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

Gary Johnson Would Make a Better POTUS Than Donald Trump

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 91132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




NOTE: My opponent and I have started this debate elsewhere, but we'll finish it here.

That said...

I am a libertarian who often identifies as a Libertarian. Ideologically, the Libertarian presidential candidates I agree with most are Petersen > McAffee > Johnson. However I am not a fan of democracy or voting in general, and the federal government is not something I generally support. That said, I believe the current Democratic and Republican frontrunners are garbage candidates. The Libertarian frontrunner has better plans than both. So in this debate, I will argue that Gary Johnson is the preferred mainstream presidential candidate, and that voters should support his candidacy over the other frontrunners.

While "better" is an ambiguous term in defining a president's success, for the sake of this debate we will be arguing the merit of each candidate's platforms. I am looking for a thoughtful discussion on overall better values for this country, based on where the candidates stand on key issues (not how many friends they have in Washington). I will be arguing that Gary Johnson is not only better suited to be POTUS, but that he is on the right side of many social and economic issues that Trump is not. As such, he and his platforms would be better suited to lead the United States if they were to come to fruition.

My opponent should now continue to c/p Rounds 1-2 from our previous debate, and allow me to pick up in Round 3.

Thanks for your time! - Danielle



Debate Round No. 1


Introduction: Electability & Likability

A president's temperament is one of their most important attributes. Assessing and responding to conflict is a huge part of the position. A president must stay cool under pressure. They should be mature, considerate and able to conceal their emotions; sometimes that is even necessary for security. But Donald Trump has proven he cannot hide his arrogant and condescending nature. He thrives on emotion, not reason, and his incivility would not translate well to suit the role of president. He cares more about his ego than doing what is right. In fact he is so self-righteous that he describes himself as "his own chief adviser" while ignoring the expertise of more educated and knowledgeable authorities [1].

Donald Trump is a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, arrogant trust fund kid who quotes from the National Enquirer, peddles conspiracy theories, speaks condescendingly, mocks his critics and celebrates the creation of enemies. He's even suggested that John McCain is a loser for having been a prisoner of war. Donald Trump is so disliked, that his own party promotes a #NeverTrump movement to emphasize their lack of support for his candidacy. If his own party's politicians (and constituents) hate him, we can assume Trump will not be able to "reach across the aisle" and accomplish many of his goals. However since his platform is so terrible, that's probably a good thing.

Military & Foreign Policy

While Gary Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad," he also acknowledges that being bankrupt is a great threat to our national security. He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget by concentrating on defense rather than offense. Johnson believes in making better use of our military alliances at less cost. He claims the U.S. should resort to military action as the last option, and only as provided in the Constitution which is actually the legal standard [2].

At the same time, Johnson is not completely opposed to interventionism. But he acknowledges how imperative it is to our financial and national security interests to vehemently scale back our gargantuan, excessive military budget and overseas involvement in unnecessary and counterproductive conflict. Indeed the Department of Defense has admitted that our aggressive foreign policy has made us less and not more safe [3].

On the other hand, Donald Trump is a war monger. He has made it clear that he does intend to promptly start or extend another war in the Middle East, specifically against ISIS [4]. While he swears he will crush ISIS -- which came to fruition from past U.S. interventions -- he doesn't want to nation build, so another terrorist group can/will likely emerge just as one has (like ISIS) every single time we have tried to intervene the way Trump suggests. Wiping out radical Islam overseas isn't necessarily possible. And Trump's "no Iran nuke under any circumstance" position could easily encourage yet another Middle East war.

In short, none of Trump's proposals seem viable at establishing or maintaining peace and diplomatic relations. He has said that his greatest priority as president would be beefing up the military and spending more money [5] despite the fact that the U.S. spends more on defense than the next 10 nations combined, most of whom are allies. Trump has no problem "bombing and taking the oil." But our over-investment in the military has cost us trillions of dollars, and there is no end in sight to conflict in the Middle East which has also cost us thousands of lives while burying us in unsustainable debt.

War on Drugs

Donald Trump used to be on the right side of this issue, correctly pointing out the WOD has been an indisputable failure. It has not been effective at deterring drug use, and it disproportionately punishes minorities while creating a cycle of poverty. It also encourages police brutality, and punishes users regardless of whether or not they cause any harm. It is single handedly responsible for creating the largest prison population in the world. Most violent crime stems from drug prohibition and not drug use itself.

You will never be able to prevent drug use for the same reason you will never be able to get rid of guns. Donald Trump recognizes that prohibition doesn't work, and he won't criminalize guns for this reason... yet he fails to see his own hypocrisy in calling to keep drugs criminalized. Gary Johnson notes the state has no business governing people's bodies. We should only punish aggressive acts; we should not continue wasting billions of dollars to make criminals out of non-violent offenders. Gary Johnson also calls for the legalization of pot which makes perfect sense, considering marijuana is far safer than alcohol. Trump has done a 180 to pander to social conservatives here, and he is now dead wrong on this very important topic which is vehemently immoral and unjustifiably expensive.

The Economy

Gary Johnson promises a balanced budget. He wants to cut federal expenditures, get rid of pork, end federal subsidies, nix government bail outs, scale down social welfare and eliminate wasteful spending. But can he deliver? His resume as a politician (whereas Trump has none for comparison) proves that he can be an effective leader. Gary Johnson ran for governor as a fiscal conservative in a blue state, won handily, cut taxes, vetoed hundreds of bills, presided over significant job growth, balanced the state budget and created a substantial reserve fund.

Compare that to Trump's budget proposals which are completely unrealistic. Trump promises to cut taxes while swearing he won't get rid of huge entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security and Health Care. And don't forget that Trump wants to spend even more money on the military. There's no way Trump can provide a balanced budget by cutting taxes and continuing to fund massive government expenditures at the same time. Moreover, this does not consider our huge amount of debt which Johnson has made it a priority to address.

"Trump could pass his tax cut, monetize the entire trade deficit as additional revenues, somehow eliminate all federal spending except Social Security (which he has said he will protect) and still not pay off $19 trillion of debt in eight years. Nor is it remotely plausible that Trump would reduce the debt through economic growth. As the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget notes, Trump's plan would ultimately require cutting non-entitlement spending by about 90 percent, while growing at more than 20 percent each year. To put this in context: many economists were skeptical when Jeb Bush said that as president the nation would achieve four percent growth" [6].

We cannot afford an economically illiterate president. Trump repeats economic fallacies and doesn't understand important concepts like the trade deficit [7]. He's also against free trade. Free trade embraces freedom and brings prosperity. But Trump's protectionism calls for high tariffs on cheap foreign imports. This makes the products average Americans buy every day more expensive, which specifically hurts the poor and middle class [8].


Trump wants to inhibit foreign labor, which also keeps cost high for American consumers. He does not have the power to make Mexico build a wall, and Mexico has no incentive or financial ability to comply. So Trump would likely spend even more tax payer money to construct an ineffective all. After all, most illegal immigrants enter this country by plane [9] which means the wall would be a futile expense. It would cost tens of billions of dollars (a conservative estimate) to build this unnecessary blockade [10]. This wall wouldn't even protect all U.S. borders, and it would inhibit economic productivity. Plus a trade war with Mexico will impoverish Mexicans further, and encourage more illegal immigration.

But immigrants don't increase native unemployment or drain our public resources. Instead migration allows impoverished people to seek opportunity by accomodating demands for labor and fueling competition. This is good for capitalism, but Trump is not a capitalist -- yet another (big) reason Johnson is superopr on the economy.

Despite Trump's claims, immigrants are less likely to commit violent or property crimes than U.S. citizens. This matters since most are arrested for immigration offenses. Some are arrested for drugs... which clearly Trump does NOT want to legalize, contrary to Con's claims. Therefore extend all of my arguments on the WOD and Johnson's superior platform.

"Refugees in general, and Syrian refugees in particular, already are among the most intensely scrutinized immigrants to enter the U.S. Despite Trump's proclamation that the refugee migration might be 'the greatest Trojan horse of all time,' the fact is that terrorist attacks in the U.S. by and large have been carried out NOT by refugees, but by people here on student visas or naturalized American citizens" meaning a wall would be ineffective at deterring immigration crime or terrorism [11]. In fact tough immigration laws benefit private prisons who rake in over 5.1 billion dollars from locking them up [12]. No wonder Donald Trump is vocal about his support for mass incarceration and private prisons [13].

Keep in mind that Trump's stereotyping crosses Constitutional barriers when he suggestes entire relgiions be banned from entering the U.S. - a concept that is arguably Unconstituional and violates international law [14]. I'll expand on Trump's Constitutional violations in the next round.

R2 Conclusion

Donald Trump is a xenophobic authoritarian who jeopardizes civil liberties. But in this round I focused on how Trump would undoubtedly worsen the American economy. His plan would not address our debt and likely increase our deficit. Moreover, his foreign policy is problematic and arguably makes us less safe.




I'm going to make my case within my response to Pro's arguments

== Electability ==

This argument is nothing but a string of bare assertions; Pro has provided zero evidence that Trump is incapable of being diplomatic or thinking rationally. There have been countless instances in which Trump has demonstrated the ability to act professionally -- the idea that he could have survived in the business world for so long without that ability is ludicrous. Many marketing experts have argued that Trump *intentionally* projects his bombastic "entertainer" persona in order to cultivate mass-appeal [1][2] In other words, his 'offensiveness' is an (extraordinarily effective) act.

Ben Carson -- a former political rival of his who has actually gotten to know Trump on a personal & professional level -- had this to say about him: "There's the Donald Trump that you see on television, who gets out in front of big audiences... and there's the Donald Trump behind the scenes... they're not the same person. One's very much an entertainer, and one is actually a thinking individual... Mr. Trump is more reasonable than people realize" [3].

Contrary to my opponent's assertions, Trump has repeatedly acknowledged that he's not a policy expert. On numerous occasions, he has openly expressed his intent to recruit the most talented specialists he can find (regardless of their personal ideology, I might add) and actively seek their counsel in office [4]. The reason why Trump hasn't needed much 'expert' advice on the campaign trail is because he himself IS an expert in self-promotion.

My opponent is also incorrect in her claims that likeability is necessary for effective bipartisan leadership. Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon were both widely disliked by their fellow politicians, yet they got more done than the majority of US presidents. Leadership ability is determined by confidence, assertiveness, intelligence, and adaptability -- not "likeability."

The fact is that Trump has built and maintained a wildly successful business empire over the course of more than 40 years, which inevitably involves working with hundreds of different people on a daily basis -- that alone is sufficient reason to presume that he is an extremely competent leader, but on top of that, any impartial review of Trump's business record reveals that he has spectacular abilities when it comes to negotiating, pressuring, compromising, and political maneuvering [5].

In stark contrast, Gary Johnson did virtually nothing as Governor of New Mexico -- he was primarily known for simply vetoing all increases in government spending [6]. That certainly isn't something which requires significant intelligence, executive talent, or leadership ability. Given the gridlocked nature of Congress and the unpopularity of many libertarian policies among constituents, it's likely that he would just be yet another obstructionist, 'do-nothing' president.

Trump is a vastly superior leader to Johnson -- he will be much better at working with Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and his executive staff to do good for the country. Ultimately, that is far more important than the specific policies a candidate advocates, because the POTUS is not a legislator -- he is a diplomat, an agenda-setter, a negotiator, and an enforcer.

== Foreign Policy ==

Pro has completely misrepresented Trump's foreign policy. Trump does *not* support increasing military spending -- he has explicitly said he would like to decrease it by eliminating the enormous amounts of wasteful spending we engage in [7]. Building a stronger military is not synonymous with expanding the defense budget. Trump has also stated on numerous occasions that he wants to make our allies pay for the military protection we grant them, and that he is strongly against counter-productive efforts to dethrone secular autocrats (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria) [8].

In other words, his policies would substantially *reduce* military spending. Trump's foreign policy actually shares some remarkable commonalities with Johnson's... however, Trump's is definitively better because he isn't isolationist -- he has made it clear that he intends to maintain (and exapdn) US hegemony, which is widely acknowledged among international relations scholars to be crucial for preserving global stability [9].

Pro can criticize Trump's ISIS plan all she likes, but Gary Johnson's plan is much, much worse -- withdrawing from the Middle East is the most disastrous possible course of action. Firstly, it would mean letting the RSII coalition take out ISIS and gain control of the region, which is obviously problematic because none of the coalition's members (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah) are very fond of us. Secondly, it wouldn't do anything to reduce anti-Western fervor -- new terrorist groups would still rise eventually (the Iraq War alone provides more than enough material for Islamist propaganda).

At the very least, Trump's plan would allow us to maintain hegemony in the region, which would put us in a much better position to deal with the underlying problem of anti-Western fervor. This process would probably involve cooperating with influential regional authorities like Saudi Arabia & Turkey, and Trump has often expressed interest in doing precisely that.

== War on Drugs ==

Again, Pro has straw-manned Trump's position on this. At no point has Trump said that he supports maintaining the status quo on drug policy. In accordance with my opponent's own observations, Trump has consistently advocated reforming our approach to drugs. As recently as late 2015, he indicated support for decriminalizing drugs on the federal level (i.e. allowing each state to decide) and even said he'd be open to implementing full-fledged legalization eventually [10].

== The Economy ==

My opponent seems to take it for granted that balancing the budget is a pressing issue, but that's simply not the case. In fact, the consensus among economists is that budget deficit isn't a problem at all, because the US is currently able to repay its debts at a safe pace without any difficulty. "There is no magic level of debt that gets an economy in trouble... Debt is an issue only if you can't repay it or if other people believe you can't repay it... the US can literally print the money it needs to repay its debt, and it still maintains a high credit rating" [11]. Thus, Pro's argument turns against her -- Gary Johnson's economic policy is bad because he's massively cutting down on beneficial public services to solve a non-existent problem.

But anyways, Trump's policies won't increase the deficit. He acknowledges that his tax plan is only a starting point for negotiations, and that top-bracket tax rates will probably end up being significantly higher than they are in his plan [12]. Moreover, Trump's proposed corporate tax cut to 25% would actually *increase* revenue due to economic growth and higher compliance rates [13]. So we won't lose that much revenue. As far as savings go, Trump's platform lists out several plans to eliminate unnecessary expenditures on defense, healthcare, and various bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Pro also criticizes Trump's support of protectionism on the basis that it would result in price increases for American consumers. However, that trade-off is absolutely worth it as long as those price increases aren't burdening the lower class. If we place tariffs on goods which are primarily consumed by the middle-to-upper-class, we can bring back manufacturing jobs without significantly harming consumers. That's extremely beneficial because it reduces unemployment rates among uneducated males, which inevitably translates to lower violent crime rates and greater social stability in general.

Economically illiterate? I think not.

== Immigration ==

The purpose of the wall is not to inhibit foreign labor. Trump has repeatedly acknowledged that our economy needs immigrants, stating that the wall's main purpose is to reduce crime rates -- it forces all immigrants to undergo the screening process involved in legal immigration, thereby preventing criminals from entering the country.

Pro is correct in stating that immigrants as a whole commit less crime than natives, but if we shift the focus exclusively to illegal immigrants who crossed the Southern border, we find that they commit an enormously disproportionate share of violent crime [14]. The wall also hinders illegal trade (e.g. drugs, human trafficking), which is necessary to end the gang violence epidemic in border states [15]. Trump's immigration policy has massive benefits in terms of crime reduction.

Trump has actually outlined a very plausible plan for making Mexico fund the wall, but even if we do end up having to pay the entire bill on our own, the costs are negligible. Let's say it will take $100 billion to build and maintain a wall over the course of 25 years (an outrageously high estimate). That's $4 billion p/year ... a whopping 0.1% of the federal budget.

As for Syrian refugees, preventing their mass-migration is totally justified, given the havoc they've wreaked in Europe [16].


In conclusion, Trump is obviously the superior candidate:
-- The vast differential in executive ability between Trump and Johnson is sufficient reason on its own to prefer Trump.
-- Trump's foreign policy maintains global stability and allows for the extermination of radical Islamic terrorism, whereas Johnson's would likely put us on the path to World War III.
-- Johnson's economic policy involves completely unnecessary cuts to valuable public services, whereas Trump's reduces the budget deficit without incurring any such losses.
-- Trump's policies on free trade & immigration (which Johnson refuses to even consider) would significantly mitigate social maladies like unemployment, welfare dependency, and violent crime.

The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 2


Introduction: Likability

My opponent claims that Donald Trump's repugnant character is a rouse to gain popularity. This is a questionable tactic considering Trump's obnoxious persona is the reason he is so vehemently hated by many in his own party, and all around the world [1].

People don't like to work with others they don't like. Working with foreign leaders and being sensitive to cultural differences is important, while Trump has proven he is very me-centric and not respectful or knowledgeable enough to adapt to other people's cultural expectations. He brags about doing the opposite.

In this debate, we are mainly looking at the candidate's personality and platforms -- not the actual limitations of the presidency as it pertains to Congressional gridlock. Yet Con wants to use Trump's (questionable) record as a businessman as an indicator of his competency to guide Congress effectively.

First, let's not ignore Gary Johnson's own success as a businessman. He is multi-millionaire CEO. In 1999 he got $10 million for a handyman business he started his junior year of college and built into a 1,000-employee construction firm (without a small loan of a million dollars). He now runs a company in an entirely new industry, proving he does have the skill of adaptability. Trump's position is largely in part to his incredibly wealthy family who sent him to private schools and gave him every opportunity in the world to network with rich investors and grow his already inherited wealth. Let's not pretend that Donald's business savvy is the foremost reason for his success.

Nevertheless, Con suggests "It's likely that [Johnson] would just be yet another obstructionist, 'do-nothing' president." But I reject the notion that a "do-nothing" president is a bad one. Con is completely wrong in saying that Johnson using his veto power to effectively govern is unproductive or "do nothing." On the contrary, Johnson balanced the budget and created a substantial reserve fund. This required far more than simply nixing every proposal. He took proactive measures to fix the budget.

Democrats appreciate that libertarians are socially liberal, while Republicans respect libertarianism's fiscal responsibility. A push toward libertarianism in Congress encourages compromise on the grounds of reducing government involvement in our lives. By "doing nothing" Congress might actually be more successful.

Moving on, Con says that Donald Trump is open to advisory, specifically on foreign policy. But Donald's Trump list of proposed advisers is laughable at best. One of his advisers is a 2009 college graduate who lists Model UN as a credential [2]. Others have a slew of corruption allegations [3]. Several experts claim that Trump’s failure to staff up his foreign-policy team is unprecedented, and his "move to surround himself with neophytes and fringe players suggests he doesn’t grasp how Washington’s network of decision-makers collaborate on important global decisions" [3]. Nearly everyone is baffled by his choices [4] and his own party considers his advisers "rotten" [5]. This is more evidence of Donald's selfish, untrustworthy nature and questionable judgment.

It is not a bare assertion that Trump engages in hostile conflicts; it is a well documented reality [6] and regardless of his motives, not a good indication of how Trump will deal with other important authorities.

Military and Foreign Policy

Con falsely accuses Gary Johnson of being an isolationist. He is not. Gary Johnson supports responsible interventionism. Our militaristic engagements and foreign policy have proven to be incredibly harmful and counterproductive; you'll notice that Can does not (and can not) contest this. But Donald Trump wants to perpetuate more of our absurd policies. It was U.S. interventionism that has specifically led to the creation and empowerment of terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda [7].

My opponent has failed to show how U.S. militaristic hegemony has preserved peace. On the contrary, we have been involved in perpetual militaristic conflict for decades while continuous violence has ensued despite our routine interventionism. This has had unjustifiably expensive and proven dangerous blowback that threatens our national security [8].

Con claims that Trump wants to cut military spending and cited a #7 source that did not prove this at all. Instead his source confirmed my points about massive military (wasteful) spending and why it needs to be curbed. We have every reason to believe that Johnson will scale back spending while Trump will not.

Donald has said he wants to build more ships and planes [9]. This is a massive expense, and one that he cannot push on our allies. He can't control them, and he exaggerates the burden our allies put on our military anyhow [10].

Donald Trump told Sean Hannity in March 2016 that he would increase military spending [11]. RBC Capital Markets' Robert Stallard said Trump's "typically erratic" stance on foreign policy creates enough uncertainty to imagine a serious jump in spending [12].

We know his proposals will increase DOD spending including the border fence; calling to take out ISIS with continual presence overseas; his anti-NATO stance with Russia and his condemnation of the Iran Deal, which leads to greater conflict in the Middle East. His positions on China and Japan's nuclear weapons could also promote violence in Asia. He also wants to add more military personnel.

War on Drugs

Con says that I've misrepresented Trump's position but cannot prove it. I specified that Trump used to be opposed to the War on Drugs, but now he is not. Con's source proves my point! Here is an exact quote from Con's very own source which is directed at Trump: "You used to think that legalization, taking the profit out, would solve that problem. What changed your mind?" As you can see, Trump changed his mind. And since my opponent did not (can not) disprove my comments on the War on Drugs being a miserable failure -- as well as tried to misrepresent Trumps position -- you can see that Trump actually IS now in fact on the wrong side of this very important topic as I claimed, per Con's very own source.

Another one of Con's sources quotes Trump saying in 2015 "Medical marijuana is another thing, but I think [recreational marijuana] it's bad. And I feel strongly about that." If Trump won't even legalize POT (which is the safest drug of all), we have no reason whatsoever to believe Trump is for decriminalizing drugs.

Here are several more sources where Trump flip-flops and claims he is NOT opposed to the War on Drugs [13, 14, 15]. And moreover, the fact that Trump repeatedly posits that drug smugglers are crossing the border and destroying the country, shows us that he is not in fact open to the legalization of drugs. Extend every single one of my arguments regarding Johnson's policy being superior to Trump's in this regard.

The Economy

Con claims that U.S. debt isn't a problem. As the national debt per capita increases, "it reduces the amount of tax revenue available to spend on other governmental services. Over time this will cause people to experience a lower standard of living" [16]. Corporations will have to raise the prices of goods to accommodate lending margins. People will have to pay more for things, thereby resulting in inflation. Plus the cost of borrowing money (specifically for homes) will increase for Americans [16].

Increased government debt means productivity is stifled; the economy does not grow and people lose jobs [17]. Stagnation ensues. So yes debt IS a big deal. "Perhaps most importantly, as the risk of a country defaulting on its debt service obligation increases, the country loses its social, economic and political power. This in turn makes the national debt level a national security issue" [16].

By cutting public services, Gary Johnson is diverting public jobs to the private sector where they belong. Tax payers do not have to overpay and people in the private sector are taxed, which actually contributes to the tax pool whereas taxing public employees is redundant and does not alleviate our tax burden. The private sector is more efficient [18, 19, 20] so Con has not proven Johnson's economic policy is bad.

Con naively suggests that Trump's policies won't increase the deficit. But Trump's plan has been called impossible [21] and would allegedly add trillions to our debt [22]. He wants to cut taxes but not remove some of our greatest expenditures. Trump is not fiscally conservative. I'll expand more on the economy (specifically tarriffs) next round.


Con does not contest the border fence will cost billions - which Con says is perfectly fine; that it will not cover all U.S. borders; and that most illegal immigrants enter the U.S. by plane, thereby making this a moot "solution." Therefore most of the crime Con attributes to immigrants would still exist even with Trump's wall.

However I've already explained that most immigrants do not engage in violent crime which I've sourced in the last round, and here's another saying that only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are attributed to immigrants [23]. Con's source contains manipulative figures. Moreover, I've already explained how the vast majority of violent crime (especially by immigrants) is a direct result of the War on Drugs.

The quote about refugee screening was in direct relation to how people here on student visas or naturalized American citizens are the ones who create the majority of violent crime.

Extend my arguments on Trump inhibiting foreign labor and the subsequent negative effects.

Con says the wall is about screening. But Gary Johnson WOULD ALSO screen immigrants. He is in favor of background checks for immigrants [24] because "federal authorities DO need to know who is crossing our borders and be able to prevent criminals from entering the country" [25].



Romaniiii forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Final Intro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the last round.

Please extend all of my arguments, and keep in mind that I will not be able to reply.

My opponent is therefore unable to create any new arguments.

Military & Foreign Policy

Thus far I've already proven that Gary Johnson's foreign policy positions are superior. Johnson wants to keep us out of unnecessary foreign entanglements. This has incredible moral and pragmatic benefits. In addition to keeping our troops alive, not killing a lot of innocent people overseas, and not fostering anti-American sentiment that will create more terrorists, Johnson's strategic and limited interventionism (compared to Trump's war mongering) will save us trillions on unnecessary military costs. I've proven with sources, citations and reasonable explanations regarding Trump's plans that we can assume (by his own admission) to spend more on the military under Trump - something that is incredibly dangerous and entirely unnecessary.

War on Drugs

In Round 2 I've explained why the War on Drugs is an incredibly miserable failure that is harmful and counterproductive. My opponent never contested this, and instead claimed that Donald Trump agrees and wants to end the War on Drugs. But in Round 3 I proved that is patently false - Trump wants to perpetuate this abominable failure, whereas Gary Johnson does not. Gary Johnson once again has the moral and pragmatic position over Trump's on this very important topic with wide scale effects, particularly on crime and the economy (but also personal freedom).

The Economy

Gary Johnson has a proven record of economic success when it comes to managing government funds. Compare that to Trump's bankruptcies and success that was only fueled by his connections and wealthy network, specifically his rich daddy who sent him to all the best schools and gave him a "small loan" of a million dollars to get started (not counting for inflation). Gary Johnson has proven that he is ALSO a successful business man, and is not only self-made and versatile but has a resume we can judge for political value whereas Trump does not.

Gary Johnson did very well managing his state's economy and we can assume the national application of his policies would yield similar success. That's because Gary Johnson knows how to cut costs and be more efficient. This requires sacrifice. I've proven that Trump refuses to sacrifice or cut costs on some of the government's largest expenditures, yet fraudulently claims his economic plan is possible when I've explained and cited why it's likely impossible.

I've also demolished my opponent's faulty supposition that government debt and deficit does not matter.

Finally on this point, I'd like to note that Donald Trump is anti-capitalistic and does not support free trade [1]. However free trade is the best standard for the economy. Virtually all economists regardless of political affiliation or school of thought (Keynes vs. Austrian economics) agree [2] that specialization and free trade allows the U.S. to be more competitive and innovative [3].

"Economic efficiency, and therefore growth, is enhanced by everyone doing what he does best. If I had to grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, and teach my own children, our family's living standard would plummet to a subsistence, or below-subsistence level. But if I practice medicine, and allow others with more talent as farmers, builders or tailors to do what they do best, we are all better off. Precious capital and labor are directed to the areas of most productivity, and through voluntary trading, we all benefit" [4].

Some also claim that not only does protectionism make everyone poorer (except certain special interests), but it also increases international tensions and can lead to war.


Trump wants to inhibit foreign labor which keeps cost high for American consumers. Con did not contest this.

Even the conservative nonprofit American Action Forum estimates that hindering immigrants would take two decades and cost anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion. In turn, mass deportation would shrink the labor force and the economy, reducing the U.S. gross domestic product by at least $1.6 trillion by AAF's estimate [5].

Furthermore Con cannot deny that the War on Drugs is intrinsically linked to the alleged problems of immigration, especially by Trump's own admission. This proves Trump cannot both be for the legalization of drugs and keeping drug dealers out. After all, wouldn't legal drug dealers just be retailers benefiting the economy? They should be, but Trump doesn't want them to be.

My opponent did not deny that the border fence will cost billions - which Con says is perfectly fine; that it will not cover all U.S. borders; and that most illegal immigrants enter the U.S. by plane, thereby making this a moot "solution." Therefore most of the (exaggerated) crime Con attributes to immigrants would still exist even with Trump's wall.

A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while illegal immigration in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013, FBI data indicates that violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41% including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary [6].

A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. “The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults,” the study concludes. “The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population” [6].

"The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported that more recently arrived immigrants are even less crime-prone than their predecessors. In 1980 the incarceration rate of foreign nationals was about one percentage point below natives. A decade later that had fallen to a little more than a percentage point, and by 2000 it was almost three percentage points lower" [6].

Donald tweeted the following: "Again, [an] illegal immigrant is charged with the fatal bludgeoning of a wonderful and loved 64 year old woman. Get them out and build a WALL!" The thing is, the vast majority of violent criminals are American citizens. For example according to FBI crime stats, only 1,096 (about 8 percent) of the 14,000 murderers in this country were known to be Hispanic.

Trump relies on manipulative rhetoric. He incites unwarranted racism to rally his very ignorant fan base that can't be bothered to do basic fact checking. Neither can Trump apparently, and that's a dangerous position for a leader. He would rather invoke hatred thanlook up readily available statistics.

>> New Arguments <<

Due to character limitations, I was unable to expand on all the reasons Trump < Johnson in previous rounds.

While I recognize I won't be able to respond to Con's replies, I feel confident enough to point out a few additional points against Trump. Con is able to make new arguments in response to these particular points. Unfortunately I don't have enough character space to expand even further, particularly on Trump's inferior views on Abortion, Civil Rights, Corporate Rights, Health Care, and Tax Reform. But I digress.

Donald Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.

A) Trump wants to undo birthright citizenship and gut the 14th amendment.

B) Trump declares war on the 5th amendment and its protections for property rights, as exemplified by Trump's embrace of boundless eminent domain powers for the government and Trump's own shameful record of seeking to personally profit when government officials seize homes and businesses [7].

C) Trump has called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States, which offends multiple Constitutional principles including religious liberty, due process and equal protection.

D) The First Amendment forbids the government from taking the truly authoritarian step of shuttering houses of worship, yet Trump has unabashedly called for the state to close down mosques.

E) Trump has said that he believes in internet censorship - a blatant violation of free speech.

F) Trump wants to gut libel law so that it will be easier for him to sue (and thus silence) those journalists who write unkind things about him, which inhibits freedom of the press - another violation against free speech.

G) While he said he "hates the concept," Trump has praised FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans which he felt was necessary during a time of war. Trump suggested he may have supported it and could support it again in relation to Muslims [8, 9].


Donald Trump has trashed the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment (the Bill of Rights generally), the 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection, and the doctrine of enumerated and limited executive powers. Compare this to Gary Johnson, a Libertarian whose ideology is dedicated to protecting the Constitution [8].

I've proven that Trump's positions are both immoral and impractical. Trump will not make us any more safe, he will not reduce violent crime (only immigration crime... MAYBE... but probably not, for aforementioned reasons) and not take measures to reduce the debt or deficit. In fact his plan will likely increase both, as I've explained and experts agree. He will make us less safe and less financially secure.

Trump does not have the temperament or skill set to responsibly lead in a way that Americans can trust. He is hateful, ignorant, arrogant, divisive, dangerous and dismissive of our Constitutional rights. Gary Johnson has a better plan than Trump on virtually every single issue on their respective platforms, along with a proven record of success vs. rhetoric.

Thank you.




Romaniiii forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] As the debater forfeited half of his rounds, the voter is allowed to solely award conduct on this debate. They are not required to award arguments or explain any tied points.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ssadi 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited 2 out 4 rounds.
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.