Trump is tough on Protestors

The argument

Protests across various American cities have erupted in violence, the destruction of property, and looting. Donald Trump has taken a hard stance against this violence and has offered various governors and mayors federal assistance by sending in federal troops to various cities to help curb protests and looting. US Marshalls have been deployed across the United States, often using tear gas and pepper balls on protestors. Trump believes that this show of force will bring an end to protests and prevent continuing violence and looting from spiraling out of control. He believes that a show of force against a political movement will ultimately prevent anarchy from breaking out in American cities.Trump is willing to go head to head against local governors and mayors in order to impose the type of law and order that he believes is necessary to bring protests to an end.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Donald Trump’s willingness to utilize the military and federal troops against American citizens who are protesting is an irresponsible use of presidential power. The majority of protests across the country are peaceful, and the speed to use violence against citizenry speaks to a disregard for true order and peace within society in favor of a fascist regime.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise describes a response to violence and looting, but the deployments and the crowd-control munitions were used at protests that were overwhelmingly peaceful, so the description does not match the policy it is offered to justify. [Rejecting P2] Deterrence is asserted rather than shown, and the argument gives no evidence that the show of force reduced unrest rather than escalating it; "willing to go head to head" with governors and mayors also concedes that the policy was imposed over the objection of the officials who hold primary responsibility for policing, which is a cost the premise counts as a virtue.