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

Trump is not fit to serve, due to his volatile, immature and dangerous personality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 106361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islam-phobic, volatile, isolationist, irrational, rude, immature, a liar (he lies a lot, and he lies about stupid things), a climate change denier, selfish and egotistical.

Feel free to debate any of those descriptions


My opponent has resolved that Donald Trump is not fit to serve due to being "racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islam-phobic, volatile, isolationist, irrational, rude, immature, a liar, a climate change denier, selfish, and egotistical." I will debate these points, the true and the untrue, and explain why I believe that Trump is fit to serve.

Firstly, I concede that Trump is racist and sexist - however, he is certainly not the first POTUS to be either of these things. Ultimately, seeing as neither of these stances have impacted his policymaking, and considering the nature of the stances in the first place, I would hardly deem him unfit for the office of POTUS because his views on race and sex may differ from yours and mine. Keep in mind that he was voted into office with these things in mind.

I disagree with your argument that he is xenophobic. He has attacked illegal immigration, but not legal immigration, showing no inherent prejudice against people from other countries. Furthermore, he has outwardly supported the Iranian people in their protests against their current government, as well as having been quite amiable to U.S. allies such as Canada and Israel. Xenophobia is a sweeping term that simply does not apply to his stance on foreign nations.

I invite you, both Pro and Instigator, to provide evidence of Donald Trump's supposed homophobia.

I concede that Trump is Islam-phobic, but I question why Pro believes opposition to Islam, a religion known for oppression of women and homophobia in its traditionalist form widely practiced in the Middle East, makes Trump unfit for the office of POTUS. I was under the impression that sexism and homophobia were negative things that should be opposed.

I disagree that Trump is volatile. He has shown no rapid changing of mood and/or attitude toward anything and has, on the contrary, stood rather steadfast in his beliefs, regardless of how right or wrong they may be.

I agree that Trump is isolationist, and question why this rational political stance of defensive, non-interventionism would make him, or any POTUS, unfit for office.

I disagree that he is irrational. On the contrary, he has been considerably rational, especially in his dealings with North Korea (making considerable effort to maintain peace without giving the North Korean regime much ground against us), as well as in his policy making. Although some of his policies are foolish, that does not necessarily equate to irrationality and impulsiveness - there is an effort to reason, the outcome is simply incorrect. Again, this does not make him unfit for office.

The claim that he lies being used as a reason for why he is unfit for office is an interesting one. Almost all, if not all, presidents in U.S. history have lied on a regular basis. It's essentially a job requirement, especially in times of heightened hostility with foreign powers. Why would this make Trump in particular unfit for office?

I disagree that he denies climate change. His statements regarding it from 2016 onward (ie: the only statements that are still somewhat relevant and up-to-date) indicate that he simply does not think much of climate change, rather than deny it. I fail to see why his disagreement with some peoples' opinions on the significance of climate change, especially when he holds a relatively short-term office, makes him even remotely unfit for office.

I disagree that he is selfish and invite Pro to provide evidence as to how he may be truly, personally, selfish. Placing the U.S. before other countries in his dealings does not count as personal selfishness.

I concede that Trump is somewhat egotistical, and again, question why this would make him unfit for office, especially as it has demonstrably little impact on his policy making.

I would like to remind both Pro and voters that elected presidents are not unfit for office simply for disagreeing with our personal beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1


You concede that Trump is racist and sexist, and then you pointed out that he is not the first President to be this way. While that is true, pointing out that other people do the same thing doesn't change the fact of the matter. What we, as a society, should be doing is admitting that Trump is racist and sexist and so were previous POTUS, but then resolving to fix the issue. Trump is racist and that is an issue. If a president, or anyone in government for that matter, is racist, it makes it almost impossible to make impartial. Since race and gender play into the decision making process for whether or not a law should be passed, it is impossible to pass laws that are impartial to all races and genders. Trump has only been for a couple days short of a year, and I already can give an example of Trump's racism negatively influencing his decisions negatively: The Muslim ban. Now wait! Before you say that it's not a Muslim ban, let me quote former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He openly said on Fox News that "when [Trump] first announced it, he said "Muslim ban,' ... He called me up, he said, "Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'" What Giuliani saying is that Trump called him and asked him how they could pass a "Muslim ban," and Giuliani is also saying that Trump himself to it as a "Muslim ban." Also please note that Giuliani is a proud Trump supporter and Republican. I pulled those quotes from the

When Trump was elected, it was a huge "dog whistle," if you will, to the racists of the world that while Trump is in office, you can make whatever racist comments you want and have little to no repercussions. states that "news reports and social media accounts have swelled with reports of swastikas at schools, racist taunts, and other hate-fueled attacks and acts of intimidation." The Southern Law Center (a totally independent organization) compiled a list of such reports. In only the first MONTH of Trump's presidency, the SPLC cataloged 1,064 of such incidents. 13 of them were later found to be false. has a more current list. It was last updated August 14, 2017. I scrolled down the list, and it's just incident after incident after incident, and all of them promoted by racist, sexist or ideological hate. Slate doesn't present a total count of the number of incidents, but I can guarantee to you that I scrolled through several hundred. A 2016 study from the University of Massachusetts shows a strong correlation between professed support level for Trump and how racist and sexist the person is after adjusting for factors like partisanship and political ideology. Not only that, but that correlation is significantly stronger than the correlation between how much someone supports Trump and how dissatisfied they are with the economy. What this basically means is that people vote for Trump because they are racist, sexist or both. You can see the official study report at

Everyone is at least a little racist and a little sexist (I say "at least" for a reason: plenty of people are openly and extremely racist), and that includes both you and me. You say that Trump "was voted into office with these things in mind." Most supporters say that he is not racist first of all. Secondly, although he was "voted into office" (as you put it), he lost the popular vote by the largest margin in history. So I don't see what you mean by saying that "he was voted into office with these things in mind."

Trump is definitely xenophobic. He certainly attacks illegal immigration- that much is certain. But he also openly attacks legal immigration. He tweeted "We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't." He could not be more wrong! The New York Times published an article on January 29, 2017 that details the entire immigration process. According to that article, the full immigration process (in the two-year-long version) requires a registration with the UN, interview with the UN, refugee status from the UN, referral for resettlement in the US, interview with State Department contractors, background check, higher-level background check for some, another background check, fingerprint screening, photo, another fingerprint, third fingerprint screening, case review at US immigration headquarters, extensive and in-person interview with a Homeland Security officer, Homeland Security approval, screening for contagious diseases, cultural orientation class, matching with an American resettlement agency, a multi-agency security check, and final security check at an American airport. You can see the article at It takes up to two years to immigrate from any country (The New York Times). In a video from John Oliver, all the forms required to complete the entire immigration process were collected for purposes of demonstration. You can see that video at

An article from the Huffington Post ( talks about the proof of Trump's homophobia. Although he is rather subtle about it, more so than pretty much all other candidates, he definitely hates LGBTQ. He VERY rarely talks or tweets about LGBTQ issues, but he is currently building an alliance with as many anti-LGBTQ organizations and people as possible, including the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Tony Perkins (member of Family's Research Council), James Dobson (founder of Focus On The Family, the champion of the religious right) and numerous more. Several of the groups I mentioned above (like the FRP) have been labeled as hate group by the SPLC. Trump has also publicly promised to have the Supreme Court overturn the Obergefell ruling. In June of 2016, Trump met with over 400 of the most influential and homophobic advocates in the country. Trump has also recently made a huge anti-gay legislative move: banning transgenders from the military. You might think that law is dead, but (sadly) Trump is collaborating with several of his closest allies to make a version that will pass. When Trump first released this law, he said that he is trying to save money because transgender surgeries cost too much. I don't understand why he didn't simply tell the military to stop paying for transgender surgeries. That actually makes sense (even though I still wouldn't agree with it). Another option was to tell the military to stop paying so much money for Viagra. That's right: VIAGRA. The Department of Defense reported that they pay $84 million on Viagra each year. On the other hand, experts estimate that the military spends $8.4 million. That means the military pays about 10 times as much money on Viagra when compared to the surgeries. I understand that in some rare cases, people actually need Viagra, but Trump could just cut the program's funding some. I'm not saying it should be completely destroyed. A study at shows that "discharging transgender troops would cost $960 million" after factoring in all potential effects of the ban. In fact, that quoted phrase is literally the entire title of the study.

So I don't really have very many characters left, so I am going to finish my other arguments quickly. I would like to politely that my opponent make their rebuttal to the points I have mentioned before now in Round 2, and then we can try to move on to the points below. If we have time after that, we can still return to my arguments before now. In fact, I encourage everyone who is reading that if I don't do what I promise, you should vote against me for civility and for conduct, because that is only fair.

Trump is certainly volatile. Not only that, he is unpredictable and impulsive. He tweets at three in the morning! To top it off, he doesn't drink alcohol at all, meaning that he tweets at 3 in the morning while SOBER. Who does that?? You also said that he is very stable in his beliefs. At the link I created a list of Trump quotes where he contradicts himself, plus sources. Note that the list is incomplete. It will be finished soon.

Isolationism is a bad idea. Globalization will propel our country forward. Trump needs to understand that working with other countries will be beneficial to America

He is irrational. Read one of his speech transcripts at and tell me that his thought process is structured.

A New York Times article at has a graph that shows you how many times Trump has lied compared to Obama. Obama dealt quite well with hostility from around the world. Also, a lot of Trump's lies are pointless and don't really have a purpose. For instance, he lied that Time was going to make him the Man of the Year again. A huge majority of Trump's lies are totally untrue, and are easily debunked. Therefore, he either lies without thinking about the consequences or he doesn't care about consequences.

Global warming. Trump called it a hoax four times. Sounds like denial to me.

Trump is definitely selfish. His book from 2004, "Think Like a Billionaire" says "The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience." Also, Trump used money from the Trump Foundation to buy a $20,000, six-foot-tall portrait of HIMSELF! You can see the portrait at

A president must be humble in order to work well with other foreign leaders, with Congress, and with his own cabinet and White House staff. That's pretty simple

I understand that personal beliefs don't influence whether or not Trump is fit to be president. I believe the only political belief I shared was the one about globalization. I can concede that point.


Perhaps my concession of Trump being racist was hasty. After all, the most recent irrefutable piece of evidence regarding it hails from the 70's - that doesn't exactly say "Up to date information" to me.
I refute your claim the Muslim ban is evidence of his supposed racism influencing his policymaking, simply because Muslims are not a race. This classifies as Islamophobia, which is another matter entirely and, in reference to traditional Islam, by and far more rational than racism could ever hope to be. I understand your point about my pointing to past presidents, but I made that point specifically because it showed, quite vividly, that their racism did not in any way inhibit their ability to do great good for the country (for instance, Andrew Jackson's settling of the national debt and making the U.S. a feared and respected military power).

Racists aren't able to get away with any more now under Trump's presidency than they were able to get away with under Obama's. The same laws are still in place, and they are still enforced. I would also like to point out that a racist supporter base does not make Trump himself racist, especially when you consider how much of this racist base no longer supports Trump.

Yes, he was voted in, by over 65 million people in a vote utilizing the electoral college. He *is* a fairly elected official, and we all knew how the election process worked when we voted, and despite the margin being the widest in U.S. history, it was still very minuscule. The people who voted for him knew his policies and supported him for them.

I refute your claim that he is xenophobic. The tweet clearly shows him attacking the U.S. immigration system and vetting process, *not* the people being let in. Whether he is correct or not about our vetting process being sufficient or not is irrelevant - the attack was directed at that, and nothing/nobody more.
I would also like to point out that opposition to illegal immigration is not an indicator of xenophobia - the vetting process you detailed exists for the express purpose of ensuring that the people coming into our country will be beneficial to it, and illegal immigration defeats the point of that. It is not indicative of an irrational fear or prejudice to foreigners - it is indicative of some small degree of support for the good of the country.

Trump has made it *very* clear that he *personally* supports traditional marriage, as well as making it equally clear that he believes states should be the ones to decide how those issues should be handled.
I refute that his transgender military ban is anti-gay, on the simple basis that trans people are not necessarily gay. Transphobia would be an entirely separate issue - which, again, though I disagree with it, I still fail to see how this makes him unfit. The military spends so much money on viagra because roughly 85% of it is male ( ) and people in the military *do* still need medical treatments like it. There are over 1 million men in the military (which you can calculate based on the female percentage given in above source) compared to an estimated 15,000 currently active transgender people ( ). Considering there are 100 times as many men in the military as transgender people, but only 10 times more is spent on them in total than on transgender people, we can see that transgender service members ultimately cost more and that, although somewhat expensive to discharge them in the short-term, the ban *would* result in long-term savings. It's not the most efficient method, but it *is* a method. I would venture to say that this argument would even be against the resolution that Trump is unfit to serve.

Having checked your source, I wouldn't even come close to calling multiple-year time gaps between contradictory statements unpredictable and/or unstable. Some are even questionable as to their supposed contradictory nature, but what's really interesting is that the cited source primarily shows Trump's very gradual changing into his present self, especially in 2004-2007. In all fairness, most people do have significant changes in the way they view things over 10-20+ years, especially in today's rapidly-changing society. Volatile, being defined as "liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse" certainly doesn't describe the man still trying to push for most of the things he based his campaign on. Many of his opinions may be called many things, but volatility simply isn't one of the terms that applies to him or the way he thinks.

Now, I may like to debate sometime on the finer points of isolationism vs globalization, but this debate is solely regarding whether Trump is fit to be POTUS or not based on his personality and policymaking, and his taking a political stance that is backed by good reasoning does not in any way make him unfit, regardless of whether we or even facts may agree with it.

Ignoring that the speech was mildly cherrypicked and merely one instance, an inability to express thought well (once) does not equate to irrationality. However, said inability to express his thoughts well *would* be a factor working against his suitability for the office of POTUS - but, again, this was merely one instance of terribly fragmented expression, not a recurring trend.

I have already conceded that he lies, as has every POTUS in U.S. history. However, pointless lies and/or lying more often don't make him unfit for office. It certainly does work against his character, but not his ability to fulfill his duties.

The multiple times he called global warming/climate change a hoax were prior to the election. He made several statements during and after it indicating that he believes it exists and simply doubts its importance. Furthermore, climate change is a long-term issue, and the office of POTUS is held for an extremely short amount of time. This certainly doesn't make him completely unfit to fulfill the duties of POTUS.

I concede that Trump is selfish, but refute the point you further made that a president must be humble to work well with other foreign leaders. Trump is not the only POTUS who has shown this to be an incorrect conclusion, having worked rather well with leaders whose names aren't Kim Jong Un. Several renowned U.S. presidents were quite narcissistic ( ) and did an exemplary job as POTUS.

I agree that Trump has quite a bit of room for improvement, but rarely have U.S. presidents been saints, and as long as he is still physically and mentally able (which I believe I have demonstrated he is in this round), I see no reason he shouldn't be deemed fit for office of POTUS, barring proven criminality.
Debate Round No. 2


You did not point out what that "most recent piece of evidence" of Trump being racist is. But I have plenty of recent evidence that clearly demonstrates how racist he is, and I would be happy to list all of it, if I had more characters. However, I can give two famous examples. The first is when he said "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." That's obvious racism right there. He's characterizing all Mexicans as bad people who have drugs. The second example is his support for the "birtherism" movement, which claims that Obama was actually born in Kenya. You can read the 11 other examples that have compiled by the Huffington Post at
Andrew Jackson was an interesting choice to select because he actually happens to be Trump's "hero .... and a reflection of [him]self," as Trump himself put it ( Andrew Jackson was extremely racist, and it definitely affected his presidency negatively. Although Jackson was beneficial to the economy of the time, he also supported slavery. He had 150 slaves at the time of his death (according to the official website of his plantation at Andrew Jackson cared so little about his slaves that "their names are rarely encountered beyond bills of sale, runaway notices and passing observations." Clearly, he saw them as property. The Jackson family owned more than 300 men, women and children like you might own a desk or a chair. Andrew Jackson also passed the Indian Removal Act of 1930 that forced any Native American who didn't want to live under American law west of the Mississippi River without time to gather their belongings or prepare for the journey. This killed an entire 4,000 Cherokee people out of the estimated 16,000 that were forced from their homes. On top of all that, Andrew Jackson also regularly participated in fatal duels with guns and threatened the members of his cabinet with violence. One on occasion, he threatened to hang one member of his cabinet and shoot another. 8 years later, someone asked him what his regrets were, and the only answer he gave was "[That] I didn"t shoot Henry Clay and I didn"t hang John C. Calhoun" (
Think about it. Let's say you're the president, or any elected official, in office, and you are really racist (no offense). Throughout your term, you are bound to make numerous, maybe even hundreds of decisions that could affect one race or the other. If you have such a huge bias against so many people, do you really think you can make every decision fairly? No, you can't. It's impossible. Even though every American is racist, we must work as hard as we can as a society to lower this racism to a level as low as possible. Laws don't stop racism. Racists unfortunately have as much freedom of speech as you and I do. As I said in my previous argument, Trump's election has actually increased the number of racist and hate-fuelled incidents. Even if Trump manages to go through his whole presidency without making hundreds of unfair decisions (which he won't, because he's racist), the fact that he is in office still makes it so that racists know they can say whatever they want.
You said that people vote knowing the conditions of the electoral college. Most Americans believe that the president should be elected by a popular vote, according to a recent poll ( from during the election. Unsurprisingly, most of the people who want to preserve the electoral college are Republican, since his candidate was leading in the election. However, if the question was answered only based on qualities of fairness (like whether or not the most popular candidate should win, which is much more logical than the EC), those Republicans would certainly change their minds.
When a white man rammed his truck into several pedestrians outside of a London mosque, killing one and injuring several, Trump totally ignored the attack in his tweets. Instead, he focuses on attacks from people living in the Middle East. Trump's anti-Mexican comments that I mentioned above show how much he hates foreigners. So does his statement that Mexicans are filled with "tremendous infectious disease" ( He has also been extremely rude to leaders of foreign countries. shows only one of many existing examples of this fact.
If you were a homophobe and didn't want people to know about it, stating that you're not would be the first step in clearing yourself of accusations of homophobia. The military ban was not necessarily anti-gay, but it was definitely anti-LGBTQ. As I stated before (TWICE), bias against large groups of people makes it impossible to make fair decisions as president, since issues regarding race go by the president extremely often.
Transgender surgeries do not "ultimately cost more" than Viagra. Transgender surgeries cost more per trans person than Viagra does per male. However, that statistic assumes that every transgender gets a surgery from the military, and that every male gets Viagra. You still haven't responded to the idea of simply ordering the military to stop paying for transgender surgeries, nor did you respond to the fact that Trump is slowly building a support network of homophobic hate groups. According to that Department of Defense document at (which I read, and you probably haven't), these transgender surgeries are "medically necessary." It also says that they are "unaware" of any kind of analysis from Trump that confirms that transgenders cost the military a lot of money. That document also estimates that the cost of finding and replacing all discharged service members would cost $960 million and that this would gain an annual savings of, AT THE VERY MOST, $656. So I agree that this idea results in "long term savings", but those savings are extremely long term. If you graph a function to represent money saved by Trump's ban (f(x) = 656x), the x-axis represents years and the y-axis represents money saved each year by eliminating transgender surgeries. Then you would graph y = 960,000,000 to represent the point at which the money saved negated the money lost. The functions intercept at the coordinate (14634.146, 960000000), meaning that the date when the annual savings negate the money spent will be March 20, in the year 16651. Yes, you read that right. A five-digit year. And that was only when I factored in the MAXIMUM annual savings of transgender surgeries provided by the DOD. Therefore, it would almost certainly take longer than that. An image of the graph I made is at If you don't look at it within 78 hours of when I posted the image, it will disappear. My apologies.
You said he's not volatile even though he shifted his opinions totally over 10 years. Not just about political issues, but also a lot about his own personal beliefs in regards to life advice. Most of his political opinions have shifted from left to right over the years, but a couple have been shifting in the opposite direction. A study ( shows most people stick with what they believe their parent's political affiliation to be, so I don't see anything that remotely proves the statement "most people have significant changes in the way they view things," except for your faulty assumptions. Also, did you see the quote about his abortion beliefs?? It's the fifth row and it's to the far right. He flip-flopped between pro-life and pro-choice a total of six times
As I stated, I concede the point of isolationism. A better description would be that he is strongly against cooperation with other countries, except for Russia. Now don't pull out some obscure quote that says he wants to work with Mexico, because I have a source above that shows his extreme rudeness and aversion to other countries
I used one example of many. All of his speeches are like that, and his interviews. Any transcripts you find that sounds logical was either written for him or they edited out the nonsense. A man whose thoughts go from one thing to another as fast as Trump's do cannot possibly focus adequately on the demanding task of being a president
Trump has already made exactly 1,950 false or misleading statements over the course of 347 days (as of Jan. 1, 2018), according to the WP ( At this rate, Trump will have lied about 8,234 times by the end of his presidency. You might want to compare Trump to Obama, but Obama only lied 18 times during his entire presidency. An elected official who lies is intentionally misleading the public
Whether Trump denies climate change or not is less important than how much attention he pays to it. If he doesn't pay it any attention, the world will descend into a living hell created by nature ( That should be a priority, but he instead canceled the Paris climate accord, which also made no sense. Although Trump said that other countries are "laughing at us," the goals that were set for America were set by Obama, and there was no penalty whatsoever for not accomplishing them. Trump could have remained in the deal and motivated the country to fix the environment, but instead he dropped out and pissed off the world
The very first example of a narcissistic president on your list, LBJ, was most known among his staff for pulling out his penis in front of men, bragging about it in front of everyone, and publicly naming it Jumbo. In fact, name one undeniably good thing LBJ did without Googling it. I certainly can't do it. Also, College Humor comedian Adam Conover compared Trump to LBJ (
As I have said many times before, nobody is perfect (or devoid of racism, sexism, etc) but we must work together in order to eliminate negative qualities as much we can


For the record, the evidence I was referring to was his treatment of black people in his casino and refusing service on the basis that people were black. Let me remind you, however, that this occurred in the 70's and 90's - roughly 40 and 20 years ago. Opinions change in such an enormous amount of time.
The Mexico example is an interesting one - in context, he was very clearly referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico in particular, and regarding them in particular, he is not only correct ( ) but not racist in saying so - to call an insult to Mexicans racist is much akin to calling an insult to Americans racist ( ).
The presumption that Trump is racist for supporting the birthers has no rational evidence supporting it. Birtherism wasn't even an inherently racist idea - at worst, it was disrespectful, but far from racist.
Huffington Post continues to believe that comments against Muslims are racist when Muslims are not a race.
At *best* I will concede that the comment regarding the Mexican judge could be *perceived* as racist and had a basis in a disdain for Mexicans.
Huffington Post cited the two incidents I was referring to earlier.
It is not racist to have racist supporters (were this the case, the anti-white racists scattered among the left would've had most Democratic candidates deemed racist). They *were* ultimately condemned, as well.
Nitpicking at language to derive unintended meanings does not support Huffington Post's case.
Huffington Post continues to cite 20-30 year old incidents. Yes, Trump was racist then.
Condoning of the beating of a BLM protester shows more violent behavior than racism to me, considering BLM's track record.
Supporting the most positive stereotype possible would hardly be racist, and considering Trump's overwhelming support of Jewish people recently, especially in his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the story seems more likely that he either genuinely was ignorant about the meme's meaning, or has changed his mind about them.

I have conceded that Jackson was racist - hence why I pointed to him as an example of why Trump is not unfit for this reason, even if it were true for him. Certainly, Jackson had his faults, but as POTUS, he brought both economic and military strength to the U.S. Furthermore, he showed that despite his racism, he was incredibly able to carry out the duties of POTUS ( ).
You are correct in saying that a racist president would not be completely unbiased in their decision making. Ultimately, however, they do not *have* to be to be fit for office. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate truth, but a truth nonetheless. Furthermore, if the goal is to have him deemed unfit to fight racism, this is a poor method of doing so. He had to be elected into office, and those of his supporters who were racist will still be there to vote in the next election. Racism's roots must be attacked, not its supposed metaphorical flower.

Opposition of the electoral college is driven by the common knowledge that most American cities, containing the bulk of its population, are overwhelmingly liberal. A popular vote system gives every ounce of power in the U.S. to democratic cities, giving fewer people a voice in the government with any real weight. However, this debate is not about this - it is about Trump's suitability for office of POTUS, and the fact remains that he was elected with an electoral college system by people who knew what he supported and were with him on those issues.

I further refute your claim that Trump is xenophobic. It takes much more than a disdain for the people of *one* foreign nation to make one xenophobic - he would have to have a disdain for *all* non-Americans solely on the basis that they are not American. This is *clearly* not the case.

One cannot assume that he is homophobic despite having made no recent statements and/or policies singling out gay or lesbian people simply because he said he wasn't homophobic. It is a claim that lacks evidence, especially when his meetings with Christian groups (no homophobic label needed; after all, they are *American* Christian groups and one would be hard-pressed to find many such groups that *aren't* homophobic) are further analyzed. Christians are a critical part of the Republican support base, and their faith in him wavered quite a bit during the election. It seems much more likely that these meetings were to regain their support post-election than to plan some anti-gay agenda (for which, he would not need them).

Yes, he could simply order the military to stop paying for these surgeries, but how much better would an order to stop paying for medically necessary surgeries be than the ban itself?
The simple solution would be not to retroactively ban transgender service members. Considering the costs of discharging them, simply stopping more from enlisting would be the most effective method of saving money.
I respond to your point about his supposed "network of homophobic hate groups" above (which, for the record, homophobia is not the primary concern of these groups - it is a minor aspect of most of them that few focus on).

The complete shifting of political opinions over a period of 10 years is by no means rapid or unpredictable - it is, on the contrary, probably somewhat normal for a politically-minded person in an age of rapid change. Personally, I would be more worried if he *hadn't* changed his personal or political beliefs between 1990 and 2010.
Your cited source contradicts your point. Not only does it state that this is not the case for the majority of people (as it can't be, due to their not knowing their parents' politics in many cases), but it further states that they only (and incorrectly!) inherit their party affiliation *and* that the study ignores the possibility of the child being politically active of their own accord.

I had no plans to "pull out some obscure quote that says he wants to work with Mexico". He has been rather rude to some foreign leaders and shown unwillingness to continue in things such as the UN, the Paris Climate Treaty, etc. - this is a valid point to which I will concede to some degree. Bear in mind, however, that these decisions are ultimately typically founded on the idea that "America's getting the bad end of the deal" and not simple disdain for working with other countries.

Furthermore, Trump has shown that he is capable of adequate focus in the very thing he is often bashed for - his Twitter account. On it, he clearly demonstrates an ability to stick to one line of thought, oftentimes across several large tweets. Seeing as he has demonstrated his ability to focus on lines of thought, I very much disagree with your claim that his thought process is too irrational and unfocused to fulfill the duties of POTUS.

Again I question why lying would make Trump, or any POTUS, unfit for office. Trump's lies are legion, but he is not the first, nor will he be the last, POTUS to whom this statement applies. Comparing his lies to those of a president who told relatively few lies compared to other presidents is somewhat unfair.

Your cited source regarding climate change proves my point, not yours. Considering Trump is unlikely to be re-elected (focusing little on that compared to everything else), it would take over 20 times the length of his time in office for the world to "descend into a living hell created by nature". Exclusively speaking short-term (ie: 4 years), climate change is a non-issue. I agree that he shouldn't have left the Paris treaty, but this does *not* make him unfit for the office of POTUS. Perhaps if the end were on our doorstep and he still ignored it, but it's not.

Of course I won't defend LBJ. I can't, and doubt that anyone can, but are you truly going to stop at the first man on the list? What of Theodore Roosevelt? JFK? Bill Clinton? Andrew Jackson? All of those people, regardless of whether you or I agree with them, proved to be very capable presidents.
No, a comedian's act is not a good source for comparison.

I agree that racism and sexism should be fought. If they are to be fought, deeming a POTUS unfit on these bases would not be the way to do it, especially when the evidence supporting those bases is shaky at best.
Debate Round No. 3


Racism: What about the quote that when Mexicans immigrate, they're bringing drugs (in the year 2016)? The birtherism movement is racist. A study from USA Today ( asks "Does racial prejudice play a role in questions about Barack Obama's citizenship, a topic much in the news given today's birth certificate news conference?" and then says "Yes indeed." As for the Mexican immigrants comment, you have no proof that he is referring to illegals. He said "When Mexico sends its people." Nothing in the quote indicates that he's discussing illegals. You've stated twice that Muslim is not a race. Well, according to scientists found long ago that black, Asian, Mexican and white aren't races either. So, what exactly defines a race? Nothing. They don't exist. But racism is still a tangible thing, and prejudice against Muslims still counts as racism. Just because Muslim defines a religion doesn't mean that statements attacking that religion aren't racist. Racist supporters don't make you racist, but why do you think Trump's base is so racist? It doesn't prove that he's racist, but it certainly suggests it very strongly. Although Trump did condemn neo-Nazis and white supremacists at the rally, it took him 78 hours to do so directly, which suggests that he only did so to avoid criticism. As for your comment about "positive stereotypes," racism is generalizing any group of people based on their race. If you see an Asian and say "oh you must be good at math" that's STILL offensive, especially if they actually aren't good at math and feel inadequate about this or something.

Jackson's racism influenced him to move all Native Americans to the west of the Mississippi and killed a quarter of them. Racism has and will continue to influence people in office to make unfair and harmful decisions.

I don't understand how the popular vote does anything like that. If you and 9 other friends vote on where to eat lunch together, everyone holds one-tenth of the power. If 300 million Americans hold a popular vote for the president, everyone holds that fraction of the power. It's literally putting the most popular candidate in office.

Trump has disdain towards Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, North Korea, Syria, and more according to

Xenophobia does not entail fear of all non-Americans, since Oxford Dictionary defines xenophobia as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." That definition does not say "all people from other countries."

You say "one would be hard pressed to find many [Christian] groups that aren't homophobic." Well actually a study from says that most American religious groups are pro-LGBTQ and if you look at the statistics, ALL Christian/Catholic groups rank mainly in favor of LGBTQ. Also, I wasn't "hard pressed" to find this because I literally Googled "christian groups support gay marriage" and it was the fourth result.

An order to stop paying for transgender surgeries would be bad, but it would be significantly better than kicking all transgenders out of the military, even though many of them don't even need the surgeries. Actually, Trump is building a network with anti-LGBTQ interest groups, and a majority of them are "hate groups," according to the SPLC. Did you attempt to investigate at all what these groups focus on? And don't use the groups' websites as a source, because you know they're going to soften the message so they don't seem like a hate group.

The study that I cited states that most people tend to stick with what they believe their parents believe THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFE, and that they don't randomly change political sides. So let's say a girl named Jane thinks her parents are Democrats. That's means she's more likely to be a Democrat, even if they're not. And Jane is very unlikely to have a large slide from one end of the spectrum to the other. Trump's huge political shift was abnormal and unpredictable. Also, as I stated before, he has huge changes in his beliefs on life advice, such as whether or not it's a good idea to be nice.

First off, America is not getting the bad end of the deal. Syria is. Venezuela is. And Trump hates other countries. You can find a list of countries Trump has been unreasonably rude to at because he just doesn't like them. Before you say that his rudeness doesn't prove anything, I'd like to see some indication that he intends to actually be courteous with foreign leaders, since that's the first step in working together.

An article at talks about how irrational and impulsive Trump is. Also, Trump himself said "My attention span is short" in one of his books. And you still haven't responded to that speech excerpt, in which his thought process was all over the map.

Any and all elected officials at an average of more than 5.6 times a day (like Trump does, according to the Washington Post) cannot be trusted, and a strong bond of trust is necessary between a person in office and his constituents, as well as between that person and other elected lawmakers. Yes, a lot of presidents lie, but Trump's lying is nonstop and ridiculous. Are you saying that I'm comparing Trump to Obama, and because Obama didn't lie much, that's unfair? I don't really understand your point.

Climate change is literally about to kill us. And although we may not cross the point of no return within Trump's presidency, what he does during these four years is crucial to our survival. can help you understand the issue, and while you're on the website please make sure to sign the petition and tell Trump that climate change is more important than politics so that I survive to have children. Thanks in advance.

The reason I stopped at LBJ is because his narcissistic qualities caused him to be focused on himself (and "Jumbo", as he named his penis) instead of the welfare of the country. While a narcissistic president is not necessarily incapable, it makes it infinitely more difficult to give the country adequate attention.

I don't understand how you believe that a racist and sexist president can make fair decisions for his constituents in 2017.

My evidence of his racism is not shaky. He defines blacks as "lazy," Mexicans as "criminals" and "rapists" who have "drugs" (and no, you can't prove that he was specifically discussing illegals), and he said that he saw Arabs celebrating the 9/11 attacks (didn't happen) and that "Islam hates us." Sounds like racism to me. As for sexism, he sees women as trophies to collect and put on shelves. He brags about the women he's slept with, and he thinks he can just "grab them by the pu**y" and get away with it. He said "my women are more beautiful [than other candidates]", and he attacked Ariana Huffington, Carly Fiorina (a fellow Republican!!!) and Rosie O' Donnell on the basis of their looks.

He famously made an immature comment about how "there was blood coming out of [Megyn Kelly's] ... wherever," which is just straight wrong and undeniably sexist, as he was basically doing the same thing immature high school boys do when they say "are you on your period" or something, and that thing is degrading women.

And then, for the grand finale, he said "All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me " consciously or unconsciously. That"s to be expected." I challenge to tell me that's not sexist.

I have provided ample evidence that Trump is both sexist and racist, yet you continue to deny it, even though you conceded the point yourself right off the bat. I am not advising that we battle racism by identifying Trump as racist. I am suggesting that we identify Trump as racist and move forward with that knowledge by electing a president who doesn't degrade women, blacks, Mexicans and Middle Easterners.


My opponent has decided, for reasons beyond my understanding, to argue against the painfully obvious context of illegal immigration on Trump's "racist" statement regarding Mexican illegals. ( ) The question "When do we beat Mexico at the border?" makes it *very* clear that illegal immigration is what he is referring to, not all Mexicans in general, and certainly not legal immigrants.
My opponent also claims that because many birthers have racially-charged motivations for supporting birtherism, birtherism is inherently racist. Not only is this not so, but it does not prove that *Trump's* motivations were racially-charged. Frankly, considering Obama's policies and Trump's occupation, it is more likely that his motivations were political and/or financial, but only Trump knows Trump's heart.

My opponent claims that White and Asian are not races, completely ignoring the differences between race and ethnicity. Mexican is neither - it is a nationality.
Racists supported Trump because those racists believed Trump was as racist as they are. They were wrong, and that is why many of them no longer support them.
My comment about Trump's stereotype being so positive was not to say that he was not generalizing - it was to say that he was clearly not *trying* to be offensive in saying it, whether he was or not.

I am not here to debate whether the electoral college or popular vote is a better system. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what one may *want*, the system used is the electoral college and everything else is frankly irrelevant. Even the people who support the popular vote cannot deny that this is what is used and that this is how they knew the elections worked when they cast their vote.

There is nothing wrong with Trump having a disdain for nations that oppose us. Furthermore, in nearly all of the scenarios cited in the article, his disdain is clearly for the leaders of those nations, and not those nations or their people themselves.

Let's not play semantics. Xenophobia's definition entails "people of other countries", not "some people of some other countries" or "any people of any other countries", and with no further specification, it is not only implied that it refers to fear of all foreigners, but solely on the basis that they are foreign.

I concede to your point regarding religious groups' view of LGBT on the basis of poor specification on my behalf. The group that Trump lost favor with were evangelicals, who *are*, according to your own source, mostly anti-LGBT. Similarly, they are the group that he met with, and the group whose favor he would be wise to regain, whether he agrees with them or not.

Why should one trust the SPLC's categorization of Christian evangelical activist groups over the groups themselves? They all state that they're anti-LGBT. They also make it very clear that this is not their focus when their own public agendas barely give the LGBT community a passing glance. As I've said - homophobia is a consequence, not their cause, and both the SPLC and my opponent should have researched this before making statements like that.

I question whether my opponent read their own cited source regarding the study of political identity or not. It says, and I quote, "MORE THAN ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS SOMEHOW MANAGE TO INHERIT WHAT THEY INCORRECTLY BELIEVE ARE THEIR PARENTS' POLITICAL LEANINGS." in all-capital, bold letters. That is not "most people". It also states *only* that they retain their parents' political identity throughout their life, *not* that they retain any of their stances, nor that they stick exclusively to the same stances their entire lives.

I specifically told my opponent that Trump's decisions were made *on the basis* that America was getting the bad end of the deal to demonstrate that there is a basis to his thinking that is not mindless, impulsive hate, not that that basis was correct in all circumstances. I concede - again - that Trump has been rude to foreign leaders, and that is a problem in most cases. I do not concede that this makes him unfit for office, especially when several of the leaders he has been in opposition to are largely in opposition to the U.S. (for instance, China and North Korea) and *need* to be dealt with in some way, rather than appeased.

My opponent's own source, while displaying flaws in Trump's thought process, also makes it very clear that there is a rational basis in it nearly right off the bat. My opponent also claims I did not respond to the aforementioned speech excerpt when I did in round 2 when it was mentioned, leaving me to question if my opponent is thoroughly reading my arguments.

Obama was a break in the trend of untrustworthy presidents. As far as honesty goes, he was the exception, not the rule. My point was that comparing a typical lying president to an atypical, relatively honest one wasn't a fair comparison. Trump's lies are nothing special, and considering how minor they are compared to the lies of presidents past, he is by no means unfit for this as far as the presidential standard is concerned. ( )

One thing should be made abundantly clear: if the U.S. cleans up its own act and other countries do not, climate change will kill us. If other countries clean up their act and the U.S. doesn't, climate change won't kill us. As far as pollution is concerned, we are one (albeit largely contributing) nation that does not solely control the fate of the world. Whether Trump acts on climate change or not is largely irrelevant - what matters is whether or not everyone else follows suit, and that is what will determine the outcome. Furthermore, the decision of U.S. action on climate change is not solely up to the POTUS. The U.S. is a Republic and many significant changes are made on a local level - speak out locally as millions of others are doing! Trump is not to blame for the population's inactivity in critical issues, and if anything, forcing people to get involved locally would be more of a positive impact than a negative one.

I see no need for my opponent to continue beyond the statement that narcissism does not make a president incapable [of fulfilling the duties of POTUS]. That is essentially concession that Trump's ego does not make him unfit.

Clearly, Trump's nonexistent racism and undeniable sexism have had no impact on his policies throughout 2017 (though I will readily admit, and rejoice in, the fact that his Islamophobia and opposition to opponents of the U.S. have).

20 year old evidence for one's opinions is not valid evidence. A stance on *most* illegally immigrating Mexicans is not a stance on all Mexicans (and yes, I proved earlier that he was specifically discussing illegals). No, he did not say "he saw Arabs celebrating 9/11", he said he saw Muslims celebrating which, valid or not, would classify as Islamophobia and not racism (for the third time), which, by the way, you never addressed my points for.

Stating that Trump is sexist to an opponent who has conceded that point is akin to telling them that water is wet. I understand that. It hasn't impacted his policymaking and it doesn't make him unfit. If the U.S. does not want sexism, it should not vote for sexism.

I conclude by stating again that Trump is both mentally and physically capable of carrying out the duties of the office of POTUS (as I have demonstrated in each round), and reminding voters that there are no proven criminal accusations that could bar him from being fit, and that the opinions of an elected official voted into office with those opinions being public knowledge do not make them unfit for office. If the U.S. does not like the president it elected, it can voice that by voting in someone else with different beliefs next election - but as for now, Trump is very much capable of carrying out the duties of POTUS and therefore fit for the office he was elected into.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 2 years ago
Pro used self-defeating sources that they misunderstood/didn't read in entirety. Con shown this to be evident on multiple occasions. For example, Pro claims from their source that most children inherit political opinions from their parents. Con shows this to be flawed as the source clearly states only one-in-five inherit their parent's opinions. Con used reliable sources as they accurately interpreted all but one of their sources in their argument. None of Pro's sources are self defeating, most reliable sources point to Con.

Pro makes many irrelevant arguments such as the point regarding Trump's alleged xenophobia. Pro claims Trump is xenophobic simply because Trump insulted Mexico's illegal immigrants. Xenophobia, as Con pointed out, is discrimination against all non-Americans. Not just a small portion of one country's population. Pro never showed how Trump is unfit for office. Pro simply claimed that Trump is irrational and biased without showing evidence of these qualities affecting his office. Quotes do not count in this regard. Con did provide evidence of how Trump is fit for office by referencing his actions against ISIS and how Trump's twitter shows that Trump can easily stick to one train of thought. Convincing argument point goes to Con.
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 2 years ago
There isn't a set behavior as to how the president should act. However, there is expected behavior
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DawnBringerRiven 2 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.

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