thanks, billbatard, for instigating this debate.
RESOLVED: The ONLY WAY to GET RID of TRUMP is by VIOLENT REVOLUTION
DEFINITONS:
ONLY [adjective] is "
alone in a category." [1]
WAY [noun] is "
a method or manner of doing something."
[2]
GET RID of [verb] is "
to dispose (of); to abolish; to lose."
[3]
TRUMP [god bless u] is an ex-television personality's highly customized presidency.
VIOLENT is "
involving physical conflict."
[4]
REVOLUTION [u say u wanna] is "
the removal and replacement of a government, especially by sudden violent action."
[5]
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor.". [
6]
In this case, PRO as instigator and claimant bears the entire responsibility of proof.
CON interprets the resolution to mean PRO advocates for the illegal and violent overthrow of the world's oldest democracy. The stated purpose of this overthrow is to bring about the end of the electoral college, gerrymandering, and big money in elections making elections more free. Exactly who should overthow what by which means is left unconsidered,
OBJECTION:
"Overall, we rate AlterNet far Left Biased on story selection and wording that always favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to some promotion of pseudoscience" [7]
VOTERS please keep in mind this rating when considering PRO's flimsy case.
PRO's CASE:
P1: Trump is corrupt
P2: Violence is the only reply to corruption
C1: Therefore violence is our only option
For P1, let's concur that the president is a real piece of shit, the most thoroughgoing liar ever documented by history.
CON's CASE:
For P2, CON argues that good citizenship requires the exhaustion of all lawful, orderly, and non-violent remedies before justifying violence in defense of republic.
The President, Vice President and
all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors. [8]
- Given that the president stupidly solicited a bribe in the telephonic company of dozens of witnesses and documented that bribery in writing and hid that document and hushed up witnesses and defamed witnesses and threatened witnesses and indeed, admitted to the criminal act on several occasions let's assume the question is less the degree of guilt than the degree of corruption within the republican Senate. Why would PRO advocate for violent overthrow instead of allowing time for the facts to be uncovered for the due consideration of trial by Senate?
Whenever the Vice President and
a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice President
shall immediately assume the powers and duties
of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless
the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours
for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress,
within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote
of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. [8]
- There may yet come a low to which Pence,Pompeo, Burr, Mulvaney will not sink.
- Trump's support may be yet weakened by new sex or tax indiscretions are made public.
- Ditto regarding Trump's strict adherence to Putin's foreign policy outlook.
- Why would violent overthrow prove preferable to the 25th Amendment remedies?
- PRO forgets that the 2020 Presidential Election is only one year away.
[The Electors shall meet in their respective
States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom
one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same
State with themselves. And they shall make a List
of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of
Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President
of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall,
in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the
greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,
10
if such Number be a Majority of the whole
Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more
than one who have such Majority, and have an
equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot
one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List
the said House shall in like Manner chuse the
President. But in chusing the President, the Votes
shall be taken by States, the Representation from
each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from
two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the
States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every
Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the
Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes,
the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice
President.]
- Certainly, an election would represent the least refutable or contestable change of power and the most likely to be perceived as the most legitimate to the largest number of Americans.
- Why does PRO prefer violence to voting?
- PRO forgets that non-violent resistance is more successful than violence in effecting change.
We do acknowledge that extreme regime brutality, regime economic domination, and sophisticated population control through harassment and intimidation are formidable obstacles to mobilization. Under these conditions subtle acts of defiance and clandestine activities are more prevalent-- and, by definition, less observable. But our main point is that regimes (like opposition movements) are not monolithic actors; rather, they are propped up by pillars made of individuals whose loyalties are malleable and shifting. Whichever side (regime or opposition) is able to divide the opponent from its main pillars of support will ultimately succeed. And nonviolent campaigns have historically had an advantage over nonviolent campaigns in this regard.
- Historically speaking, violence generally locks in points of view and polarizes support. Non-violent campaigns that provoke violent counter-reaction more often succeed in eroding support than violent campaigns. Given the number of Trump supporters in the military and law enforcement- a non-violent resistance is more likely to shake soldiers and cops faith than fighting a violent act of treason.
PRO is quite mistaken. Violence is not the only way. There are many lawful and non-violent alternatives, some of which far more likely to preserve the republic than PRO's adventurism.
I look forward to PRO's P2 response.
That's just silly. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden's son, not outright make up dirt on him. If the investigation had happened, and then turned up nothing, Trump would've been like "dang it" and moved on. He was hoping something was there, of course. As a petty man and cutthroat politician hellbent on getting re-elected he was clearly hoping that the investigation would've turned up something. And he did threaten to cut off government aid for the sake of an investigation which would've pretty much only benefited him. But you are at least somewhat misstating what happened. Ultimately, we don't know whether Biden's son was involved in anything, since Trump was thwarted from making the investigation happen. Let's remember that.
Even if corrupt, Trump's investigation would've smacked of proportionality. No detail of Trump's life has been withheld from scrutiny, nor any detail of the lives of his close family. It's only fair that his opponent, a man trying to take his place as President, should have to undergo the same. The only question is by what means this proportional situation of mutual investigation was imposed (or, rather, by what means Trump attempted in vain to impose such).
(slang) A dose of a drug such as ketamine or cocaine, when snorted recreationally.
The noise made by the bittern; a boom.
A disco dance in which partners rhythmically bump each others hips together.
(uncountable) A coarse cotton fabric.
A training match for a fighting dog.
(snooker, slang) The jaw of either of the middle pockets.
yeah but i have the best pastes the best
He/she/they posts copy-pasted passages and usually types only 2 original sentences per debate Round.
be a sport grab me a beer
Makes sense.
trust fund and a butler to empty my piss jar
How do you have the time to have 10 debates going on at the same time?