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

Thanks Pro! OVERVIEW Despite my opponent's claims to the contrary, I maintain that he has ignored/dropped MANY of my arguments. I would assert the reason he has done so is because he is unable to challenge them. But don't take my word for it. I ask the voters themselves to search Pro's arguments and ask themselves the following questions: 1. Did Pro actually offer any credible sources to support his claims? I would assert the answer is no. Here are some examples of what can only be called questionable sources at best: answers.yahoo.com, obamacrimes.com, and commieblaster.com. 2. Did Pro demonstrate how President Obama committed a crime? Remember, accusing someone isn't enough. Pro has always needed to DEMONSTRATE exactly what the president did, and how he did it. He still hasn't done so. 3. Has Pro shown how these alleged crimes rise to the level of "high crimes and misdeamoners" (as required by the Constitution)? Has he shown us where the threshold is and how the President breached this threshold? Clearly he has not. 4. Has Pro shown impeachment to be the best course of action? Obviously impeachment wouldn't be the only possibility when it comes to disciplining an infraction. Nowhere has Pro done this. 5. Finally, has Pro shown that impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good? No, he.has not. Remember, in order to carry his burden of proof, Pro must do ALL of these things. It should be easy for him to prove that he has dome them. I challenge him to point to the specific round and arguments for each of the above requirements. If he has failed to do even ONE of the above requirements, he cannot carry his burden of proof, and I win by default. DROPPED ARGUMENTS As I pointed out, my opponent has dropped my analysis of what it would take for him to meet the burden of proof. It's too late to deny this now. I especially want everyone to notice that Pro has made NO ATTEMPT to deny my positive argument that he must show impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. The problem is, he hasn't even TRIED to do this. Pro must attempt to rebuild all of his round three arguments in his next round, or they will be presumed to be false. REBUTTALS Section 1 Funding Terrorism? Pro's source, commieblaster.com, really isn't a source. All it is is a bunch of links to other websites. It offers zero evidence whatsoever. If he thought the links the website listed were credible, he should have sourced them instead. The one link found on the website that claims President Obama gave money to Al Qaeda has been completely discredited ny the Huffington Post: "Brown's arguments for impeachment at the time were largely based on misleading, out-of-context, or just plain false claims. Brown repeated many of the same bogus arguments in an Oct. 25, 2009, WND column." [6] Code Pink and Terrorism Even IF Code Pink has worked with terrorists, neither of the "sources" Pro uses give ANY evidence that President Obama is a member of the group. With that in mind, there's no further response needed concerning this issue. Section 2 EVEN IF President has told border patrol agents to ignore drunk drivers, Pro has failed to show us what crime has been committed. What's the name of this crime? How has it reached the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Treason is defined as: 1. "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign." [7] With this in mind, how could this be considered treason? The answer is, it can't. My opponent's argument is false. Conduct Reminder My opponent only has one round left to make his argument. According to the rules of the debate, he is not allowed to make any argument in round five. Sources: 6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 7. http://dictionary.reference.com...