The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply.
This point isn't being debated by me, and you didn't need to bring up an irrelevant case to back it up. You could have simply pointed to the text in the constitution that says the same thing.
Its quite possible that the impeachment won't be tried, however, I believe that it will, and when it does it will render this entire debate moot. Regardless, Trump has been impeached.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/textResolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate...
Your personal opinion doesn't weigh more than a passed, simple resolution by the house. Sorry, it just doesn't.
Yet you are debating it by claiming the precedent doesn't apply. Your entire argument is essentially "no you're wrong I'm right." with no other supporting argument. Once again, this is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of many including well respected legal scholars who served as a witness for the Democrat party for these hearings. I simply agree with his assessment. Speaking of high crimes and misdemeanors, what is the crime exactly he is being accused of? The house can pass a resolution declaring turds as candy canes, it doesn't magically transform a pile of dog shit into peppermint.