Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

Thanks again, Pro for your timely response. DROPPED ARGUMENTS In his last response, my opponent failed to respond to most of my arguments. This is unfortunate for him, because it is standard debate protocol to presume all dropped arguments to be true for the remainder of the debate. [4] Let's recap everything my opponent ignored: A. Burden of proof In round two I pointed out that , in order to win this debate, my opponent has to provide evidence of the following: 1. Demonstrate that President Obama committed a crime. 2. Illustrate how the crime rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". 3. That impeachment would be the best course of action. 4. That impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. My opponent didn't attempt to do any of this. He didn't provide us ANY evidence that: a. President Obama committed any of these actions. b. That they are even crimes. c. That these actions warrant impeachment. Without doing ANY of these things, there is no way opponent can carry his burden of proof. B. Impeachment would do more harm than good In round two I offered historical evidence to indicate that engaging in an impeachment trial would do more harm than good. I illustrated how history indicates that if President Obama was brought up on impeachment charges, the American public would see him as a victim and the Republican party would lose support. I then said that this is nothing an opponent of President Obama should want. My opponent didn't deny this. REBUTTALS In his last round, my opponent has given us a fresh batch of alleged "crimes" President Obama has committed. However, much like his previous list, I fail to see where ANY crime has been committed (much less a "high crime"). My opponent has, in effect, thrown a handful of darts at a dartboard hoping to hit a bullseye. Ad one might imagine, however, he keeps failing. Section 1 For example, what law prohibits "sealing information"? What law requires "holding your hand over your heart"? What law requires "wearing a flag pin"? My opponent then goes on to accuse President Obama of fraud, "supposed" treason (is my opponent unsure of this?), abuse of power, "treating enemies like buds", and a "multitude" of "other things". There is only one thing my opponent left out... any evidence to support his claims. With this in mind, I ask the voters to disregard all these claims as baseless. More Questionable Sources Townhall.com, Obamacrimes.com, and third-party.net are biased, extreme right wing websites. None of theses sources provide any evidence for their claims, and as such, cannot be trusted. They're nothing more than opinionated blogs with no credibility whatsoever. If the case for impeaching President Obama was such a clear one, we should be able to find the same information in some reliable, journalistic website. Section 2 Here my opponent says that President Obama committed "treason" and a "first degree felony" by bombing Libya. However, as he is prone to do, he doesn't offer any evidence WHATSOEVER why this should be considered treason. He needs to show what law this violates, and how the breaking of the law rises to the level of a treasonous act. Without doing so, he fails to meet his burden of proof. Until my opponent does this, I won't be responding to this charge. It's not my job to prove President Obama didn't do something. Asking someone to prove something didn't happen is patently unfair. Section 3 Here Pro tries to expand his case by introducing new charges. He now accuses President Obama of "abuse of power" and "failure to uphold his responsibilities". I have to wonder why he didn't introduce these charges in round one. After all, he had plenty of room to do so. Having said that, again, Pro provides ZERO evidence to support these charges, and as such, I reject them as baseless claims. It's silly to say we're not impeaching the President because "we're afraid of his power". The reason he's not being impeached is clear... there is no case. Section 4 Straw Man Fallacy In this section, Pro misquoted me and tried to rebut an argument I never made. Despite what my opponent said, I never said "Clinton has a good approval rating." So Pro's arguments against what I never said should be disregarded as the straw man argument it is [5]. What I ACTUALLY indicated was the fact that President Clinton's approval INCREASED after the impeachment process began. This ended up doing more harm than good for those who opposed him. That's the analogy I'm making to Clinton. As I showed round two, his approval ratings went up, and Republicans didn't gain any seats in Congress. So based on historical evidence, we have reason to believe that impeachment charges could do more harm than good for those who would want him impeached, and it's up to Pro to show otherwise. Pro then goes on to make the ridiculous claim that the reason most Americans don't want President Obama to be impeached is because "most of the population consists of illegal immigrants". This is not only a silly argument, but my foxnews.com source proves it wrong (the poll was of registered voters). Having said that, the argument, even IF true is irrelevant. That's because regardless of the status of American citizens, if they don't want a President impeached, attempting to impeach them will affect campaign funding negatively for the opposing party. So EVEN IF President Obama is a monster, trying to impeach him now would do more harm than good. Finally, I would like to respond to my opponent's claim concerning the difference between President Clinton and Obama. Pro says the difference is that case against President Obama contains "hard evidence" or "close to hard evidence". I have a couple of problems with these comments. First, if Pro only has "close" to hard evidence, then he can't possibly win this debate. "Close enough" is not good enough when deciding if someone SHOULD be impeached. Remember, we're not debating if the President COULD be impeached; we're debating if he SHOULD be impeached. Second, despite his claims, Pro has provided ZERO "hard evidence" to support his claims that President Obama should be impeached. If the case against President Obama was so clear, we should be able to find tons of evidence from reputable sources. Without doing so, Pro will be unable to meet his burden of proof. Conduct I'm not usually one to accuse someone of a conduct violation, but having said that, I think my opponent's final comments were inappropriate. Soliciting other members to help build your case for you is crossing the line. Sources: 4. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) 5. http://www.nizkor.org...