The Instigator
spencercrat123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ILikePie5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Donald Trump Be President?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 93843
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

spencercrat123

Con

R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Arguments
R3 - Rebuttals
R4 - Defense/Conclusion

This debate is about the Donald only.

BOP is shared: I must show why Trump should not be President. Pro must show why he should.

Good luck to my opponent. I'm looking forward to a great debate!
ILikePie5

Pro

I accept. Looking forward to a great debate, and I hope I can change your mind about Donald Trump. Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
spencercrat123

Con

Thank you Pro for accepting.

I will argue Donald Trump should not be President for 2 essential reasons:
1. His lack of policy knowledge and proposed "policies" would be detrimental to America's economy, safety, general well-being, etc.
2. He lacks the temperament for the job and his divisive personality would cause problems domestically and abroad.

1. Donald Trump has no shortage of promises. He promises to "fix" the economy and healthcare. He promises to destroy ISIS. He promises to bring back outsourced jobs and to decrease the deficit. He even promises to protect non-existent Constitutional Articles. Rarely does he detail how he would deliver on these promises and when he does propose "policies" they are under-cooked and would exacerbate the problems they intend to fix.

Economics - Donald has suggested that as President he would buy back American debt (Treasury Bonds) at a discount [1]. The U.S. T-Bond is the safest investment in the world. The U.S. has NEVER defaulted on or failed to pay back less than the full amount of a single bond. It is one of the most crucial backbones of the U.S. and global economy. If the U.S. ever, as Trump proposed, paid out these bonds at a discount, the T-Bond and by extension the U.S/global economy would be jeopardized. In addition to this reckless proposal, Trump has proposed tariffs as his only solution thus far to "bring jobs back." And it is certainly not a solution. Globalized U.S companies like Ford will remain global because labor is immensely cheaper in countries like Mexico, China, India and because there are Republican tax incentives to do so [2]. In response to a tariff, companies would simply drive their prices in the U.S. to compensate and keep their cheap factories right where they are [3]. So tearing up trade deals and slapping punishing tariffs will not bring jobs back, just drive up prices for the American consumer. He promises to cut the deficit yet his proposed tax code would actually increase it by $12 trillion [4]. And repealing Obamacare, "the wall", and increasing military spending would increase it by billions more. So it's clear to see that the few solutions he has actually proposed would be detrimental to the economy, job growth, etc. on every scale.

Foreign Policy - Like in all other areas, Trump makes promises but offers little to no substantive solutions. He makes claims that the U.S. has lost respect globally but offers no way to gain it, unless he plans to do that by inciting global trade wars and economic recession. He criticizes American intervention yet promises the U.S. will be reliable to those who need us abroad. Promising this reliability, he also promises we will be "unpredictable". How do you maintain unpredictability without informing allies and the American people of our military's actions? [5] He says he will destroy ISIS and "radical Islam" but, unsurprisingly, has never explained how.

Other - Trump's other proposed policies are implausible at best. Experts in a variety of fields agree that "The Wall" would not be feasibly built, funded, or effective [6]. Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants without providing a realistic path to legalization and banning Muslim immigrants are similarly undo-able and have no proven positive effects [7] [8] I am well aware Trump has flip-flopped and backed away some from these policies after he received universal backlash for about every one, but the fact that he is rash and reckless enough to propose such implausible, ineffective policies in the first place indicates my next point:

Utter Lack of Policy Knowledge - The vast majority of the time, Trump is unable to produce anything other than arrogant, unfounded promises. When he does produce a policy proposal, it is initially so outlandish, incoherent, and unsupported that he often has to back away from them. This combination points to only one conclusion: Trump utterly lacks knowledge about policy. We cannot afford to have a President who doesn't understand how formulate legally/fiscally possible, and studied/proven to be appropriate, policies.

2. Ironically, Trump wouldn't even be able to pass his few incoherent policies because his arrogant, divisive, and insecure personality would inhibit him from getting anything done. Trump on a day-to-day basis will have to work with Latinos, Muslims, women, POW veterans, Senators and Congressman in both parties that he has bullied and belittled, the media, all groups of people he has lashed out at. How will he get their needed cooperation after attacking and alienating them so much? He has no ability to take criticism and the Presidency is a job of scrutiny matched by no other. He has shown he will go to endless lengths to justify and defend any and every criticized action and a refusal to ever compromise or have constructive discussion with anyone who disagrees with him. People here and abroad won't want to work with someone who conducts himself this way. He has already made enemies in both parties in every level of government. No "master negotiator" would be able to overcome this and he's no "master negotiator" in the first place. The Harvard Business Review contends "The Donald Trump approach to negotiation would be not only ineffective but also disastrous..." Negotiating business is a far fetch from making deals that put lives at stake. Trump's refusal to concede anything, commitment to make other sides "lose", and his tendency to flip-flop shown over the years would doom him in negotiations at domestic and international tables. The HBR continues to argue "effective negotiation requires not only strength and toughness but also humility, empathy, and patience to find solutions..."qualities he lacks [9].

In all, Trump's incoherence and lack of intelligence/substance as a candidate has unsurprisingly translated to his incoherent, ineffective policy proposals (or lack thereof). These traits translated to the Presidency would be disastrous for this country.

Sources:
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.cfr.org...
[3] http://www.newsweek.com...
[4] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[5] http://time.com...
[6] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[7] http://www.cnn.com...
[8] http://www.travelandleisure.com...
[9] https://hbr.org...
ILikePie5

Pro

My arguments in favor of Trump revolve around one single point: America first

Contention 1:(Immigration)
Trump has called for a wall to be built to keep illegal immigrants out. Trump proposes to make Mexico pay for the wall because they export their crime and poverty to the United States via illegal immigration. Many Americans have been killed by these illegal aliens and the lives of their families have been destroyed. [1]Mexico also publishes pamphlets of how to illegaly immigrate to the United States, and this is the reason why they must pay for the wall.[2] The wall is estimated to cost about 17 billion dollars[3] which is well within the trade deficit margin of 58 billion dollars[4]. I am sure that Con is going to argue how Trump is going to make Mexico pay, and my answer comes directly from Trump's website- "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards " of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."[5]Along with the proposal of the wall Trump has proposed to deport the illegal immigrants. Coming to the U.S. Illegally is in violation of the law, and the law cannot be bended for anyone. I simple way to make the illegals leave to to triple the number Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Currently we only have about 5000 ICE officers that do the lion's share of the work compared to the Los Angeles Police Department which consists of 10,000 officers. Also ICE officers should accompany local gang task forces to apprehend and deport illegals participating in street gangs.[6] This not only reduces the number of crime but also gets rid of the illegals. Another way to get rid of illegals is to defund federal grants from sanctuary cities which number 300 over the entire nation.[7] These cities harbor illegal immigrants. These are only some of the ways listed on Trump's website. The objective of deporting these illegals is to reduce the crime level and create more jobs for people on, or below the poverty line.

Contention 2:(Economy)
I believe that Mr. Trump is the best for the economy because of his business record. His net worth is about 4.5 billion dollars.[8] Trump doesn't have lobbyists and special interest groups and therefore will not be influencing Donald Trump, unlike many of the current politicians. Many solutions to economic issues are brought forward because of these lobbyists and special interests. Trump's Tax Plan is beneficial to Americans as it reduces the corporate tax rate to 15%.[9] Our current tax plans harm small businesses which are the backbone of the nation.[10]The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1.Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
2.A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
3.Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.[9]All of these policies benefit America.

Contention 3:(Veterans Administration Reform)
Mr. Trump is completely pro-veteran. He wants to fire the corrupt and incompetent VA executives that let 300,000 veterans die waiting for care.[11]The Trump Plan Will:

"Increase funding for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury and suicide prevention services to address our veterans" invisible wounds. Service members are five times more likely to develop depression than civilians. They are almost fifteen times more likely to develop PTSD than civilians. This funding will help provide more and better counseling and care. More funding will also support research on best practices and state of the art treatments to keep our veterans alive, healthy and whole. With these steps, the Trump plan will help the veteran community put the unnecessary stigma surrounding mental health behind them and instead encourage acceptance and treatment in our greater society.
Increase funding for job training and placement services (including incentives for companies hiring veterans), educational support and business loans. All Americans agree that we must do everything we can to help put our service men and women on a path to success as they leave active duty by collaborating with the many successful non-profit organizations that are already helping. Service members have learned valuable skills in the military but many need help understanding how to apply those skills in civilian life. Others know how to apply those skills but need help connecting with good jobs to support their families. Still others have an entrepreneurial spirit and are ready to start creating jobs and growing the economy. The Trump plan will strengthen existing programs or replace them with more effective ones to address these needs and to get our veterans working.
Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members. Today"s veterans have very different needs than those of the generations that came before them. The VA must adapt to meet the needs of this generation of younger, more diverse veterans. The Trump plan will expand VA services for female veterans and ensure the VA is providing the right support for this new generation of veterans.
Better support our women veterans. The fact that many VA hospitals don"t permanently staff OBGYN doctors shows an utter lack of respect for the growing number female veterans. Under the Trump plan, every VA hospital in the country will be fully equipped with OBGYN and other women"s health services. In addition, women veterans can always choose a different OBGYN in their community using their veteran"s ID card."

I would post more arguments, but I am nearing the character limit. Good Luck to Con in the rebuttal round!!

Sources:
[1]http://www.ojjpac.org...
[2]http://www.nytimes.com...
[3]http://m.imgur.com...
[4]https://ustr.gov...
[5]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[6]http://www.judiciary.senate.gov...
[7]http://cis.org...
[8]http://www.forbes.com...
[9]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[10]https://www.whitehouse.gov...
[11]http://www.cnn.com...
[12]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
Debate Round No. 2
spencercrat123

Con

Thank you to Pro for his opening arguments. I will be rebutting them this round, as he will with my R1 arguments. Next round we will both defend and conclude our stances.

Rebuttals:

1. The Wall

"Trump proposes to make Mexico pay for the wall because they export their crime and poverty to the United States via illegal immigration."

First off, various studies have found illegal immigrants "are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or be incarcerated."[1] The vast majority of illegal immigrants are law-abiding workers that boost and are crucial to the American economy [2].

"The wall is estimated to cost...well within the trade deficit margin of 58 billion dollars."

I have shown how Trump's economic policies will not reverse the trade deficit. Even if the deficit was reversed, it's not money at the government's disposal. Businesses would receive and hold the capital. It doesn't go into a vault for the wall, it goes into the economy, and seeing that Trump is cutting taxes across the board, not much of that money's getting back to the government.
Neither my opponent nor Trump has shown a way to "make" Mexico pay for the wall. Trump's policies won't reverse the trading deficit and even if he did, the money doesn't go to the wall. That leaves one method of payment left:

"the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees..."

Trump and my opponent haven't shown how increasing fees on visas will cover the $17,000,000,000 cost. These punishments to Mexico would succeed in harming their economy, and this harm would in turn cause immigrants to flood to the U.S. for jobs and better conditions thus exacerbating the problem [3].
So all sources of revenue are refuted. But even if Trump miraculously found a way to fund it, the wall is a near-impossible engineering feat. We're talking about a wall that would have to traverse major rivers, ports, cities, private property, protected environmental areas, etc. It would require the cooperation of the world's greatest engineering teams, like the Army Corps of Engineers and many others that are weary of doing it [4].
More than all of this, my opponent, like Trump, has failed to produce a single proven, positive effect from building the wall.
That's because the opposite is true. Studies have shown that increased border security increases migrant deaths, Trump's wall would have harmful environmental effects (ex. cutting off water flow and habitat areas), and harm the American economy by "cost[ing] the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion...shrink[ing] the labor force by 11 million... reduc[ing] the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and tak[ing] 20 years to complete [5. [6] [7]

2. Deportation

"I simple way to make the illegals leave to to triple the number Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers."

I'd like to see evidence that 15,000 ICE officers would be capable of deporting 11,000,000 people.

"Another way to get rid of illegals is to defund federal grants from sanctuary cities which number 300 over the entire nation."

Every single major U.S. city is included on that list: Chicago, NYC, Boston, L.A., etc. Are we really going to cut off America's most important counties and cities and the millions upon millions of Americans within them and expect immigrants to just pack up and leave as a result? This is a classic reckless Trump proposal: Lash out and harm our own country's greatest cities and counties. Once again, my opponent fails to produce evidence that this proposal would be effective. It's clear to see that cutting federal funding that goes towards our cities' school, police, maintenance, transport, park, etc. systems would be disastrous. It's also clear to see that the Senators/Congressmen hailing from these counties/cities would never allow these cuts to happen.

"The objective of deporting these illegals is to reduce the crime level and create more jobs for people on, or below the poverty line."

My opponent and Trump have failed to show how these policies would achieve these objectives. It also appears that immigrants do the opposite. "In a study published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, researchers...after controlling for factors like poverty and educational achievement...found that immigration did not increase crime rates."[8] Immigrants have also been shown to create jobs: "Using US Census data from 1980 to 2000, we find considerable evidence for these effects: Each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers."[9]

3. Economy

"I believe that Mr. Trump is the best for the economy because of his business record. His net worth is about 4.5 billion dollars."

Inheriting daddy's money and growing it less than an un-managed stock fund would've [10] certainly does not equate to knowledge of macroeconomics or public policy influence on economics. My arguments in Round 1 indicate Trump has a severe lack of understanding of how our national and global economy works.

"Trump doesn't have lobbyists and special interest groups and therefore will not be influencing Donald Trump...Many solutions to economic issues are brought forward because of these lobbyists and special interests."

This is an extremely contradictory statement. My opponent is arguing that Trump not listening to the people who bring forward economic solutions is somehow a good thing.

"Trump's Tax Plan is beneficial to Americans...The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by..."

The conservative Tax Policy Center found that "the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households." Not small businesses. "The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion..." So, no the Trump tax cuts are not fully paid for. They also found the plan "could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts." [11]

4. Veterans

We all want to help our veterans. Trump wanting to also is by no means unique to him nor is he Americans' only avenue to helping them. I do doubt Trump's ability to back up these promises. He insulted Prisoners-Of-War saying "I like people that weren't captured." [12] He was a draft-dodger [13] He has lied about personally donating to veteran charities. The Washington Post "has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump"s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump." [14] Furthermore, he hasn't provided a way to pay for these promises. His tax plan will after all, lose trillions in government revenue and he plans to spend billions more on defense, deportation, and building walls. These all indicate Trump isn't reliable to follow up on his promises to veterans.

I look forward to Pro's rebuttals of my Round 1 arguments.

Sources:
[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...
[3] http://www.pbs.org...
[4] http://www.citylab.com...
[5] https://www.thestreet.com...
[6] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[7] http://www.newsweek.com...
[8] http://www.msnbc.com...
[9] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[10] http://www.moneytalksnews.com...
[11] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[12] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[13] http://theresurgent.com...
[14] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
ILikePie5

Pro

Rebuttal 1:(Economics)
Trump's proposal about American Bonds is all depended upon two things happening: The US Economy crashing and the debt burden becoming too high.[1] Cons evidence is circumstantial on these two points happening which is highly unlikely.
"The current U.S. corporate tax code incentivizes companies to move their business operations overseas, and by extension the offshoring of jobs that would have based in the United States." This is the first sentence of your second source. However, Trump plans to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% as said on his Tax Reform page and my 2nd Contention in Round 2. With the tax rate reduced, companies can move back to America without fearing high corporate taxes and will create jobs for Americans."The analysis acknowledged that details of Trump's plan were still vague, requiring them to make some approximate guesses.The Tax Foundation also scored it using a model that assumes supply side conservative theories." These two statements are completely vague. What approximate guesses did they make? When has Trump ever said he supports "supply side conservative theories?" These arguments are flawed as you and I both don't know what they could've done, so I disregard this claim. I, as a Texas Resident find it cheaper to pay the penalty President Obama has imposed for people that do not have health insurance, than actually get health insurance. [2] On the other hand, illegal aliens receive health benefits from my taxes.[3] In my 2nd Contention I posted a parts of Mr. Trump's policies. [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options] Tariffs are just options that Mr. Trump is considering if and only if things go bad.

Rebuttal 2:(FP)
Con: "He makes claims that the U.S. has lost respect globally but offers no way to gain it, unless he plans to do that by inciting global trade wars and economic recession." First of all, how will inciting global trade wars and having an economic recession gain the respect of America? Second of all, Trump has offered ways to gain it back. The first way to gain respect is actually by deporting the illegal immigrants, and proving we can enforce our immigration laws. Mexico is sending their criminals over the border and we aren't doing anything about it. I stated this in my argument round as well. A second way to gain our respect back is by not allowing Syrian Refugees. ISIS has said that they are going to send ISIS operatives in with refugees. [4]It's absolutely absurd and stupid to allow these terrorists within our country. A third way to gain back respect is by actually keeping and bringing back companies to the United States. If we can protect our jobs and at the same time increase jobs, it's only common sense that countries would start respecting us. "He criticizes American intervention yet promises the U.S. will be reliable to those who need us abroad." He has criticized American intervention, but when has he ever said the U.S. will be reliable to those who need us abroad? Con fails to provide specific details in this case and therefore I disregard this claim. Moving on to unpredictability.......Con claims: "How do you maintain unpredictability without informing allies and the American people of our military's actions?" According to dictionary.com, the definition of unpredictable is: not predictable; not to be foreseen or foretold. First, I would like to mention, that we are predictable as a nation, but not just for the military. Whenever there is a gun shooting by a terrorist that kills Americans, Democrats blame guns instead of Radical Islamic Terrorism that Obama fails to even name.[5] When Obama called for the removal of Americans from Iraq, it created a power vacuum causing ISIS to grow. [6] And Trump is right, because we send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq because there was a conflict there. There is no doubt that we have to mention our plans to allies as the region is not American controlled, but then again what did we do with the Bin Laden raid? I don't think America told Pakistan that we were going to Abbottabad to kill Bin Laden, and they didn't do anything to stop the raid. Later, reports revealed that Bin Laden had been under Pakistani control and didn't tell anyone including America, which again proves my point that be aren't respected.[7]We didn't tell Americans until after the raid that Bin Laden was killed. This is a clear example how it is possible to be unpredictable without telling allies or the American people about it. And to be honest, if we have a country plagued by domestic issues, there is no point in even talking about foreign policy. And just for the record Trump has proposed ideas of how to defeat ISIS. These are just proposed ideas and are still up for negotiation: Send Troops, Waterboard or worse to get information, Put terrorists' families in harms way. Again these are just proposed ideas without the advice of a Cabinet. For the record, I will put a an argument related to foreign policy: The Iran deal doesn't stop Iran's nuclear program. It enhances it. All of the nuclear facilities aren't being dismantled their just being stopped. With the money they are getting back from frozen assets, it will make developing better technology much better. Because the deal stops Iran from getting nukes, other countries in the region will want nukes as well, because once the deal is over, Iran will have nuclear weapons. In an essence, all we did was help Iran in the future. [8] And what happened to our key ally Israel in that region? Iran's Supreme Leader Ayotallah al-Khamenei threatened to "raze Israel in 8 minutes."[9] This deal endangers Israel as well.

Rebuttal 3:(Other)
Con: "Experts in a variety of fields agree that "The Wall" would not be feasibly built, funded, or effective." I'm sorry but your source for that won't work. It's says there's an error when I try to pull it up. As I stated in Round 2, there are more than enough ways to make Mexico, but I will also include this website for more details: https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
This satisfies the building and funding part of Con's argument. The United States Border Patrol Union which represents 16,500 BP Agents endorsed Trump. I'm sure they know effectiveness better than any "expert" because they are the experts.
Legalization of illegals is a big no no. They broke the law, and you and I both know the consequences if we broke the law. Simply stating, A nation that doesn't enforce its laws is not a nation. And what will legalization give us? More people crossing the border knowing that they won't be deporting, and at the same time, American jobs and lives being lost. Con's 7th source is about Trump modeling his deportation plan after Eisenhower. Eisenhower deported people "inhumanely" is what the source really talks about. It also says that Trump has said that he will deport illegals humanely which actually supports my case. Your 8th source talks about Muslim Immigration and it cites the U.S. Travel Association. However, I could not find anything related to Muslim Immigration. The links just had information about basic travel statistics like when people travel the most. I disregard this argument as baseless.

Rebuttal 4:(Utter Lack of Policy Knowledge)
My answer to your argument is that if Trump had no policy knowledge, he wouldn't have policies listed on his website donaldjtrump.com. Con's paragraph on this argument lacks any sources as well. I have cited many of his policies in both this round and the argument round.

Rebuttal 5:
Con: "Ironically, Trump wouldn't even be able to pass his few incoherent policies because his arrogant, divisive, and insecure personality would inhibit him from getting anything done." Do you have any evidence supporting this claim, or are you just predicting the future. I'm sure neither of us can predict the future. You are right Trump will have to work with other people. He will work with them. You can't just say that because Trump wants to protect America by banning Muslim's, he won't work with Muslims and the same thing with Latinos. He works with people all around the world. If you're talking about John McCain, maybe he shouldn't have insulted Trump supporters, calling them "crazies."[11] Trump also later called McCain a hero, and also said that his rise in polls meant that people agreed with him.[12] And all those Senators and Congressman, that Con claims has insulted doesn't mean that they won't work with him. In the case of John McCain, he personally endorsed Trump.[13]Up to the point where Con talks about the HBR, all of his points are vague and/or flawed. No evidence is given. Harvard Business School claims Trump is "Known for his intimidating negotiating tactics."[13]

[1]http://www.forbes.com...
[2]https://www.healthcare.gov...
[3]http://www.forbes.com...
[4]http://www.wnd.com...
[5]http://www.dailywire.com...
[6]http://www.washingtontimes.com...
[7]https://theintercept.com...
[8]https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[9]http://www.washingtontimes.com...
[10]http://www.cnn.com...
[11]http://www.politico.com...
[12]http://www.cnn.com...
[13]http://www.hbs.edu...

Good Luck Con!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
spencercrat123

Con

Defense:

1. Economics

"Trump's proposal about American Bonds is all depended upon..."

To propose that we jeopardize the world's safest, most important investment at all is reckless and ridiculous, especially during an economic crash when any and all stability is needed to recover. My opponent's own source here agrees this policy would cause economic harm: "'Experts see it as a reckless idea that would send interest rates soaring, derail economic growth and undermine confidence in the world"s most trusted financial asset.' The results of such a plan would be as predicted there, certainly..." And it is very likely these conditions will happen, considering I have shown last round Trump's tax plan will increase our deficit by $11,000,000,000,000. Trump himself argues an economic meltdown is coming [1] and he wouldn't be discussing this policy in the first place if it was so unlikely. All in all, my opponent did not dispute that this was a reckless and dangerous policy, he just argued that there's hope Trump will never have to enact it.

"Trump plans to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15%..."

My opponent yet again fails to provide evidence that this would actually bring jobs back...because it won't. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found "little evidence that corporate tax cuts boost economic activity." [2] Furthermore, this will contribute to the slashed revenue and exploded deficit his tax plan will cause as I have shown in previous rounds.

""The analysis acknowledged that details of Trump's plan were still vague..."

The blame for this comes back to Trump for having vague policies. Are we just not allowed to study or question anything he puts out because they're half-baked? I've shown multiple sources with different methods come to the same conclusion: Trump's policies will harm America. My opponent cannot present alternative research that both supports Trump's policies and don't face the same "Trump vagueness" obstacle, so we cannot throw my credible sources away willy-nilly.

"Tariffs are just options that Mr. Trump is considering if and only if things go bad."

Yet again my opponent does not dispute my claims that tariffs and foreign aid cuts would be ineffective and counter- intuitive. He fails to present evidence saying other wise and reverts to the "there's hope we'll never have to see these policies" argument. Just because his disastrous economic proposals are unlikely to come to fruition, doesn't make them right.

2. Foreign Policy

"First of all, how will inciting global trade wars and having an economic recession gain the respect of America?"

That was sarcasm.

"Trump has offered ways to gain it back..."

My opponent argues that building the wall, banning Muslims and "taking the jobs back" (which I have consistently shown he won't) will gain us global respect. Yet again, he fails to show evidence backing this claim because the opposite is true. Global leaders from Britain, Ireland, Canada, Israel, Qatar and more universally condemned his ban on Muslims [3] The wall has received similar universal backlash, being condemned even by the Pope [4]. Citizens of the world hold similar views: "85% of the Europeans surveyed doubted Trump"s ability to do the right thing regarding world affairs."[5]
I also highly doubt tearing up trade deals with countries around the world will garner respect. This is classic Trump hypocrisy: He doesn't care what anyone else thinks and acts accordingly, but also promises everyone will love him.

" ...when has he ever said the U.S. will be reliable to those who need us abroad?"

Here: "America is going to be reliable again. It"s going to be a great and reliable ally again"[6]

"I would like to mention, that we are predictable..."

Trump was giving a speech on foreign policy, not a tutorial on assassination strategy. Foreign policy is defined as "a government's strategy in dealing with other nations." So we are talking about all of those jobs abroad. We are talking about immigration. We are talking about the possibility of a full-blown war with ISIS. I hardly see how " there is no point in even talking about foreign policy" as my opponent claims. That is a weak maneuver to distract from Trump's lack of substantive policy. Regarding "unpredictability" Are we just going to out of nowhere drop in hundreds of thousands of troops into a war-zone? Are we just not going to coordinate with allies because we have to maintain "unpredictability"? Are we out of nowhere going to incite trade wars? My opponent himself concedes : "There is no doubt that we have to mention our plans to allies as the region is not American controlled." My opponent fails to provide a scenario in our current foreign policy situation in which we would be able to simultaneously be "reliable" and "unpredictable".

My opponent goes on to say Trump will deal with foreign policy issues through potentially sending troops, waterboarding, killing possibly innocent families, saying the words "radical Islam", and tearing up the Iran deal. Do these even qualify as "policies"? He yet again fails to show any evidence that doing any of these things will make Americans safer. None of these ideas are new. These are the same ideas that got us into the disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan War which by extension caused the vacuums that allowed ISIS's ascension.

3. The Wall

I have now in multiple rounds, with multiple sources proven that the "wall" is un-fundable and un-buildable in the ways proposed by Trump and my opponent. I'm sorry my opponent's browser isn't working; I highly doubt nbcnews.com is trying to hack him but he has also repeatedly failed to show evidence that the wall would be effective at all and has not disputed my evidence that the wall and Trump's proposals would exacerbate the perceived immigration problem. But for a good laugh let's look at https://www.donaldjtrump.com.... It literally lays out a 3 day "fantasy" in which the Donald bluffs by threatening to cut off wire transfers from the U.S. to Mexico, Mexico then cowers in fear and agrees to pay (show much for "unpredictability"). If Mexico calls the bluff, he slaps the usual tariffs, visa cancellation/fees that would not capably pay for wall. Basically, the plan revolves around starving off impoverished Mexican families dependent on workers in the U.S. and crashing the Mexican economy, which would lead to more immigration and exacerbate the problem. It's also worth mentioning that the page makes no mentions whatsoever about actually building the wall, how he would engineer it, how he'd acquire private land, traverse rivers and international environmentally protected areas, etc. Also forgets to mention why building a wall in the first place would be the most effective and cost-efficient option to reform immigration. The building of a 2,000+ mile $18,000,000,000 wall is explained on half a page. This speaks for itself.

"The United States Border Patrol Union which represents 16,500 BP Agents endorsed Trump. I'm sure they know effectiveness better than any "expert" because they are the experts."

I respect the work Border Patrol Agents do as much as anyone, but the job doesn't guarantee expertise regarding the engineering and economic aspects of wall-building. Hell, I might endorse him too if his proposals were going to send
billions of dollars of funding my way.

"Con's 7th source is about Trump modeling his deportation plan after Eisenhower..."

My opponent has failed to show me how Trump would "humanely" capture and deport 11,000,000 people. I guess we're supposed to just take Trump's word for it and not ask questions when he doesn't give us specifics.

"However, I could not find anything related to Muslim Immigration."

Trump has proposed a ban on "all Muslims entering the U.S." That includes travel. My argument about the ban hurting the U.S. economically therefore stands. My opponent failed to produce evidence that a Muslim ban would be effective yet again. [7]

4. Policy Knowledge

"if Trump had no policy knowledge, he wouldn't have policies listed on his website."

Anyone can publish ideas on websites. He lacks knowledge of policy in that his proposals are always vague, unsupported, and often have evidence that dispute them as I have repeatedly shown.

5. Lack of Temperament/ Divisive Personality

"I'm sure neither of us can predict the future...He will work with them."

How can my opponent speculate if I cannot. He did not dispute that Trump has conducts himself in a divisive/childish/offensive way. It's reasonable to assume that most people will not submit and cooperate with people like this no-questions-asked.

Conclusion

Throughout this whole debate, my opponent has failed to produce evidence that any of Trump's proposals would be effective answers to his perceived problems. My opponent often didn't dispute my claims that Trump's policies are reckless, but argued he might not have to use them. He didn't dispute his personality problem, but argued people would be forgiving and work with him. As I argued in Round 2: "Trump's incoherence and lack of intelligence/substance as a candidate has unsurprisingly translated to his incoherent, ineffective policy proposals (or lack thereof). These traits translated to the Presidency would be disastrous for this country."

Thank you to Pro for a great debate! Thank you voters for reading! Vote Con!

Sources:
1 http://www.newsmax.com...
2 http://www.nber.org...
3 http://www.cnn.com...
4 http://www.cnn.com...
5 http://time.com...
6 http://www.nytimes.com...
7 http://www.cnn.com...
ILikePie5

Pro

Rebuttal 1: Con: "First off, various studies have found illegal immigrants 'are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or be incarcerated.'The vast majority of illegal immigrants are law-abiding workers that boost and are crucial to the American economy."

Let's take some statistics from my home state Texas: "According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults. A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults."[1] These statistics are just from Texas and Texas has the 2nd largest amount of illegal immigrants, with California being number 1.[2] However, California has failed to produce any statistics about crime and illegal immigration. California is also a known sanctuary state.[3]Hillary Clinton is paid approximately 225,000 dollars for her speeches to Wall Street and are known lobbyists of her[4], so I claim the source biased; not to mention I can't read the source because it requires me to subscribe. Now, I urge all voters to read the claims on this website: http://www.americanthinker.com...
""The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.The source basically fact-checks Washington Post's fact-check.
http://admin.americanthinker.com...
This table shows exactly how many crimes were committed by illegals aliens. (They number around 2.9 million our of 11 million) Con's claims are undeniably false.

Con's claim that the 58 billion dollars won't go to a federal vault is completely accurate. The 58 billion that goes back to businesses is also true. However, the corporate tax of 15% accounts for 8.7 billion dollars out of the 58 billion that goes to the government. So there's half of the money right there. Now for the other half. About 14 million Mexicans visited the US in 2012.[5] The current price for a visitor's visa to the US is $160. Doing the math, there is another 2.3 billion right there, but Trump proposes to increase the visa cost, so it will value more. So we're at 11 billion. Regarding the trade deficit, Now let's think about the 21.6 billion dollars that goes to Mexico in illegal wages.[6] This value is more than an enough reason as to why Mexico will pay. 21.6 billion is greater than 17 billion, so its a simple decision. Back to the 11 billion figure...adding costs to visas for NAFTA workers and Mexican CEOs and diplomats bring the cost to about 13 billion dollars. Adding Border Crossing Cards adds the total to 14 billion. The other 3 billion will come from increasing the prices of all of these. Con forgets that Trump is a real estate mogul and has many that could aid him in the process of building a wall. Migrant deaths as the deaths of illegal immigrants? Who do you care about more animals or your children, that can be influenced by drugs, crime, and possibly not have a job? Con's 5,6, and 7 sources do not take count the benefits, like reduced crime, more jobs, a reduction in the flow of drugs. The Southwest is the principal arriving zone for drugs according to the FBI.[7]

Rebuttal 2: Chris Crane, a member of the ICE Union in his proposal to Congress called for ICE officers and local law enforcement to cooperate. Currently, there are 3,143 counties in the U.S.[8] That's about 4 ICE officers per county. Along with the ICE Officers there are about 900,000 cops in the nation. Lets say that each ICE Officer along with local help found 1 illegal a day. It would take 2 years to deport all 11 million.(You can do the math yourself) Some counties won't require as many officers and some will. Here is the decision sanctuary cities are going to have to make a choice: Protecting criminal aliens and obstructing ICE, or receive millions of dollars in federal funding[9]. If they choose the former, the people will come into play to change sanctuary policies. It's a choice. Your 8th source shows that immigrants did not increase crime. This conversation is about illegals committing crimes, not just immigrants. Obviously if you factor in 30 million more legal immigrants, the numbers would be lower. And the 9th source is the same thing.

Rebuttal 3:
Trump inherited 200 million according to Con's source. First, I would like to point out that Trump is a real estate expert, not a stock market expert. "Investing in an index fund, such as one that tracks the S&P 500, will give you the upside when the market is doing well, but also leaves you completely vulnerable to the downside."[10] Its unfair to use current rates to define how much money he would have, because it's impossible to know. I looked at the calculator on Con's source, It can't predict how much I would get 2019 if I invested today. Based on this, how did Trump reach a net worth of 4.5 billion dollars? Because he's a good businessman. It is clear that Con does not know the definition of a lobbyist, so I'll them: According to dictionary.com is it "a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest; a member of a lobby." These lobbyists provide economic solutions to benefit themselves, not the people. Lobbyists are bad![11] I have already refuted Tax Policy Center for being too vague. At the same time, this is the only organization that has said this. As for being conservative, WSJ is also conservative and look at who they are supporting.

Rebuttal 4:
Trump called McCain a hero as I stated in Round 3. And there's no evidence that supports that he was a draft dodger. He received many school deferments, which were easily given at the time, and there's no evidence that Trump did not have a medical issue that put him at the back of the list.[12]For this issue, the burden of proof lies on Con, which has failed to provide any. Trump did donate to veteran charities, so this argument is completely false.[13]

Conclusion:
-Con has used circumstantial evidence in his case to criticize Trump(Evidence in Round 3)
-Con has used biased sources like WSJ
-Con has used evidence that supports immigration in general, not illegal immigration which this debate is about. (There are more legal immigrants than illegal immigrants which serves as a false narrative that "immigrants don't cause crime"
-Con does not know the definition of lobbyist and corruption, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly has condemned
-Con claims Trump has "Utter Lack of Policy Knowledge" when I have proved that he does(Immigration, VA Reform etc.)
-I have refuted claims about The Wall(How will Mexico Pay)
-Pretty much all of Con's arguments lie upon the base that Trump won't enact his policies, which simply can't be predicted(Only theorized)
-My opponent fails to critique Trump's stance on the Iran Deal
-Con has laid false narratives that the BP will receive more money in funding. Trump has never said that, only calling for a Wall to be built.
-My opponent fails to show how a 15% corporate tax won't benefit small businesses, when it's common sense, that the less companies have to pay, the more money they can utilize.

Final Statement: I would like the voters and Con to ponder upon this question: Why does Donald Trump want to become POTUS? He already has enough money to live a couple of lifetimes. He's already popular through his show "The Apprentice." He could've chose to live a simple life in retirement, but why didn't he? The answer is, that he is running for America, Americans, Children, Police Officers, and our Veterans.

For all of these reasons I urge a Pro vote for this debate.

Thank You to Con, for their civilized manner, and for this interesting debate.

Sources:
[1]https://pjmedia.com...
[2]http://www.pewhispanic.org...
[3]http://www.progressivestoday.com...
[4]http://bigstory.ap.org...
[5]http://www.ibtimes.com...
[6]http://toprightnews.com...
[7]https://archives.fbi.gov...
[8]http://www.mapsofworld.com...
[9]http://www.washingtontimes.com...
[10]http://www.investopedia.com...
[11]https://represent.us...
[12]http://www.politifact.com...
[13]http://bigstory.ap.org...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
Most of my defense relies on Hillary being terrible, but I can still effectively defend him. I trust him, unlike Hillary who has completely lost my respect
Posted by spencercrat123 4 months ago
spencercrat123
Yeah there's just too much to cover though. We were hitting our character maxes just talking about Trump so you can't effectively fit both into 1 debate imo.
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
I normally like to argue Trump vs Clinton, so it took me a while to do the research and write legit arguments, lol. I seriously think a Hillary Clinton Presidency will destroy the U.S. With Trump, it involves a lot of risk but it's still possible unlike Hillary who most Americans believe is already a criminal.
Posted by spencercrat123 4 months ago
spencercrat123
Of course if he democratically wins the election he should be president. Of course I know this is my opinion versus different ones. That's what debate is. I think it'd be a terrible mistake to elect Donald Trump and that a Trump presidency would not lead to a "goodly conclusion" and that's what I argued.
Posted by Agingseeker 4 months ago
Agingseeker
If the due workings of our constitutional setup result in that ; YES, of course. But you meant Is he fit to be President? But you don't realize that that boils down to your opinion versus the rest of the electorate's and that is what electing IS.

Obama is the worst president of my lifetime and I would venture maybe the worst ever. But that is what the people wanted, the audacity of hope. I am not surprised that the man who vowed the most open president in history holds the record for the most denials under the Freedom of Information Act.

But we can't arrive at a good society by the imposition of force. We need to let it work in the goodly way and hope that leads to a goodly conclusioin. But it might not :)
Posted by spencercrat123 4 months ago
spencercrat123
The final round isn't for rebuttals anyway. You can "defend" from my rebuttals if you'd like other than that yes it is just for the conclusion.
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
Wait, never mind, I didn't know the limit restarts every argument. Man, I could've posted 2 more arguments, but oh well, it's my fault for being ignorant.
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
As I'm sure both of us are nearing the character limit, can we agree not to post any rebuttals in the final round? The final round should be for a closing statement only.
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
As I'm sure both of us are low on the character limit, can we agree not to post anymore rebuttals in the final round? I propose only closing statements. Is that ok with you?
No votes have been placed for this debate.