The other side's core mistake is treating impeachment like a public opinion poll. It isn't. Impeachment is a legal and constitutional process with defined grounds, evidence, and a defense. Society as a whole can't examine documents, cross-examine witnesses, or apply a consistent standard; it reacts to headlines. Psychology tells us groups are more punitive and more confident than individuals, especially when outrage is rewarded. That's why direct popular impeachment would punish the unpopular rather than the corrupt. Democratic pressure matters, but it belongs at the ballot box and through representatives, not in a crowd-sourced verdict.

The other side is right that misinformation is a real problem, but that's exactly why society shouldn't hold the trigger. If headlines can shape public opinion, then a popular impeachment vote is the easiest thing to manipulate. Outrage-driven media rewards certainty and punishes nuance, and crowds tend to get more punitive, not more careful. A structured process with evidence and a defense is slower for a reason. Keep public accountability at elections and through representatives, where scrutiny is institutional rather than emotional.

Even a fact-focused public isn't a courtroom. My opponent says society can weigh evidence, but information reaches people through filters that reward outrage and simplify nuance, and there's no shared standard for what counts as proof. A crowd can't cross-examine witnesses or let a politician answer charges consistently; it just piles up impressions. That's not an insult to voters, it's basic group psychology: we judge differently in groups and under emotional pressure. Keep society's role at elections and oversight, where pressure is real but structured. Direct popular impeachment would feel accountable while being easier to manipulate.