President Trump is a good President.

Quick road map, I will touch on the flimsy arguments made on my case first, then refute my opponent's claims. 1). Framework My opponent argues that policies should be evaluated over impact on American culture and image when evaluating whether a president is good. I disagree since the role of the president, first and foremost, is to be chief of state, which means representing the US government, and chief citizen, which means the "President should represent all of the people of the United States" and "work for their interests" and "provide moral leadership" [1]. These are the chief responsibilities of the President. I do acknowledge that policy is important, but ultimately, the majority of policy making occurs outside the President's jurisdiction but rather with Congress. So we shouldn't be evaluating our President on standards that he has little to no control over. 2). Leadership The pro attempts to argue that occasionally, unpopular leaders are good. But first off, Trump's policies haven't been beneficial, which will be proven later, and second, although this may be true in rare instances, the vast majority of the time, unpopular leaders tend to be as good as the public perceives them as, incompetent. The majority of the time within a democracy, the people are able to tell whether a leader is good or not, and their sentiments will reflect this. If this weren't the case, American democracy as we know it today wouldn't be able to function. 3). Foreign Relations My opponent attempts to downplay the negative view other country's citizens have of the US when evaluating our president, but never claims my data to be untrue, so extend that piece of evidence. To address his argument, it makes no sense, since public opinion shapes a countries foreign policy, so negative opinion of the US in countries that previously were our allies would naturally lead to less cooperation. Later, my opponent says that cooperation between countries is happening amid low public opinion. But my argument is that it will significantly reduce cooperation and damage ties with our closest allies, not eliminate diplomatic ties entirely. Indeed, countries such as Australia and South Korea, longtime allies of the US, are now drifting away from the US and become closer to China due to Trump [2]. Finally, my opponent lists off all these countries that have given awards to Trump. Yet these examples were cherry picked by the pro and should be clearly outweighed by the vast majority of countries that have growing negative views of the US due to Trump. 35 out of 37 countries polled by the Pew Research Center have growing animosity toward the United States [3]. The pro claims that South Korea supports Trump. However, as stated earlier, South Korea is actually drifting away from the US and according to this poll, only 17% of South Koreans have a favorable opinion of the US under Trump, compared to 88% under Obama [3]. 4). Refutations A) North Korea: My opponent's main argument is the fact that this time it is different. Yet this is false. North Korea's actions now are just like its actions in the past [4]. It's simply a strategy by North Korea to garner concessions in exchange for empty promises [5]. According to John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies and director of ANU"s Southeast Asia Institute "Mr Kim was playing a clever game" In addition, he points out that talk is cheap, and leaders like Kim are highly manipulative and will say things without intending to keep their word [6] In fact, contrary to the statements Kim has made about denuclearlization, satellite images indicate that North Korea has no interest in halting their nuclear program [6]. B) ISIS: My opponent is trying in vain to credit Trump for defeating ISIS when all he did was continue Obama's policies. Any changes that General Mattis implemented were only on a tactical level and didn't play a key role to defeating ISIS [7]. In reality, there is little evidence to support the claim that Trump deserves credit for defeating ISIS [8]. C) Border Security: Regarding this claim, the pro says that Trump has made efforts to strengthen border security. But "efforts" don't matter unless it yields positive results. in this case, they don't . The very evidence my opponent uses clearly shows a negative correlation in illegal immigration over Obama's term, but a positive one under Trump [9]. Furthermore, extend my evidence that states that border crossings have risen fourfold under Trump. D) Economy: The pro fails to provide a source to validate their claims. Furthermore, the data presented by the pro clearly shows that unemployment has increased under Trump by 10%. In addition, experts clearly indicate that tariffs will hurt economic growth [10]. Prefer my arguments over my opponents since I have two sources to my opponent's zero regarding this point. Sources: [1] - https://assets.pearsonschool.com... [2] - https://www.cnbc.com... [3] - http://www.pewglobal.org... [4] - https://www.trtworld.com... [5] -http://thehill.com... [6] -http://www.news.com.au... [7] -https://www.heritage.org... [8] - https://www.vox.com... [9] - http://www.latimes.com... [10] - https://www.cbsnews.com...