson Pro gave was that free trade with China would "kill us." This was without any further explanation or any evidence to support the very vague claim. Extend literally every pro-Johnson argument from my constructive.

As Con has won all four of the major points of contention in this round, Con should win this round.

Thank you harrytruman and the voters for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Part 1 ARGUMENTS - The resolution to this debate is "Donald Trump should be president." Con negates the resolution if he can show that someone else other than Trump should be elected President. Pro doesn't seem to understand this by looking at his reply in round 3: "Hold on a second here, you were supposed to prove that doinnald trump [sic] should not be president! Not that Gary Johnson should." But this is exactly how con can and should argue. By proving Gary Johnson should be elected over Donald Trump, he negates the resolution. I'm going to give a further analysis of the arguments that were presented in the comment section. SOURCES - I give con an edge in sources as pro made several claims that were presented without evidence. For example, pro claimed that Clinton is a war criminal, Stein is a liberal doctor that doesn't believe in the constitution, and Sanders is a communist that wants to tax us to death. Because pro never provided proof for his claims, sources go to con.

[*Reason for removal*] While arguments are sufficiently examined, sources are not. The voter bases their decision here solely on the absence of sources from Pro's argument, but is required to explain how Con's sources were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate) in order to award these points to him. The failure to do so makes this vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Sources

Sources - Con. The reason I'm awarding sources is two-fold, firstly Pro fails to utilize sources in this debate whereas Con does. Secondly, Con's multiple sources directly served to strengthen the validity of his claims as seen in R2 with his Nasa source which validity his climate change argument or R3 with his CNN source which proved his point on Trump's claim regarding Islam.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
RFD Part 3

Pro argues that Islam is not a religion, but an ideology and that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens and not foreigners. Con shows that Islam is, in fact, a religion. Con defines a religion as a belief in a Deity and shows how Islam fits that definition.

Pro's comparisons of Islam and Nazism are not comparable. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Nazism is not a religion because it does not fit the definition of religion that con provided.

Con successfully showed that Johnson should be elected over Trump, thus negating the resolution.

For all these reasons, I give my vote to con.

This vote has been brought to you by ThinkBig. If any of you have any questions about my vote, please do not hesitate to contact me!
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
RFD Part 2

I want to look at the arguments a little bit better and analyze the specific points made by harrytruman and warren42.

Pro does actually discuss Johnson in the beginning, concedes that he likes Johnson, but argues that his free trade beliefs with China will harm our economy. On what basis should we believe this? Because pro does not support that claim, that point goes to con.

Con begins his opening arguments by providing the basic platform that Gary Johnson believes in and wants to support. He shows his position (with sources) on taxes, spending, abortion, immigration, terror, personal liberty, education, the environment, and the drug war. Pro drops all these points in round 3, as his reply was a non-argument.

Con then begins to show the flaws that Donald Trump has and why we should consider voting for Johnson over Trump. Con shows (with sources and evidence) that Trump wants to violate the U.S. constitution by banning Muslims from entering the United States, command the military to commit war crimes by killing innocent civilians, openly admiring dictators such as Putin and Hitler, has absolutely no foreign policy, and is highly unfavorable.

--- TO BE CONTINUED ---
Posted by warren42 4 months ago
warren42
@The-Evil-Egalitarian This is all completely factual, as it has all been sourced, so I don't see how that is possible :)
Posted by The-Evil-Egalitarian 4 months ago
The-Evil-Egalitarian
Both of your arguments are flawed. I think Gary Johnson should be president but you're making Donald Trump to seem worse than he actually is.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
harrytrumanwarren42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Part 1 ARGUMENTS - The resolution to this debate is "Donald Trump should be president." Con negates the resolution if he can show that someone else other than Trump should be elected President. Pro doesn't seem to understand this by looking at his reply in round 3: "Hold on a second here, you were supposed to prove that doinnald trump [sic] should not be president! Not that Gary Johnson should." But this is exactly how con can and should argue. By proving Gary Johnson should be elected over Donald Trump, he negates the resolution. I'm going to give a further analysis of the arguments that were presented in the comment section. SOURCES - pro made several claims that were presented without evidence. For example, pro claimed that Clinton is a war criminal, Stein is a liberal doctor that doesn't believe in the constitution, and Sanders is a communist that wants to tax us to death. Because pro never provided proof for his claims, sources go to con. See comments for more