President Trump is a good President.

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...