President Trump is a good President.

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 First, my opponent says that the data is outdated, therefore the source should be rejected. But all my opponent is trying to do is make the source look outdated.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...