If a president has an approval rating of 33% then they should honorably resign.

Don't worry about missing the round one. I should ask voters to not let this affect your voting, given the now apparent fact that it was not due to lack of a rebuttal, this should not be considered when voting. You begin by asserting that that whether a leader should resign should be based on their "job performance", and "upholding the constitution" But I should like to ask you what you precisely mean when you say "job performance". I should also like to ask who gets to decide whether they are properly doing their job. You? That would hardly seem fair. Why not let the majority decide whether they are properly doing their job? Whether or not they are doing their job right is a matter of opinion. Therefore, public opinion polls are very proper for determining this. The difference between your argument and my argument is that you do not create a way of determining how well they do their job, exempt your own opinion. Isn't the whole spirit of the constitution that of a democratic one? Would it then not seem that to "uphold the constitution", as in truly believing in it and following its virtues, they would step down when called upon to do so by the populist? This statement of yours' truly shocked me: "It means absolutely nothing" Public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing? Ill tell you what is means: it is the will of the majority, and the notion that that means nothing is contradicting the concept of democracy. "The duty of the President, or leaders in general is not to follow every whim of the public as public opinion waxes and wanes, but rather to run the executive branch as per the constitution, regardless of public opinion. If we expect a president to resign simply because of a poor public opinion, then we must also expect the president to do many other things for public opinion. Public opinion is not always rational, and not always correct." I agree that the presidents' actions as president should follow his/her own opinions. They should represent their own beliefs, and let the voters decide whether they should be president. But of course, things can change, and their personal beliefs may no longer represent the population's opinion. In this scenario, I do not advocate that they make DIFFERENT executive decisions based on this, I advocate that they resign and let someone whose opinions DO represent the popular opinion become president. The idea that if one should resign because of approval ratings "then we must also expect the president to do many other things for public opinion" is a fallacy. There is a monumental difference between an unpopular leader being replaced with a popular leader…and the unpopular leader trying to do popular things. No matter how noble the leader may perceive their mission to be, it is inescapable that they are not wanted, and that not leaving office would mean defying the United States Also I would like to focus on what you said at the end: "Public opinion is not always rational, and not always correct."… The flaw in your logic here is assuming that there is some fundamental, manifest truth. The terms "rational" and "correct" are purely relative. While I may not "agree" with the populist always, nothing really matters, and I must admit that because nothing really matters, there is no fundamental truth, and therefore, someone must decide what the "correct" things might be. Now, it may not be perfect, but I can think of no better way to decide what we should pretend is "right", than to follow the will of the majority. "Your argument is based on a fallacy, argument from popularity. Simply because a politician is unpopular does not mean that he is a bad politician, nor does it mean he has at all failed his duties." You will not have to read many of my debates to understand that I believe that the concepts of "good" and "bad" are meaningless. And once more, someone has to decide what to pretend is good and bad, and why not the majority. This is not a matter of good and bad, this is a matter of defying the nation they should be working with. You then give a scenario in which Ron Paul was president. You say that he would be a good president, but, once more, this is solely your own opinion. It does not matter whether they are "good" or "bad"; these are in fact relative opinions. We must, by default, look at the will of the majority as a deciding factor. If Ron Paul were somehow president, and if he had very low approval ratings, then the right thing to do would be to resign, because he would be WORKING AGAINST THE NATION to which he would be supposed to be serving. The president is one man. For him to stay in office against the will of the vast majority would be despotism. This is un-American and contradictory to the virtues of democracy. You then give the example of Roosevelt, who you claim did not follow the constitution. I would like you to cite something as to what is giving you this notion. But anyways, even the constitution is distantly flexible based on the will of the majority. And who is to decide whether Roosevelt did a bad job? You? Or the United States of America? From a theoretical point, no matter the president or whether they are "right", the US citizens should be the people to determine whether they are doing their job. And if it turns out that they are not favored by the majority, they should resign. That is what a true believer in democracy would do. "Popularity is not now, nor will it ever be an indication of job performance" Ah, but then what is? You will answer that it is whether they follow the constitution. But who decides that? Well, you do. Their job performance is an opinion, and is relative. You then state that opinion doesn't matter. "Politicians should only retire, or be forced to retire if their job performance is low." Once more, who would decide that? My opponent's argument revolves around some implication that there is a fundamental and manifestly correct truth about whether a president has good performance. Suspiciously, he seems to have been the one to announce to us who has good job performance and who doesn't. Therefore, he either believes that his opinion is more accurate than anyone else's, or he is receiving this information from god. My opponent's logic is flawed because: -He sais "I believe that they should resign based on their actual job performance", indicating that Presidents should resign solely based on self-evaluation. This would obviously be biased. -He presents his own opinion on why certain presidents should resign, but then says that opinions don't matter. -He assumes that resigning based on opinion polls would imply making other actions based on opinion polls. -He has created a myth that there is an absolute on whether or not a president is "good", when in fact these are all relative to opinion -He provides no method of deciding whether they should resign, exempt his own personal opinion, and the president's self-evaluation. The only logical way to decide their job performance is to conduct a survey, as any other way would be despotic, and undemocratic. My opponent, to my dismay, will have the last word. Oh well, vote PRO. -Harlan