The United States Federal Government ought to begin the process to impeach Donald Trump

My opponent has attempted to dismiss the entirety of this debate with a simple argument that laws cannot be affected by this round. In my original argumentation I established that this is a debate about what should be, not what can be or what is. The resolution states "The United States Federal Government ought to begin the process to impeach Donald Trump." In my definition and analysis of the word "ought," we learned that ought implies moral obligation. This was not contested by my opponent. Moral obligation is not confined to or conformed by the laws of a nation. Thus this debate round should be about what actions Congress ought to take - regardless of the legality of their doing so. This established, let us turn to the refutation that my opponent has offered in this round. In response to Contention 1, my opponent argued that removal from free trade agreements cannot have hurt the U.S. economy because of the current state of Wall Street. I have a number of responses. 1. No time for economic repercussions to manifest themselves Trump became president just over one month ago. In that time he has withdrawn from these trade deals, but we have not allowed enough time for the inevitable consequences of his actions to become apparent. 2. Wall Street cannot yet reflect economic impact Because the repercussions of Trump's withdrawal from these free trade agreements has not yet become evident, the DOW, NASDAQ and other measurements mentioned by my opponent cannot be considered a reliable method of determining whether Trump will have a negative economic impact. 3. Small boons do not outweigh great losses My opponent has not adequately refuted my contention that loss of free trade agreements will lead to drastic economic losses. Whatever small changes Trump's presidency, (not his actions), have brought to the economy, they are sure to be wiped away by the repercussions of our withdrawal from the TPP and the NAFTA. In response to Contention 2, my opponent argued that the president is fully within his power to prevent dangerous individuals from entering the United States. I have two responses. 1. No proof that these individuals are dangerous Trump has often asserted from the start of his campaign that immigrants are "dangerous," but this has not been verified by any reliable source. 2. Travel ban and wall affects innocents While it is certainly the prerogative of the president to restrict dangerous individuals from entering the United States, these measures taken by Trump are affecting absolutely everyone. In the case of the travel ban, U.S. citizens who happen to be out of the United States are affected. Regarding Contention 3, my opponent argued that the Travel Ban was instituted on the same countries as Obama's, and secondly that Trump has no relations to Russia. Neither of these claims are true. 1. Trump's travel ban differs drastically from Obama's 2011 policy. http://www.nydailynews.com... Obama's policy was not a ban, and applied differently to different countries. Trump has taken this list of Obama's and used it to make a policy change that benefits countries in which he has business dealings. This constitutes letting personal interest interfere with the presidency 2. Trump has claimed that he has had no business dealings in Russia. This claim was proved wrong. Please view the following article from CNN. http://www.cnn.com... In conclusion, I would urge you as the judge to remember the framework I offered for this round. We are debating what should be done. My opponent agreed that government has a duty to represent the interests and needs of its citizens. Trump has not done that, this I would submit to you that Trump should be impeached, regardless of what can legally be done under existing laws. Obviously this will never happen unless Trump takes further actions. But that does not mean they shouldn't.