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

Should Donald Trump be the next US president?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 858 times Debate No: 88610
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I, Con, will be arguing that Donald Trump should not be the next US president. The first round will be for acceptance only. The debate will be set up this way:

2nd round: Pro will make opening statement.
3rd round: Expansion into opening statement, including cited facts and details.
4th round: Rebuttals
5th round: Closing statements.

I would love to have a structured debate on our future president. Please no trolls.


Will argue in favor of Donald Trump becoming the next president of the US. Looking forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


I believe Donald Trump should not be the next US President. His campaign runs on hate and lies. Donald Trump has absolutely no government experience, so why should we trust him? Do we really need a president who claims to be a Christian, yet curses on stage? We do not need a president like this. Many of his ideas would not be possible, as they would plunge the US into debt. Donald Trump makes America look like a joke. He's been terribly racist and ignorant to minorities like Mexicans and Muslims, he publicly humiliates people, and he is immature. All he cares about is money and he will do all he can to turn America into his next big business. Donald Trump is not the right choice for America.


Donald Trump is the only candidate worth voting for. From the beginning of the race, he has made his intentions of working in the interests of the American people clear.

He has pointed out the economic and social dangers of mass immigration, and made them the primary isue of his campaign from day 1. Trump has opposed the disastrous interventions in the Middle East, made more progress for US-Russia relations after a few months as a candidate than Obama did over 8 years as president, opposed the TPP bill, and opposes allowing the government to profit from interest on student loans.

Trump's concerns are first and foremost with the American people, not furthering insane ideologies, or furthering some despised political dynasty.
Debate Round No. 2


Donald Trump is a business man. He has absolutely no experience in government work, so is it so ludicrous to say he will only see America as the next big business? America is not a business, it's a country with hard-working people who have emotions. Donald Trump will have the lives of people in his hands. I don't know if you know this, but business men get rid of whatever they don't need to benefit them, and right now that's the Muslims and the Mexicans.

His ideas would plunge America into debt. Donald Trump's economic plan intends to add tariffs on foreign goods, which would apparently create "millions and millions of jobs.". Adding tariffs raises the prices of the taxed goods and other prices on other goods. This would most likely result in higher prices, inflation, and unemployment. This would majorly hurt the poor and working class. For anyone with credit card debt, mortgage debt, or student loans(which is A LOT of people) interest rates will skyrocket. *Private investments would be crowded because it would cost more for small businesses to get profit and create jobs. If Trump plans to create jobs it might be a bit hard under the circumstances.

He's been racist to minorities. If you're going to lead the American people at least like them. He's grouped Mexicans into a circle of "rapists, drug dealers, and "criminals". Latinos make up quite a bit of America. Most of them are not raping people and are not bring drugs into the country. It is not the fact that Donald Trump is against illegal immigration and crime, it's the fact that he has used his podium to hate on them! His own party has gone out of it's way to say how they dislike the republican front runner. He has gone after African Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims. There aren't enough white people in America to get him the vote.

Let's get something straight we can't force Mexico to build our wall. Donald Trump plans to basically tax the hell out off the Mexican border and Mexican officials until Mexico gives up and hands over roughly the $25 billion it would take to build the wall. It's a good strategy, but it would most likely cause a trade war and you know how bad that would be.

Websites used:

Private Investments- The purchase of a capital asset to income, appreciation in value, or both.


1) Con argues that Trump lacks a political background - which is true, but not a flaw. The politically-experienced presidents of the past have driven the country into debt, infringed on civil liberteis, pursued moronic interventionism, and been prone to corruption.

One could very convincingly argue that absolutely any newcomer poses far less of a threat to the average American citizen's rights than another member of the political elite.

2) As for the argument that Trump's economic protectionism would lead to unemployment (amongst other economic ills) and inflation, this is simply not true. The free(r) trade agreement NAFTA, which Trump plans to break[2], has resulted in job losses throughout all 50 states[1].

As for his other economic policies, a analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation discovered[3] that Trump's tax plan would:

- Lead to an 11% higher GDP
- Create 5.3 million new jobs
- 6.5% higher wages

3) Con states that Trump "grouped Mexicans into a circle of 'rapists, drug dealers, and criminals'". However, my opponent failed to mention that Trump only made those comments in regards to illegal Mexican immigrants (which definitely bring in more crime than native-born Americans[4 - 6])

Of course most Hispanic/Latino-Americans are not criminals - Trump never stated they were. It is an indisputable fact, however, that bringing in more immigrants necessarily brings in more crime.

4) Con cites Trump's comments on ethnic and religious minorities, as if though they have entirely alienated the minority vote. This is completely untrue, of course. Trump has not had any particular problems in winning over Hispanic and black Republicans. In fact, they support at higher rates than whites do [7]

5) Con argues that Trump's plan to make Mexico pay for a border wall will lead to a trade war, but this may not necessarily be the case. There are various other ways in which a President Trump could afford for the US to implement border control measures of such a scale [8].


Debate Round No. 3


Con argues that Trump lacks a political background - which is true, but not a flaw."
Just because he has business experience does not mean he is qualified for all business jobs. The United States is not a big company. It's tens of thousands more complex than any corporation Trump might own. It's hard to know how he will do. Franklin Pierce, the 14th President of the United States, is kind of like Trump. He was adored by many, everyone loved him and he was a great business man. His actions led to setting up the Civil War. It's just the thing of we could play it safe or we might never know.

"The free(r) trade agreement NAFTA, which Trump plans to break, has resulted in job losses throughout all 50 states"
Trump's plan to break up NAFTA is just not smart. He's making it sound way to simple and it's not. Pulling out of NAFTA extends way beyond trading. If we start breaking deals with other trusted countries imagine how stupid we would look to countries we don't have deals with. Adding tariffs to things would just cut back production because everything would become so expensive. Abandoning NAFTA wouldn't really accomplish much.

Trump's tax plan would just make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer. Middle class would have their taxes cut by $2,700, but the top 1% would see a reduce in their taxes by about $1.3 million. One analysis shows Trump's plans would increase the deficit by at least $9.5 over a decade. He has said multiple times that he would do nothing with Medicare and Social Security so he's have to cut big amounts of defense and domestic spending,

Immigrants actually lead to less crime. Most research today concludes that illegal immigrants lead to less crime than native born Americans. Study suggest Latinos have stronger family ties than the average native born. This adds more social control tot he youth.

A majority of Trump supporters are white. Recent poll showed how Trump supporters view African Americans. Many of them put extremely well when associating blacks with violence and laziness. Another poll showed that the majority of Trumps white supporters feel they are 'losing out' when it comes to minorities. Personally I don't believe all Trump supporters are bad people, but many facts and polls show that they're pretty biased.

Donald Trump is making promises he can't keep. He won't be able to break up NAFTA and build a wall. That is complete disrespect. He just can't do it. It's not realistically possible, but please tell me why you believe in Trump.

Websites Used:


Political inexperience

Con continues to argue that Trump's lack of a political background would constitute for a problem. My opponent cites the example of 14th President Frakling Pierce, drawing parallels between their popularity and success as businessmen. However, this analogy is simply inappropriate in a discussion about Trump's lack of political experience - Franklin Pierce was not a newcomer to politics by any stretch of the imagination.

Additionally, Con argues that the present situation is one where "we could play it safe or we might never know", with the implication (apparently) being that choosing an experienced candidate would be to "play it safe". If that is the case, then I'll argue that this is a fundamentally flawed argument.

Opting for a candidate for mere virtue of political experience is not "playing it safe". It is essentially guaranteeing yet another failure of a leader. The preceeding parade of politically experienced presidents have systematically assaulted the economy, infringed on civil liberties, initiated reckless and wateful wars, and spearheaded multiple other foreign policy blunders. And that's within the past few decades

What have we learned from electing the poltiically experienced? Certainly not that a a nigh-guaranteed disaster is any better than a potential wildcard.


Con states that, were Trump's rollback on NAFTA to be implemented, it would "just cut back production because everything would become so expensive". However, none of his sources support such a conclusion.

Given the definitively negative effects NAFTA has already had on native employment, what is Con's argument beyond a bare assertion?

Economic policy

Con argues: "Trump's tax plan would just make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer. Middle class would have their taxes cut by $2,700, but the top 1% would see a reduce in their taxes by about $1.3 million"

How -exactly- would cutting taxes for the middle class "make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer"? Economics is not (necessarily) a zero-sum game. The fact that the top 1% would be relatively well off does not conclusively demonstrate that this will actually harm the middle and lower classes.


Con argues that ilegal immigrants commit less crime than the native-born, stating that such a claim is supported by "most research".

However, as David Frum at The Atlantic [1] pointed out, "most research" on the subject is misleading and suffes from methodological problems:

"When most studies report that immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives, many rely—as I did above—on incarceration rates. Prison populations are the most authoritative source of data on immigrant crime. It’s much easier to assess the immigration status of a person in custody, after all.

But because U.S. prison sentences are so long, prisons house many people whose criminal activities occurred years, or even decades, in the past. Many of the people in prison today were sent there at a time when the foreign-born population was smaller and crime rates were higher."

"the native-born crime rate is an aggregate of every sub-population in the country, some of which have low crime rates, some much higher. Among those native-born groups with higher rates of crime: children of immigrants, who offend at rates substantially higher than their parents. Because the children of recent immigrants account for so much of U.S. population growth, higher immigration of groups with higher crime rates must drive crime levels higher than they otherwise would have been."

Trump's supporters

To begin with, what Trump's voters are or believe is of no direct relevance to his merits as a potential president. This really should go without saying. This is a discussion on Trump, not his supporters.

Either way, I would contend that this is problematic in the slightest. Would Con like to argue that voters in favor of any other candidates -aren't- biased themselves?


Debate Round No. 4


AcidicApples forfeited this round.


Con forfeits, round goes to Pro
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 5 months ago
To bad con forfeit. The entire outsider argument of Pro is a fallacy of single cause and easily dispatched.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 6 months ago
Lack of Political Experience:
This is not a necessarily strong argument to begin with. The reason being that Con fails to elaborate and substantiate the distinction between a business and a country enough to make this argument effective. Con brought up former president Franklin Pierce as evidence against Trump by stating that his actions lead the US into the Civil War. The same problem still exists as Con failed to elaborate on the this point.

Pro"s contentions were to point out that political inexperience isn"t necessarily a bad thing. He argues this by pointing to past presidents of the establishment who increased US debt among other ills. However, without empirical data or events, the rebuttal isn"t that effective. However, his rebuttal of Pro"s argument about President Pierce lands home by distincting him as part of the establishment. Because of this, Pro has substantially refuted this claim.

The economy:
Con"s initial argument also lacks elaboration as he fails to go into detail why tariffs lead to unemployment, skyrocketing interest rates and why local businesses would be hurt on taxed foreign goods. He concedes Pro"s argument that his plan to break NAFTA would save American jobs opting to shift focus to foreign policy. Con"s attack on Trump"s tax plan only by assertion that the poor would be taxed more without revealing actual details of his plan.

Pro"s rebuttal was backed by an expert analysis and has sufficiently refuted this argument.

Con conceded that his comments on "criminals, rapists, and drug dealers" were not targeted specifically to Mexicans but rather illegal immigrants who have no race. Everything else along this argument are bare assertions refuted by Pro"s study-backed rebuttals.

The Wall:
Con concedes Pro"s rebuttal by silence

Trump Supporters:
This debate is not about his supports but Donald Trump himself. Con fails to prove why his supporters actions would reflect his eligibility to be president.

Posted by Bob13 6 months ago
Con's first contention: Donald Trump will treat America like his next business.
Con contends that Trump is a businessman who lacks political experience, so he will treat America like a business. Pro points out that political experience is not necessary to be a good president, and Con responds by asserting that Trump will end up like Franklin Pierce. Con could not provide evidence for his case, so his argument failed.
Con's second contention: Donald Trump's ideas would plunge America into debt if implemented.
Con contends that his plan to raise tariffs would raise prices of goods, leading to inflation and unemployment. Pro says that Trump plans to break NAFTA, a trade agreement which he says has caused job loss. He also quotes an analysis that shows that his other economic policies could create millions of jobs. While Con has proven that tariffs will cause job loss, this is outweighed by the jobs that would be created by his other economic policies. This argument failed for Con.
Con's third contention: Donald Trump is racist towards minorities.
Con mentions Trump's comments on Mexicans, but, as Pro pointed out, he was commenting on illegal immigrants from Mexico, not Mexicans in general. This argument failed.
Con's fourth contention: Donald Trump will not be able to make Mexico pay for the wall.
Con asserts that attempting to do so will cause a trade war, but Pro mentions several ways that he could accomplish it. Con then dropped the argument.
Conclusion: Con's arguments were all refuted and he failed to meet the burden of proof.
Posted by someloser 6 months ago
No prob lol
Posted by AcidicApples 6 months ago
I made a typo. Sorry it was late when I typed this I meant to put pro not con.
Posted by someloser 7 months ago
Can rebuttals to opening statements be made in R3, or is that for R4 onwards?
Posted by Jules_123 7 months ago
I personally think none of the presidential candidates are good this year. However, I suppose if I had to pick one I would probably vote for Donald Trump. I really do not have much of an argument to back it up, except for that fact that he is a smart business man, so that is why I do not accept this challenge. I look forward to reading this debate if someone does accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 6 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Greetings from the Voters' Union. The RFD is in the comments pertaining to the arguments. Despite Con forfeiting a round, I cannot vote on conduct due to VU regulations
Vote Placed by Bob13 6 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.