The Instigator
atheist4thecause
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ZzRanger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

President Trump is a good President.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 113111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

atheist4thecause

Pro

Rules/Structure - Basically, anything goes as long as it is in the spirit of a productive debate. Voters will be the ultimate judge.

President Trump is a good President. Positive policies are impacting the USA, and the USA is benefiting from those positive policies in ways that many never expected.

1) North Korea: Kim Jong-un inherited a nuclear North Korea, and has been set on advancing nuclear technology, as well as methods of delivery such as ICBM's. [1] Because of President Trump's actions, which do involve going back-and-forth on Twitter calling Kim Jong-un "Little Rocket Man" and threats of "fire and fury", as well as sanctions that have crippled the North Korean economy, Kim Jong-un has been forced to the negotiating table while in a bad leverage position. [2] North Korea has been made many significant and promising steps before the Trump-Jong-un meetings take place, including agreeing to the meeting in the first place, eliminating a nuclear test site, and agreeing to denuclearize without preconditions. [3] The promising meeting as well as many of the steps already taken will lead towards increased security and stability for the USA, and may open up economic avenues if North Korea agrees to establish economic relations with the USA.

2) ISIS: President Trump has led the military to effectively eliminating nearly all of ISIS's territory in about one year.[4] This is a tremendous success, and one few people expected. When former President Obama left office, ISIS still had significant territory. The funding of ISIS [5] and foreign supply of fighters [6] has also been dramatically reduced. Allowing commanders to make decisions on the ground, as well as appointing General "Mad Dog" Mattis, who has a philosophy of overwhelming foes militarily instead of a smaller, drawn-out strategy have been key factors in the success against ISIS. [7] The defeat of ISIS will lead to increased security and stability for the USA, as well as lowering military costs long-term when the fighting is finished.

3) Border Security: Border security is paramount to protecting those within the border in terms of protection of American citizens physically, as well as economically. A country without borders is open to crime, terrorist attacks, and cannot cost-effectively enforce social programs. Under Trump, illegal immigration has dropped significantly. [8] And this not only protects those within the USA, it protects the illegal immigrants themselves. Over 80% of women and girls coming from Central America are raped, kidnapped, etc. on the way. [9] Tough talk has been key to slowing illegal immigration, but steps have been taken to increase border patrol agents, [10] fund wall prototypes [11] and start building the wall, [12] as well as enabling ICE to do their jobs [13]. Border security has been key to a prosperous USA.

4) Economy: Last but not least, the economy. Unemployment has gone way down under President Trump, especially for Blacks and Hispanics [14], the stock market has been up [15], GDP has grown [16], and the economic outlook for the future is positive as well [17]. Results show that President Trump has been a resounding success on the economy.

Overall, President Trump's successes with North Korea, ISIS, border security, and the economy have put the USA in a very good position.

Sources (This is my first debate, so I'm not sure to what extent I'm expected to give sources, so let me know if I over-source or under-source.):
[1]: http://www.bbc.com...
[2]: http://www.foxnews.com...
[3]: http://www.newsweek.com...
[4]: http://www.bbc.com...
[5]: http://money.cnn.com...
[6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[7]: https://news.usni.org...
[8]: http://dailyutahchronicle.com...
[9]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[10]: http://www.foxnews.com...
[11]: http://beta.nydailynews.com...
[12]: http://www.foxnews.com...
[13]: https://www.denverpost.com...
[14]: https://www.bls.gov...
[15]: https://www.cnbc.com...
[16]: https://www.cnbc.com...
[17]: https://www.thebalance.com...
ZzRanger

Con

Quick thanks to my opponent for presenting this topic to debate over. I look forward to the progression of this debate.

When examining whether Trump is a good president, we must first determine what constitutes a good president. It is the job of the president to strengthen America's culture and image at home, and around the world, rather than developing domestic policy, which is the job of Congress. As such, these factors should be the criteria for determining whether a person is a good president. However, judging from his actions, he has clearly done more harm than good in the US, and cannot be categorized as a good president. The following paragraphs will outline by arguments, then refute my opponents.

1). Foreign Relations

For the longest time the United States as been seen as the global leader and a champion of democracy. It was a beacon of hope for countries to turn to in times of need. Yet under President Trump, our status as a global superpower has been severely damaged, due to his conduct and actions. The opinion of the United States has been severely tarnished under Trump. Approval of the US has decreased by over 17% from 2016 to 2017, with sharp declines in approval in most of Europe, South America, Australia. Declines in US popularity has especially taken place in Canada, Norway, Portugal, and Belgium, with over a 40% decrease in approval [1]. This massive decline in popularity hurts the US's credibility and status as a superpower, undermining US relationships with its allies. This will ultimately hurt the US in the long run when trying to execute its agenda.

2). Leadership

It is the president's duty to help unite the people of America. Yet under the Donald, America has become more divided than ever, creating instability and hindering our ability to progress as a society. As of December 16, 2017, Donald Trump has an approval rating of 36.4% and a disapproval rating of 56.5%, historic precedents unheard of prior to his presidency. For context, Obama's was around 50% at the same time and George W Bush's was at around 80% [2]. His bombastic twitter habits has driven many Americans away, and his rhetoric continues to drive people against one another. He has made comments of twitter that openly discriminate against minority groups, against women, and more, alienating certain groups of the population. Most Americans also feel that racial tensions have increased under Trump and that America is divided [3]. As a result of his actions, Trump has divided the people of the United States, creating tension and instability in our country, rather than uniting, which is what a good leader and president ought to do.

Refutations

North Korea: My opponent argues that Trump is causing Kim Jung-Un to make concessions. However, this strategy of promising disarmament has long been a strategy employed by North Korea to reduce sanctions the international community places on it, and is ultimately a false promise [4]. Due to North Korea's history of promising to denuclearize, then falling back on its promise (IE 2003 - 2009), it seems unlikely that any significant progress will be achieved. Thus, president Trump has not done anything beneficial in this area.

ISIS: My opponent claims that Trump's actions are leading to the demise of ISIS. Yet again, the credit shouldn't go to Trump, but rather to Obama. According to the Washington Post, "Trump is using President Barack Obama"s playbook." when it comes to fighting ISIS [5]. All he is doing is continuing Obama's policies. So crediting the demise of ISIS to Trump when all he is doing is continuing previous policies doesn't show him being a good president and ignores Obama's impact on this issue.

3). Here also my opponent claims that illegal immigration is slowing down. However, under Obama, the number of illegal immigrants caught was decreasing over time, yet with Trump its increasing. In fact, it has more than tripled when comparing March 2017 under Obama, to March 2018 under Trump, from around 16000 to over 50000 [6]. On the topic of the border wall, Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Yet currently, Mexico isn't paying for it, breaking one of his campaign promises. In order for Trump to have been successful on the topic of border security, he needs to fulfill his campaign promise, which he obviously is failing to do.

4). Finally, the economy. Contrary to what my opponent claims, Trump isn't responsible for the economic growth in the US, with sources like TheAtlantic pointing to other causes like worldwide economic trends [7]. Furthermore, Trump is actually hurting American workers by rolling back "protections to ensure that American workers can be safe on the job, receive fair pay and benefits, save for retirement, access high-quality training programs, have a voice in their workplace, and not be discriminated against at work." [8]. The policies that Trump implemented that hurts American workers will ultimately hurt our economy. Finally, Trump's trade tariffs will "raise prices", "threaten jobs", and "could be particularly harmful to our delicate trade relationships." which will ultimately "low the entire world economy, in which case we"d all lose" [9]. So really, the economic boom isn't caused by Trump, and his policies are actually harmful to our economy.

To quickly summarize, his failures with foreign policy and leadership at home are two key signs that show that Trump is an inapt leader. Additionally, I have refuted my opponents arguments, proving that Trump really hasn't done very much good for our country. I look forward to seeing your arguments :)

Sources:

[1] - https://bit.ly...
[2] - https://53eig.ht...
[3] - https://cbsn.ws...
[4] - https://cnb.cx...
[5] - https://wapo.st...
[6] - https://at.wftv.com...
[7] - https://theatln.tc...
[8] - https://bit.ly...
[9] - https://fxn.ws...
Debate Round No. 1
atheist4thecause

Pro

I will touch on why my opponent's two core arguments against Trump being a good President do not refute my case, and I will then spend time defending my previously rock solid arguments.

1) Intro, Foreign Relations and Leadership:

My opponent makes the cae that it is the job of the President to strengthen America's culture at home. I disagree. America's culture is driven by Americans, not by any single individual. Putting forth results of policies is a much stronger basis of evaluating if a President is doing a good job.

My opponent also relies heavily on polls of foreign citizens to judge the American President. The President does not deride his power from these people, and the President does not work for these people. Furthermore, a leader is not someone who merely follows what the masses want, leadership is doing what is beneficial even if unpopular at the time.[1] Abraham Lincoln was one of the most unpopular President's in history, yet due to his leadership, he led us to one of the greatest accomplishments in all of American history in ending slavery.[4]

While my opponent claims that the USA's reputation has been greatly harmed to the point of not being able to accomplish what we want, I've already shown that the USA has been accomplishing quite a bit. On top of that, many foreign leaders have shown support for President Trump. Saudi Arabia awarded President Trump with the highest civilian award.[5] Israel named the Western Wall after President Trump.[6] South Korean leadership went out of it's way to credit President Trump with bringing North Korea to the negotiating table, and has worked closely with Trump overall.[7] Many other countries have supported Trump including Poland.[8] Many countries that polled low for Trump in the Gallup Poll have worked with Trump including Mexico breaking up the caravan of illegal immigrants,[9] France on Afghanistan, Syria, and Britian policies,[10][11][12] and the many NATO countries who agreed to pay more at Trump's demand.[13]

2) Attempted Refutations:

A) North Korea: My opponent attempts to obscure President Trump's North Korean accomplishments by talking about North Korea's past actions. While North Korea has used delay tactics in the past, that was under different leadership for both countries. The reason North Korea is taking action is because the sanctions mentioned in Round 1 hurt.[14] As long as President Trump keeps sanctions on until real results come in, which he has done so far, [15] North Korea will be forced to cave in. North Korea's economy has been crippled by as much as 80% from these sanctions.[16] We're also seeing new actions from North Korea, such as Kim Jong-un stating Kim Jong-il's dying wish was a denuclearized Korea, Kim Jong-un agreeing to meet the American President and meeting with the Chinese President, [17] and North Korea has already dropped the demand that the US leaves South Korea.[18] This time around has been very different.

B) ISIS: My opponent gives Obama the credit for ISIS, and while he deserves some, so does Trump. The USA has been fighting ISIS since 2014, Trump took over in 2017, and by 2018 ISIS was defeated with dramatic gains. In previous citations, I show that General Mattis unveiled a new strategy, and that strategy worked.

C) Border Security: While apprehensions go up and down,[19] it seems my opponent has conceded that border security is important. Trump has been the strongest force on border security despite Democratic obstruction. Trump has increased ICE agents, fought for and started the wall, and worked with Mexico to help prevent illegal crossings.

D) Economy: Again, my opponent attempts to credit Obama for successes. Both Obama and Trump deserve credit. Trump broke unemployment trend if you devide unemployment rate by unemployment rate drop. Obama's drop goes from 16.3% ('13) to 15.2% to 12.3% to 4.1% and then Trump's '17 is at 14.6%. Also, threatening tariffs is a strategy to lessen trade deficits, which kills jobs.

Sources:
[1]: http://www.reliableplant.com...
[4]: https://www.civilwar.org...
[5]: https://www.independent.co.uk...
[6]: https://www.theguardian.com...
[7]: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[8]: http://foreignpolicy.com...
[9]: http://time.com...
[10]: https://www.reuters.com...
[11]: https://www.cnn.com...;
[12]: https://nypost.com...
[13]: https://www.cnn.com...
[14]: https://nypost.com...
[15]: https://www.politico.com...
[16]: http://www.bbc.com...
[17]: http://www.businessinsider.com...
[18]: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
[19]: http://www.latimes.com...
ZzRanger

Con

Quick road map, I will touch on the flimsy arguments made on my case first, then refute my opponent's claims.

1). Framework

My opponent argues that policies should be evaluated over impact on American culture and image when evaluating whether a president is good. I disagree since the role of the president, first and foremost, is to be chief of state, which means representing the US government, and chief citizen, which means the "President should represent all of the people of the United States" and "work for their interests" and "provide moral leadership" [1]. These are the chief responsibilities of the President. I do acknowledge that policy is important, but ultimately, the majority of policy making occurs outside the President's jurisdiction but rather with Congress. So we shouldn't be evaluating our President on standards that he has little to no control over.

2). Leadership

The pro attempts to argue that occasionally, unpopular leaders are good. But first off, Trump's policies haven't been beneficial, which will be proven later, and second, although this may be true in rare instances, the vast majority of the time, unpopular leaders tend to be as good as the public perceives them as, incompetent. The majority of the time within a democracy, the people are able to tell whether a leader is good or not, and their sentiments will reflect this. If this weren't the case, American democracy as we know it today wouldn't be able to function.

3). Foreign Relations

My opponent attempts to downplay the negative view other country's citizens have of the US when evaluating our president, but never claims my data to be untrue, so extend that piece of evidence. To address his argument, it makes no sense, since public opinion shapes a countries foreign policy, so negative opinion of the US in countries that previously were our allies would naturally lead to less cooperation.

Later, my opponent says that cooperation between countries is happening amid low public opinion. But my argument is that it will significantly reduce cooperation and damage ties with our closest allies, not eliminate diplomatic ties entirely. Indeed, countries such as Australia and South Korea, longtime allies of the US, are now drifting away from the US and become closer to China due to Trump [2].

Finally, my opponent lists off all these countries that have given awards to Trump. Yet these examples were cherry picked by the pro and should be clearly outweighed by the vast majority of countries that have growing negative views of the US due to Trump. 35 out of 37 countries polled by the Pew Research Center have growing animosity toward the United States [3]. The pro claims that South Korea supports Trump. However, as stated earlier, South Korea is actually drifting away from the US and according to this poll, only 17% of South Koreans have a favorable opinion of the US under Trump, compared to 88% under Obama [3].

4). Refutations

A) North Korea: My opponent's main argument is the fact that this time it is different. Yet this is false. North Korea's actions now are just like its actions in the past [4]. It's simply a strategy by North Korea to garner concessions in exchange for empty promises [5]. According to John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies and director of ANU"s Southeast Asia Institute "Mr Kim was playing a clever game" In addition, he points out that talk is cheap, and leaders like Kim are highly manipulative and will say things without intending to keep their word [6] In fact, contrary to the statements Kim has made about denuclearlization, satellite images indicate that North Korea has no interest in halting their nuclear program [6].

B) ISIS: My opponent is trying in vain to credit Trump for defeating ISIS when all he did was continue Obama's policies. Any changes that General Mattis implemented were only on a tactical level and didn't play a key role to defeating ISIS [7]. In reality, there is little evidence to support the claim that Trump deserves credit for defeating ISIS [8].

C) Border Security: Regarding this claim, the pro says that Trump has made efforts to strengthen border security. But "efforts" don't matter unless it yields positive results. in this case, they don't . The very evidence my opponent uses clearly shows a negative correlation in illegal immigration over Obama's term, but a positive one under Trump [9]. Furthermore, extend my evidence that states that border crossings have risen fourfold under Trump.

D) Economy: The pro fails to provide a source to validate their claims. Furthermore, the data presented by the pro clearly shows that unemployment has increased under Trump by 10%. In addition, experts clearly indicate that tariffs will hurt economic growth [10]. Prefer my arguments over my opponents since I have two sources to my opponent's zero regarding this point.

Sources:

[1] - https://assets.pearsonschool.com...
[2] - https://www.cnbc.com...
[3] - http://www.pewglobal.org...
[4] - https://www.trtworld.com...
[5] -http://thehill.com...
[6] -http://www.news.com.au...
[7] -https://www.heritage.org...
[8] - https://www.vox.com...
[9] - http://www.latimes.com...
[10] - https://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
atheist4thecause

Pro

I will sure up loose ends by using the same labels my opponent used for their arguments, responding, and then summarizing my argument.

1) Framework:

My opponent attempts to reframe what it means to be a good President. I stand by what I've said up to this point, with one small addition: My opponent mentioned the President should represent the people of the USA and work for their interests, yet he judges President Trump based on what people of other countries think of him. I'm sure it doesn't make Germans, the French, the Dutch, etc. happy to hear that they will have to pay more taxpayer dollars to NATO, yet that is what is good for the interests of Americans. My opponent tries to take credit away from Trump on policy by giving it to Congress, but this ignores not only the massive power the President has, but also the massive influence the President has on Congress.

2) Leadership:

My opponent misrepresents my position by saying occassionally unpopular leaders are good. My argument was actually that leadership is inherently unpopular. If one is just following popular opinion, he is not really leading at all.

3) Foreign Relations:

I raise issue with source #2, which my opponent relies on for their argument that South Korea and Australia are drifting away from the USA towards China. First, there is an error where they say that trade is in billions when it is actaully in millions. Second, the data is from 2015, before Trump ever took office, and there is not any more recent data given to show a trend. When I looked up Chinese trade partners, there didn't seem to be this drastic change.[1][2] My opponent talks a lot about polls of people in other countries, but they talk little about the actions of foreign allied leaders that would show allied countries moving away from the USA in any meaningful way.

4) Refutations:

A) North Korea: My opponent simplifies my main argument as "different", and then they attempt to contradict me by stating North Korea's actions are the same as the past. It's true that some of North Korea's actions appear the same, but as I pointed out before, the variables are different. For instance, there are new administrations in both countries, and the sancitons have been extremely devastating to North Korea's economy. I did previously point out many actions that were different. What is effectively happening as we speak is Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in are meeting at the Korean border to shake hands.[3] It may be easy to try to dismiss this as North and South Korea having had some relations in the past, but that really misses how radically different these new and public relation developments are. So while some North Korean actions appear the same, they are under different variables, and other actions are radically different from what we've seen in the past.

B) ISIS: I'll stand by what I argued previously. Former President Obama and President Trump both deserve credit for defeating ISIS. I'll just add that my opponent on this topic and on others, has used a lot of Left-leaning sources (which are naturally anti-Trump) that state a lot of opinions and speculation, but they are much lighter on facts. Often these opinions and speculation are attempting to explain away facts that are positive for President Trump, and I encourage the voters to consider that.

C) Border Security: My opponent's argument is overly semantical. The reason I stated Trump has made efforts is because a border wall isn't going to be built in a year, especially when Democrats have obstructed[4], yet I showed clear steps Trump has been taking and clear progress that has been made.

D) Economy: Rather than attempt to take on the substance of my statement, my opponent takes the weaker method of dismissal, claiming I did not validate my claims. My opponent prefers their argument because of two sources to an alleged zero. I would like to point out just how much more I have sourced with more reliable sourcing, and so if we are to judge by the numbres, I easily win this debate. I don't think that's a good way to judge a debate, though.

I did specifically state how Obama's unemployment rate divided by the unemployment rate drop had been lowering each year for 3 straight years, and then Trump drastically raised the percentage in 2017. I gave the specific numbers.[5] On tariffs, I will reiterate my argument that Trump is using tariffs for leverage to lower trade deficits, not as an economic principle.[6] I also refer to previous arguments such as stock market growth and economic outlook. I'll add in the economic confidence index.[7]

Summary:

I have established that Trump is a good President by pointing to hard results. My core arguments pointed to accomplishments and progress with North Korea, ISIS, border security, and the economy. I have established my arguments with extensive sourcing, mostly from Left-leaning media that opposes President Trump, but also with a variety of sources. The established accomplishments have not only benefited the USA greatly now, but also position the USA well for the future. President Trump is a good President.

Sources:
[1]: https://www.census.gov...
[2]: https://wits.worldbank.org...
[3]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[4]: http://news.google.com...
[5]: https://data.bls.gov...
[6]: https://www.straitstimes.com...
[7]: https://data.oecd.org...
ZzRanger

Con

I'll respond to all arguments made by the pro, then summarize my position.

1) Framework:

My opponent attempts to misrepresent my argument. I'm arguing that the president, as stated earlier, represents the US government and people. So we should judge Trump by how well he represents the US, rather than policies that he is little control over. The pro side also claims that perception abroad is meaningless, citing a ridiculous example that doesn't relate to my argument at all. With regards to foreign relations, it's important that the US has a favorable opinion abroad in order to strengthen cooperation, as stated earlier. If countries don't like, they will be less inclined to work with us, which hurts us in the long run. Finally, my opponent argues that the President has "massive" power over Congress, but that is simply untrue, due to the checks and balances present in our government.

2) Leadership

My opponent is completely changing the argument they presented. First, they said leaders should always do the right thing. But now my opponent is arguing that leaders are inherently bad. Prefer my arguments here due to its continuity over this debate. Furthermore, this argument doesn't make sense. If leaders were inherently unpopular, why do we not hate all leaders? We should, according to the pro. But we don't, because this claim is false. Rather, good leaders are those who represent the people and unite them, as previously stated. My argument is since Trump is dividing America and discriminating against entire groups of people, he fails to unite or represent the people. Therefore, he is a bad leader, and a bad president.

3) Foreign Relations

My opponent attempts to discredit my source with false claims. First, my opponent says that the data is outdated, therefore the source should be rejected. But all my opponent is trying to do is make the source look outdated. The article was published in 2017 during the Trump administration, and as such, it is a valid source on this issue. The data from 2015 was just highlighting China's growing economic power. To address my opponent's second claim about labels being off, the data is supposed to be in billions, not millions.

Furthermore, the sources my opponent brings up to discredit me don't have anything to do with this argument at all. They are literally just sources about US trading with China and China's trade overall. After proving the validity of my source and showing the irrelevance of the sources my opponent brought up, my argument that South Korea and Australia are drifting away from the US due to Trump still stands, so extend source [2] from the last round.

Finally, my opponent again attempts to dismiss the importance of public perception of the US around the world. To reiterate, unfavorable views of the US from abroad will lead to a decrease in cooperation with the US. And we can see this happening with Australia, South Korea, and more countries to come.

4) Refutations:

A) North Korea: My opponent is trying to claim that this time around is different by saying the sanctions are devastating and that negotiations are occurring as we speak. But we have always had sanctions on North Korea, and North Korea has entertained denuclearization talks before, so there really is nothing new. Extend evidence [4], [5], and [6] from last round, which clearly show that these talks are nothing but a trick.

B) ISIS: My opponent tries to claim that my sources are "left-leaning" and shouldn't hold as much weight. This is a massive generalization of the sources I've used in this debate, and also shows that my opponent is having difficulty refuting my arguments and as a result, has to turn to a desperate plea. Specifically for this argument, I use two sources, one left leaning, but the other source is a Conservative think tank. My argument that Trump is continuing Obama's policies for ISIS still stands, so extend evidence [7] and [8] from the previous round.

C) Border Security: My opponent has effectively conceded to my evidence showing that Trump is unsuccessful when stopping illegal immigration, and attempts to reframe this argument by claiming that Trump is attempting to strengthen border security, so therefore we should applaud him for that. But again, Trump's efforts in this sector are failing, and illegal immigration is increasing. Therefore, he is doing a poor job in this area.

D) Economy: Regarding my opponent's arguments about unemployment, with the lack of sourcing, there is no way to determine the validity of my opponents. With the presence of new evidence, I will be forced to introduce a rebuttal to the evidence. Although unemployment is going down, this isn't due to Trump, but rather to the strengthened economy from Obama [1]. Regarding tariffs, my opponent argues that tariffs are used to lower trade deficits. But that doesn't negate my argument that tariffs will hurt the economy, so this argument still stands.

E) Sources: Throughout this debate, the pro attempts to discredit my arguments by saying my sources are biased since they lean left, but again, as stated earlier, this is a massive generalization of my sources. Also, my opponent uses sources that lean right, which would benefit my opponent, showing the hypocrisy in such a statement.

Summary: The con should win this debate round for the following reasons. The con has proven in framework that how our president represents the US should be valued over policy. The con has proved that Trump is a bad leader at home, and tarnishes the image of the US abroad. Solely because of this, you, the voter, should vote con. In addition, the con's contentions of North Korea and ISIS have been proven by the pro to be either not beneficial or things that Trump doesn't deserve credit for. And regarding border security and the economy, the pro has proven that Trump is doing more harm than good in those areas. All these reasons prove that Trump is not a good president.

Source:
[1] - https://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
If ZzRanger forfeits out the first round and forces a forfeit glitch please repeat this debate with someone else. I'm interested to see other people's opinions.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Nd2400
I tell you what if don't find anybody else by tomorrow night. Then i may consider accepting.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Nd2400
The Nk issue isn't a done deal yet. If you look at history NK will repeat and failed to follow through on their agreements.

The Economy will go down the toilet if both the US tariffs and China tariffs go through with them in the next coming 45 days. And you could thank Trump if this happens.

If he gets out of Syria then he would be doing a great job, but as long as we are still in there the risk of war, and i mean a big war with like Russia will still be there.

I could go on and on. but i will just leave it at that...
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
I think the number of sources is fine. It's more than we typically see, but that's a good thing, in my opinion. They seem to be reputable too, which is always good.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.