Trump is not fit to serve, due to his volatile, immature and dangerous personality

My opponent has decided, for reasons beyond my understanding, to argue against the painfully obvious context of illegal immigration on Trump's "racist" statement regarding Mexican illegals. ( https://goo.gl... ) The question "When do we beat Mexico at the border?" makes it *very* clear that illegal immigration is what he is referring to, not all Mexicans in general, and certainly not legal immigrants. My opponent also claims that because many birthers have racially-charged motivations for supporting birtherism, birtherism is inherently racist. Not only is this not so, but it does not prove that *Trump's* motivations were racially-charged. Frankly, considering Obama's policies and Trump's occupation, it is more likely that his motivations were political and/or financial, but only Trump knows Trump's heart. My opponent claims that White and Asian are not races, completely ignoring the differences between race and ethnicity. Mexican is neither - it is a nationality. Racists supported Trump because those racists believed Trump was as racist as they are. They were wrong, and that is why many of them no longer support them. My comment about Trump's stereotype being so positive was not to say that he was not generalizing - it was to say that he was clearly not *trying* to be offensive in saying it, whether he was or not. I am not here to debate whether the electoral college or popular vote is a better system. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what one may *want*, the system used is the electoral college and everything else is frankly irrelevant. Even the people who support the popular vote cannot deny that this is what is used and that this is how they knew the elections worked when they cast their vote. There is nothing wrong with Trump having a disdain for nations that oppose us. Furthermore, in nearly all of the scenarios cited in the article, his disdain is clearly for the leaders of those nations, and not those nations or their people themselves. Let's not play semantics. Xenophobia's definition entails "people of other countries", not "some people of some other countries" or "any people of any other countries", and with no further specification, it is not only implied that it refers to fear of all foreigners, but solely on the basis that they are foreign. I concede to your point regarding religious groups' view of LGBT on the basis of poor specification on my behalf. The group that Trump lost favor with were evangelicals, who *are*, according to your own source, mostly anti-LGBT. Similarly, they are the group that he met with, and the group whose favor he would be wise to regain, whether he agrees with them or not. Why should one trust the SPLC's categorization of Christian evangelical activist groups over the groups themselves? They all state that they're anti-LGBT. They also make it very clear that this is not their focus when their own public agendas barely give the LGBT community a passing glance. As I've said - homophobia is a consequence, not their cause, and both the SPLC and my opponent should have researched this before making statements like that. I question whether my opponent read their own cited source regarding the study of political identity or not. It says, and I quote, "MORE THAN ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS SOMEHOW MANAGE TO INHERIT WHAT THEY INCORRECTLY BELIEVE ARE THEIR PARENTS' POLITICAL LEANINGS." in all-capital, bold letters. That is not "most people". It also states *only* that they retain their parents' political identity throughout their life, *not* that they retain any of their stances, nor that they stick exclusively to the same stances their entire lives. I specifically told my opponent that Trump's decisions were made *on the basis* that America was getting the bad end of the deal to demonstrate that there is a basis to his thinking that is not mindless, impulsive hate, not that that basis was correct in all circumstances. I concede - again - that Trump has been rude to foreign leaders, and that is a problem in most cases. I do not concede that this makes him unfit for office, especially when several of the leaders he has been in opposition to are largely in opposition to the U.S. (for instance, China and North Korea) and *need* to be dealt with in some way, rather than appeased. My opponent's own source, while displaying flaws in Trump's thought process, also makes it very clear that there is a rational basis in it nearly right off the bat. My opponent also claims I did not respond to the aforementioned speech excerpt when I did in round 2 when it was mentioned, leaving me to question if my opponent is thoroughly reading my arguments. Obama was a break in the trend of untrustworthy presidents. As far as honesty goes, he was the exception, not the rule. My point was that comparing a typical lying president to an atypical, relatively honest one wasn't a fair comparison. Trump's lies are nothing special, and considering how minor they are compared to the lies of presidents past, he is by no means unfit for this as far as the presidential standard is concerned. ( https://goo.gl... ) One thing should be made abundantly clear: if the U.S. cleans up its own act and other countries do not, climate change will kill us. If other countries clean up their act and the U.S. doesn't, climate change won't kill us. As far as pollution is concerned, we are one (albeit largely contributing) nation that does not solely control the fate of the world. Whether Trump acts on climate change or not is largely irrelevant - what matters is whether or not everyone else follows suit, and that is what will determine the outcome. Furthermore, the decision of U.S. action on climate change is not solely up to the POTUS. The U.S. is a Republic and many significant changes are made on a local level - speak out locally as millions of others are doing! Trump is not to blame for the population's inactivity in critical issues, and if anything, forcing people to get involved locally would be more of a positive impact than a negative one. I see no need for my opponent to continue beyond the statement that narcissism does not make a president incapable [of fulfilling the duties of POTUS]. That is essentially concession that Trump's ego does not make him unfit. Clearly, Trump's nonexistent racism and undeniable sexism have had no impact on his policies throughout 2017 (though I will readily admit, and rejoice in, the fact that his Islamophobia and opposition to opponents of the U.S. have). 20 year old evidence for one's opinions is not valid evidence. A stance on *most* illegally immigrating Mexicans is not a stance on all Mexicans (and yes, I proved earlier that he was specifically discussing illegals). No, he did not say "he saw Arabs celebrating 9/11", he said he saw Muslims celebrating which, valid or not, would classify as Islamophobia and not racism (for the third time), which, by the way, you never addressed my points for. Stating that Trump is sexist to an opponent who has conceded that point is akin to telling them that water is wet. I understand that. It hasn't impacted his policymaking and it doesn't make him unfit. If the U.S. does not want sexism, it should not vote for sexism. I conclude by stating again that Trump is both mentally and physically capable of carrying out the duties of the office of POTUS (as I have demonstrated in each round), and reminding voters that there are no proven criminal accusations that could bar him from being fit, and that the opinions of an elected official voted into office with those opinions being public knowledge do not make them unfit for office. If the U.S. does not like the president it elected, it can voice that by voting in someone else with different beliefs next election - but as for now, Trump is very much capable of carrying out the duties of POTUS and therefore fit for the office he was elected into.