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

Should Donald Trump be impeached?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
thatoneguywhoruinsstuff has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 105894
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Immigration was President Trump's signature issue during the election campaign and he has signed a number of executive orders designed to fulfill his promises. One of his first orders declared that the US would build a wall along the border with Mexico, which already has some 650 miles of fencing. But he needs congressional approval for funding before construction can begin and that is yet to happen. He insists the costs will be recouped from Mexico, despite its leaders saying otherwise. While President Trump is yet to change US immigration laws, he has signed two executive memos that instruct immigration officers to take a much tougher approach towards enforcing existing measures. He has done nothing to help the economy like he promised unless you consider giving more money to people who are already rich and keeping less from the middle and lower class economy. During the campaign, Trump vowed to create 25 million jobs over 10 years and become "the greatest jobs president... ever". He used to claim the actual unemployment rate was more than 40%. Now he's America's CEO, he's embracing the same jobless figures he once dismissed as "phony". The basic trajectory of the economy under President Trump remains the same as it did under President Obama. The jobless rate edged lower to 4.3%, matching May's figure which was the lowest since 2001 and putting the labor market at or close to so-called full employment after 81 consecutive months of growth. Since the conversations between Trump and Kim Jong Un are going to increase the chance of Trump getting everyone killed by nuclear warheads launched by North Korea, you can expect that within the next 10 years World War III is going to start, at least if Trump continues commenting about Kim Jong Un the way he does. If he stops, then I will be able to go to sleep at night knowing I won't die from a nuclear bomb landing near where I live.


First, I'd like to clarify the framework of this debate a little bit, particularly that for this debate we are assuming in the world of here and now so not accounting for anything that might happen in the future particularly as it concerns the Russia investigation. In other words, we are not arguing that he shouldnt be impeached if and when he is convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors as prescribed by the Constitution, instead we will argue on points brought forward directly by my opponent.

Now for a bit of rebuttal. The entirety of my opponents argument relies on the fact that Trump has time and time again has broken his promises to the American people, and while that is true and I wont argue against that, there is a fundamental flaw with using that as a justification for impeachment, and that is the simple fact that it sets a dangerous precedent which may in the future lead to abuse and destabilization of the US government as a whole. Currently our constitution sets out clear and specific criteria for someone getting impeached, this criteria is important to ensuring that impeachment is not used as a political tool to win power but is instead a way by which we ensure the stable existence of our society. That criteria is that to get impeached an elected official ought to have committed either a high crime or misdemeanor. Note how that criteria does not talk about broken promises or any of the other things that my opponent has mentioned, there is a good reason for that. First, its because a tool for removing a president who has failed the people already exists, it happens every 4 years in the form of an election where the people of this nation cast their votes to decide on who the next president will be. By electing a certain person, we as a society agree to award that person the ability to carry out the powers of that office for the length of their term (in this case 4 years), if at the conclusion of that term the people believe that their pick has failed them, they will not elect that person for a second term. Second, an impeachment proceeding over issues not clearly set forth by the constitution risks the system of checks and balances that we have. Given that it is the people that elected the president it is important to note that only they can have a say about whether he's doing a good job or not, not congress (which is the body that carries out the process of impeachment). This is important because our Constitution does a careful job of establishing a government whereby the 3 branches of the government are equal and have an oversight of each other and ultimately only have a responsibility to the people rather than to each other. Both Congress and the President have only one 'boss' who can determine whether they are doing a good job or not, that is the American people who elected them and have an occasional review of their work in a way of a democratic election. Allowing congress to exercise its impeachment powers over the fact that the president isnt doing a good job is a dangerous expansion of that system of checks and balances which may ultimately lead to a situation where a president has to answer not to the people but to congress which can hold impeachment as a political tool rather than a serious process by which to remove presidents who dangerously abuse their powers or commit crimes while in office.

On the issue of North Korea, the assertion that Trumps comments will start WWIII is one that is unfounded. My opponents appears to buy into the hysteria that can be seen when looked at North Korea on the surface level, however once you start looking a bit deeper into the acts of North Korea you start to see a pattern of very calculated moves intended for one purpose and one purpose only, survival of the North Korean regime. And what is the one thing that will ensure the destruction of this regime? Any unprovoked attack by North Korea (and no, a mean tweet isnt the provocation we're talking about here). After all, every act that North Korea has done so far, even those that may seem provocative at first are designed to intimidate, not provoke, their purpose is to ensure that leaving North Korea alone is the best option for all involved. By developing and testing nuclear weapons North Korea isnt planning a plot to overthrow the US or capture South Korea, it is putting on a parade of its military capability to defend itself against any invasion or attempt to overthrow its regime. After all, they have a reason to be nervous, United States has a history of starting wars meant to overthrow unfriendly government, by building defenses that ensure that US stands to lose something by interfering North Korean government ensures its own survival. This becomes especially apparent when we consider that even the exchanges between Trump and Kim Jong Un are nothing that out of the extraordinary. Both North Korea and the United States have in the past made public threatening statements against each other, yet this has never led to any military conflict, and there is no reason to believe that this will change here.

Anyways, onto the positive arguments, starting with the fact that removing Donald Trump as president simply wont have the desired effect, since at the end of the day Trump is not the issue here, its the alt right as a whole, and by removing Donald Trump you are not only not addressing this root cause, you are actually further emboldening this group giving them even more power by feeding into their persecution complex, which only encourages them to vote more Trump like politicians into office which makes everything that much worse. After all, we already see a rise of politicans running on Trump inspired platforms. Ask yourself, does the impeachment of Trump help eliminate these politicians or does it further give them fuel by which to spread their rhetoric and get elected? Consider for one, that you are only feeding into their already existing persecution complex which inspires them to go all out when it comes to things like campaigning, turning out support for their candidates and ultimately getting them elected (think of the idea of the 'silent majority' that they've been calling their movement for instance). Clearly eliminating Trump does not solve for that.

So, what does solve that issue? I'd argue that keeping Trump and letting him destroy the alt right from the inside is the best thing that could have happened for the destruction of the alt right. After all bear in mind that the alt right isn't going away unless its base goes away, Trump is just the top of this house of cards, and removing him does little to undo the underlying structure as replacing him would just mean another Trump-like replacement. So how does keeping Trump help destroy the alt right? Simple, currently Trump is essentially the mouthpiece of the alt right, and as long as he's president that is going to be the case, and having that be the case is the best thing that could happen towards the destruction of the alt right, after all just look at the opinion polls of Trump, he's single handedly making the association between the alt right and neo-nazi movement, a connection which has existed for a while but one that most people didnt know about, but thanks to Trump this association is becoming mainstream, by being a bad leader he's making the whole movement seem bad, discouraging further alt-right politicians from being elected. This is the ultimate solution to ensuring that all the harms you talk about dont happen.

So in conclusion, not only are none of my opponents harms non-unique, in that removing Trump will likely lead to another Trump-like candidate taking the helm keeping all of the same harms, but removing him actively hurts any efforts to remove those harms in the long term. Furthermore my opponents plan destabilizes our democratic institution and opens the door to future abuses. At the end of the day, any hams which exist with Trump cannot be removed by my opponents, and its best to allow these harms to happen in the short term to ensure that these harms do not carry over into the future by making the alt right feel unfairly persecuted giving them fuel for the future rather than simply letting the people see the flaws with the ideology ensuring long term solvency.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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