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

Donald Trump would be a Terrible President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 91919
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our prosperity..."

This is the Preamble to the United States Constitution. It was written by the Founding Fathers to outline their bold new vision for a democracy. It was a brilliant new social experiment, and at the forefront of this was the idea to create a government that was free of discrimination and oppression. The document itself created a protocol for a government in which it was almost impossible for a single group or individual to take complete power. In the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers outlined the rights of the people. It is this document that will prohibit Donald Trump from doing most of what he claims he will do.

I have many, many, many problems with Donald Trump and his outlandish proposals, but at the forefront of these grievances is his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. In the First Amendment to the Constitution, the establishment or prohibition of any one religion is banned. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." When Donald Trump says that a ban on Muslims should be imposed, it is quite obviously in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The "logic" behind the ban is that keeping out Muslims would reduce terrorism, right? But a FBI investigation has proven that 94% of all terrorist attacks carried out on US soil were by non-Muslims. So not only would this ban be ineffective, it would also demonize a large group of already victimized American citizens, breeding more hate and prejudice towards said group. With this profiling would come more radicalization, as the feeling of being outcast and unwanted inevitably creates anger and more violence. So the irony of this ban is that it would not only fail at keeping terrorists out, it would fail spectacularly by creating more resentment and unnecessary hatred on both sides. So that won't work.

That's my major problem with Donald Trump politically. As a person, he's even worse. Here's a few quotes from a New York Times article, "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private":

"'That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees,' he told a female contestant on 'The Celebrity Apprentice.' Rosie O"Donnell, he said, had a 'fat, ugly face.' A lawyer who needed to pump milk for a newborn? 'Disgusting,' he said."

"He simultaneously nurtured women"s careers and mocked their physical appearance. 'You like your candy,' he told an overweight female executive who oversaw the construction of his headquarters in Midtown Manhattan."

This is also a man who says that he would likely be dating his Ivanka Trump if she weren't his daughter, and makes dismissive comments about people who have worked for him or been on his show. Also, coming from a man who clearly only values women for their looks (he's been married three times; his current marriage is to a beauty queen), it becomes increasingly hard to believe him when he says that he "respects women." This is 51% of the population we're talking about.

Please, please don't Make America Hate Again. This truly is a tipping point in our politics. There is a choice here--to head down the dark path that Trump is leading us into or firmly reject this racist, misogynist fool who threatens the very fabric or democracy. If we choose the latter option, we can then focus on making strong, bipartisan solutions to the world's many problems.


First off, a ban on muslims entering the U.S. would not constitute the estalihment of a state religion, that's absurd. Neither does the 14th ammendment have any relevance to this debate, because #1 it doesn't offer any protection to people who aren't citizens of the U.S., #2 it doesn't offer any protections on account of religion, and #3 Islam isn't a religion, it is an evil mysogenistic death cult aimed toward destroying all of our civil liberties until the world is all-Islamic and their false Islamic Messiah brings forth a Totalitarian Islamic World Super-State.

Before an immigrant can become a citizen of the United States, they have to take the following oath:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

This oath prevents someone from having any allegiances to foreighn powers and touphold the constitution of the united states. The Qur'an says in 9:111and 9:5 to kill all infadels, which would constitute a violation of the 5th ammendment, in Qur'an 5:33 says to torture infadels, which violates the 8th ammendment.

Since being a Muslim would prevent you from honestly taking this oath and followingthe constitution, this means that any and all Muslims who take this oath are lying, and thus, they cannot become citizens, and preventing Muslims from becoming citizens would only be ccommon sense enforcement of the law.

Debate Round No. 1


Hillary4Prez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, you do not win. I was on a trip and didn't have time to submit an argument.

Now let's get to actual arguments.

I notice you only addressed one of my arguments. From this, I am led to assume that you have no response to my other points.

You are correct that a ban on Muslims entering the country would not mean the establishment of religion, but it's the other part of this religion clause that's important: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The religion of Islam requires all able Muslims to travel to the Arabic city of Mecca at least once in their lives, a pilgrimage called hajj. Because this policy would prevent Muslims from reentering the United States, it is, effectively, barring or restricting an important tenet of Islam. Therefore, this policy is indeed unconstitutional. Second of all, the Fourteenth Amendment does apply. It doesn't matter that religion isn't specifically mentioned. The amendment includes all people who are citizens of the United States. Therefore, this policy is unconstitutional on yet another count. Thirdly, you make this ridiculous claim that Islam is an "evil mysogenistic death cult aimed toward destroying all of our civil liberties until the world is all-Islamic and their false Islamic Messiah brings forth a Totalitarian Islamic World Super-State." This claim is completely unfounded. Since you are the one making it, it is also your job to prove it.

Also, about the oath and its applications towards religions: Christianity also calls for violence against the infidel. Both Deuteronomy 13 and 17 call for people who have practiced religions other than Christianity to be stoned or hacked to death; thus, violating these same amendments that you cited. So if you're making this claim that Muslims cannot take the oath based on these Qur'an verses, I can also make this claim:

Since being a Christian would prevent you from honestly taking this oath and following the Constitution, this means that any and all Christians who take this oath are lying, and thus, they cannot become citizens, and preventing Christians from becoming citizens would only be common sense enforcement of the law.

Eagerly awaiting your response and hoping to see a reply to some of my other arguments in the next round!


Actually I didn't respond to any of your other arguments because they are completely unfounded, where did Donald Trump say that he wants to date his daughter? And what was the context of him saying any of these things? I know that what he said about Rosie O' Donald was true, but who cares, Rosie O' Donald is a Jerk and she deserves it. And Donald Trump does not hate women, he put a woman in charge of building Trump Tower, [1] and another thing, every woman who has ever dated the guy says that he was a gentleman, and if you watch an interview wit hi daughter Ivonka Trump, you will find that she has no self esteem issues, which is generally a sign that Trump is a goods father and anything but misogynistic.

You are misquoting my argument, Donald Trump wants to ban Muslim immigrants from coming into the US, not Muslims who are already citizens. And even if Muslim citizens weren't allowed to enter the US, this would be fine since Islam isn't a religion, thus it's practices aren't protected under the First Amendment. And I can prove all of this, the definition of religion is; "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."[2] Does Islam have a moral code? Nope, because their code is not in the slightest moral.

And Christianity does not call for murdering infidels, Deuteronomy 13 and 17 aren't commanding people to kill infidels, it is ordering Jews to kill any Jews who worship other gods, this law was isolated to Israel, nowhere does it say to go out and kill infidels or lie infant for them, keep in mind, this verse also orders there be whiteness's and a trial, so it doesn't violate the constitution since the 5th Amendment says "without due process of law."


Debate Round No. 3


Your response reveals not only the sexism of your presidential candidate, but of yourself. You say Rosie O'Donnell is a jerk. This of course, is not necessarily sexism; you may just not like Rosie O'Donnell. However, if we are to assume that she is a jerk and that she deserves to be personally insulted (I disagree with both of these points), then wouldn't the most logical way to insult her be to attack her on why she is a jerk? The idea that you should viciously and ruthlessly insult women that you don't like based on their physical appearance is, to be perfectly frank, one of the most horribly sexist, misogynistic things I've ever heard. You, sir, need to get your act together.

Secondly, about Donald Trump's remarks about his daughter: Simply watch this video: . The context: Trump was talking (for whatever bizarre reason) about Ivanka possibly posing nude for Playboy Magazine. He goes on to make several somewhat crude comments about his daughter's body before making the aforementioned statement. And another thing: She was in her mid-twenties at the time. He was almost sixty. How creepy is that?

About the Muslim ban: I am not misquoting your argument. Here is his proposal, quoted exactly, verbatum: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." A "total and complete shutdown" means everybody. Immigrants, residents, citizens, seniors, children, men, women, Sunni, Shia. Also, after Trump made his outlandish proposal, he was asked by a reporter if he would except Muslim soldiers--American citizens who bravely fought in the service of our country--he thought for a while, and then said that he would. The only other exception is London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has said that he would not visit the United States if Donald Trump was elected. The fact that he had to make these exceptions, especially the military exception, obviously means that he would also be banning the reentry of Muslim Americans who had been traveling abroad. So all of my arguments still apply.

I notice you're still continuing to claim that Islam is not a religion. I would like to point out that Islam does have a moral code. All religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, are extremely contradictory. For example, there is some obscure phrase in the Bible that says gay people ought to be killed. The contradicting argument is the command to love your neighbor as yourself and forgive people their sins. The latter is stressed and repeated throughout the book and is obviously more important; therefore it is the one you should heed. The same idea applies to Islam. The five major teachings of Islam are Shahada, or Declaration of Faith, Salat, or Prayer, Sawm, or Fasting, Hajj, or Pilgrimage, and Zakat, or Almsgiving. It's the perfect mix, in my opinion, of worship of God and service towards the needy. Yes, there is a part of the Qur'an that calls for infidels to be killed. But, seeing as that contradicts the core tenets of Islam, it means nothing. Also, let's say Islam does not have a moral code, for the sake of argument. It would still be a religion because your definition says, "...often containing a moral code..." A moral code is not necessary for it to be considered religion. So therefore, Islam is a religion and is protected under the First Amendment.

Finally, these two Bible verses are ordering the killing of infidels. From Deuteronomy 13: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet...And that prophet...shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God...If thy brother, the son of thy mother or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare...But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people...And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die...If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, ...Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known...Than shalt thou enquire...and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain...Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword...and thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again." There is no part in this passage that states that these laws only apply to the people of Israel (the Jews). They apply to all of Christianity and, since it is in the Old Testament of the Bible, also to the Jews and Judaism as a whole, as you pointed out. Secondly, you will find no mention of a legitimate trial in this verse. It also says that if even a few people are found to be practicing a religion other than Christianity, the whole city in its entirety shall be burned and all of its inhabitants be killed. How unconstitutional is that? You say, "Deuteronomy 13 and 17 aren't commanding people to kill infidels, it is ordering Jews to kill any Jews who worship other gods..." This is the very definition of an infidel! When you are asking people to kill someone who is worshiping another god, that is asking to kill infidels. This is an indisputable fact. Now for Deuteronomy 17: "If there be found among or woman, that...hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven...and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain...then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." Again, this is indisputably calling for the killing of infidels. Again, there's no way around it. It does, later in the verse, say two or more witnesses need to have seen the sacrilege for the infidel to be killed. However, this in no way constitutes a civil trial and is still in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

I also did a little research into major religions and discovered that all of them--Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism-- with the exception of Buddhism, call for the killing of all infidels. So you'd be preventing everybody except for atheists and Buddhists from becoming American citizens. This makes absolutely zero sense. Again, check out the First Amendment. It's helpful sometimes.

Finally, you have not provided any reasons as to why Donald Trump would be a good president. You've only provided (extremely shaky) arguments as to why my points are wrong. So an unbiased observer would get the impression that Donald Trump would be, at best, a mediocre president. Since this round is the last, I urge you to put in some reasons as to why Donald Trump would actually be a good president. If you do not, you are, in effect, conceding the debate to me.


No, not at all, when Donald Trump was talking about how corrupt Ted Cruz is he said he was a really nasty guy and that he looked like a fish monster, is he sexist against men too? And the video you shew me, I couldn't hear anything, it sounds like a bunch of gumbled together randomness, plese get better audio.

Please provide a souce for him saying that he would prevent muslim citizens from entering the US. And really- you should learn your Torah, because the verses which order gay people be punished for crimes against G-d was a law for THE NATION OF ISRAEL, i.e., in the Nation of Israel the courts were instructed to have anyone who commited such a disgusting act to be stoned. It never says for us to go out hunt and kill gay people.

Also, there are 109 verses in the Qur'an which advocate violence, but these five pillars of Islam are nowhere to be found in the Qur'an.
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Now let's compare and contrast Qur'an verses against Torah verses shall we?

Qur’an 2:190:

"The sacred month and the sacred precincts are under the safeguard of reprisals: whoever offereth violence to you, offer ye the like violence to him, and fear God, and know that God is with those who fear Him."

Wow what a peacefull religion, but what does the Torah say?

Leviticus 19:18:
“Don’t take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am Adonai.”

Wow, how terrible, maybe Christians and Jews should be kicked out of the US.

Oh and another thing, the First ammendment has exeptions you know? Free speech has the exeptions of threats and private information/libil/obsenety/child pornagraphy. {1} The freedomof religion has the exeption that if practicing your religion constitutes the infringement of others rights, you do not have any right to prctice that, Islam denies non-muslims the right to live and it denies women the right not to be beat and/or raped by their husband.{2}

Also, Deuteronomy 13 and 17 don't order the killing of peple from different religions, in Jdaism you're allowed to believe whatever you want, Athistsic jews are still accepted in jewish communities, the issue was of burning your children to baal. And no, Judaism doesn't dvocate for killing infadels, if someone hates G-d we don't really care.

And yes you are right, I didn't provide any arguments as to why Donald Trump would be a good president- oh wait I did, look at how his kids turned out. Also, he has working solutrions to every single one of Americas issues.


Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.