4th DDO Census Debate: Trump v Clinton
Debate Rounds (5)
The US Should Elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.
The the US Presidential Elections closing near, the nomimations are becoming clear. Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton... Both members equally as loved by their parties as they are hated by their parties. It's easy to see why this would be the biggest debate of 2016.
- No wars (source wars or definition wars, etc...)
- No kritiking.
- No Conduct or S&G votes.
- Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)
The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.
Pro side is represented by TN05, and advised by Thett3. Con side is represented by Lannan, and advised by bsh1.
- US: United States
- Elect: Choose (someone) to become President by voting.
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Best of luck to us both, and I look forward to seeing my opponent's arguments.
The 2016 election has become one of the most interesting in recent memory. While the Republicans have nominated a charismatic outsider, the Democrats have nominated a corrupt career politican. The choice seems obvious and I will attempt to prove it.
Donald Trump is running on a campaign of economic realism and pragmatism centered around bringing American jobs back, in contrast to the far-left dogma of Hillary Clinton to expand globalism and allow other countries to steal out jobs. Trump's tax plan simplifies the tax code, establishing four new brackets of 0%, 10%, 20%, and 25%, eliminates the net investment income surtax, lowers the highest corporate tax rate to 15%, and abolishes the death tax. According to the Tax Foundation, this plan would result in 11 percent higher GDP growth, 6.5% higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs. On trade, Trump has proposed re-negotiating trade deals, in particular NAFTA, a disastorous trade agreement signed by Bill Clinton that resulted in the loss of over 850,000 jobs. Trump opposes the TPP, which has already resulted in over 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio alone. Trump has also proposed changes to our visa policies, such as increasing the prevailing wage for H1B visas and requiring companies to hire American workers first. Trump is the only candidate with a plan to fix inner-city poverty (replacing a visa for foreign workers with a job bank for inner-city youth) as well as to provide safe homes for parentless children.
Trump is not dogmatic economically; he is willing to negotiate. Trump is open to plans that might help American workers, such as a minimum wage increase, as well as slight tax increases on the wealthy as part of an overall tax deal. This is a key strength of the Trump campaign: a willingness to work with others and compromise for the greater good. This is something that Hillary Clinton cannot do - she was among the most liberal senators during her term, more liberal than even our current president, and she ranks on OnTheIssues as liberal as fake Indian Elizabeth Warren and only slightly less liberal than communist Bernie Sanders. Trump is the only candidate willing to work with both sides on the economy to protect American workers.
Possibly the strongest difference between Trump and Clinton is on foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy plan is simple: we aren't the world's policeman. It's time we focus on our interests and stop trying to run the world. Hillary Clinton, as Obama's Secretary of State, will continue his failed policies and head us well into our 13th year of unstopped war. Trump opposed the Iraq War, while Clinton voted for it. Trump opposed the Iran deal; Clinton supported it. Clinton's failures on foreign policy are so massive she has no grounds to attack any Trump policy. Trump didn't, for instance, leave four Americans to die in Benghazi. He didn't use a private email server, in violation of federal law and leaving emails open to hacking from our enemies. Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, he never gloated over the rape-murder of a foreign leader. Trump stands for an end to endless war. Clinton stands for more of the same. Her reckless policies will continue the mistakes of Iraq and lead to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths.
It's become very apparent through the public lives of the Clintons that they have achieved an impressive list of scandals. WMD.com lists 22 scandals:
1) Bill Clinton's abuse of the IRS to target political enemies.
2) Bill Clinton's hiring PIs to intimidate potential informants
3) Clinton's looting the White House upon leaving, including reportedly selling off taxpayer-funded goods.
4) Filegate, when the Clinton's illegally used to FBI to dig dirt up on their enemies.
5) Huma Abedin's link to the Muslim Brotherhood
6) Vince Foster's murder
8) Chinagate, when tech companies donated millions to the Clintons to get permission to sell secrets to China.
9) Travelgate, where the Clintons fired White House staff to install cronies
11) Sniper fire in bosnia lie
12) Hillary's missing billing records from Watergate
13) Pardongate, where Bill Clinton pardoned a number of people, including a convicted tax evader who was - surprise - a donor.
14) Hillary Clinton's amazing cattle futures business (read: fraud)
15) Clinton body count
16) Clinton's mentor, communist Saul Alinsky
17) Hillary's defense of a child rapist
18) Hillary's fundraising in Iran
19) Clinton foundation
21) Paul Franklin Peter
22) Watergate, where she was fired for being a liar
This is a massive list, and it's not even all of them. The Clintons have more scandals than Bill has affairs. What scandals could Trump possibly have that compare? Nothing. There is no way Hillary Clinton or her husband Bill should get anywhere near the White House, ever. She should be in jail, and will be once Trump installs a fair AG who will do the job our current one is refusing to do.
Trump has proposed a list of esteemed conservative justices, who will fight to protect the rights established under the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will nominate justices to promote her far-left agenda. Given there is already one vacancy, and there may be two or three more, do you honestly want Crooked Hillary Clinton to be appointing justices? I don't think so.
As I've explained and proven, Trump is a far better candidate than Hillary Clinton. His economic proposals are going to lead to millions of new jobs and massive GDP growth, and he's open to working with all sides, whereas Hillary is a partisan hack with no real plans and no willingness to negotiate; his foreign policy plans will avoid the hundreds of thousands of deaths Hillary Clinton will lead to; and his judges will work to protect your rights rather than the political views of the Democratic Party establishment. Even if you still can't bring yourself to support that, what must bring you to do it is the list of scandals the Clintons have had - frankly, they should both be in jail. Donald Trump is going to Make America Great Again. Are you going to join him?
I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him good luck. Due to the traditional structure, this round shall be for my Opening Arguments only.
Contention 1: Deportation
We all currently know that Donald J Trump's greatest and most famous piece of his platform is the wall and deportation of all illegal immigrants in the US. The issue with that is that it's not as easy as he makes it seem, not to mention that it will hurt the US so bad that it pushes us into an economic Depression, not just a recession.
The key thing we have to look at here is the illegal immigrants jobs as well how they affect the everyday American. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve showed that illegal immigrants, mainly from Latin America, had accounted for a sixth of the US economic growth from 2000-2007.  While in the US, illegal immigrants have been supporting their families back home while in the past year, illegal immgirants had sent home $63 billion.  This shows that they are not as "heartless" or "lazzy" as my opponent claims they are as it is impoosible to send that much home if you're living on welfare. The CBO reports that if we are to allow illegal immigrants work in the US, they will raise wages in the long hall, but deportation will lead to a decrease of our wages by 0.6%, which despite not sounding like much, is still a significant loss.  We have to also look and see that Trump himself has also flip flopped on this issue from going hard line to saying that this is a possiblity within days . What kind of President do we expect to have when they are teeter tottering on an issue that can destroy our nation?
With this being my final point I will review the final costs of deportation. If we were to deport ALL illegal immigrants in the US our nation's GDP would drop by $1.6 TRILLION!  This is a huge effect on the economy that would sink the US into another Great Depression not to mention all fo the other impacts that I have brought up this round. There is no logical reason why the US should deport all illegal immigrants, but should instead grant amnesty to those here which Clinton not only supports, but will expand on increasing the US economy while Trump will plunge the world into a second Great Depression.
Contention 2: Clinton the Unifier.
Many times Trump has called Mexicans rapists and criminals. He has attacked all non-white, evangelical Americans. Trump's own rhetoric has caused riots in the US. Many times his own words has sparked riots like in Chicago and many places in California where people don't appriate this Fascist Rhetoric where he constantly gives hate speeches against others and then goes to blame the problems he has been causing on Bernie supporters where he fails to understand the implacations of his own actions . Studies have shown that Trump's own hate speech has created a level of harm where people are more violitile against others.
“In a 2005 experiment, […] passers-by were more likely to help an apparently injured person if that person was wearing a football jersey which supported the same team as them than an opposing team. However, when their shared identity as football fans was made salient instead, supporters of both teams were likely to be helped, significantly more so than a person wearing a plain shirt."
Here we can see the effects, though on a simplistic scale, that such an action can effect people and it shows how people are less able to help out minorities when subjected to this kind of speech while under the normal case where they would easily help anyone. Trump is tearing this country appart and something needs to be done before it's too late.
On top of this, Trump has tried to introduce a program where we survey Muslim neighborhoods and mosques. This is an extremely flawed plan. John Horgan, the Director of the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies at UMass pointed out a great deal of the flaws in this plan. He showed that there is a great deal of vagueness that is involved in this plan like "How do we define concerning behavior?" "How do others and how should they recognize it?" These are some key issues with the plan that are very vague making it impossible to actually enforce or even to do so without people being wrongly accused and improsioned. This breads distrust and zero co-operation which was a key flaw in Trump's Plan. Hilary will not do such an autrocity where our own Constitutional Rights are being intruded on just to follow through with some sort of xenophobic plan.
Contention 3: Domestic
This is a very broad topic here, so I'll only be able to lightly touch some of the topics here. For Starters, when we actually compare the two campaigns, we can see that Hilary is more open with her campaign than Trump. If you look at both campaign websites, you'll only see that Trump lists and defends 7 political issues, while Hilary supports over 35 political issues .
Hilary has openly stated that she supports a minimum wage increase to $12 per hour, but Trump, on the other hand, has purposed things that will destroy the economy as well as the well being of every American. Several times this election he has changed his stance from opposing the raising of the minimum wage, to wanting it raised, to his newest stance where Trump wants to abolish the minimum wage . This would completely harm many of the average Americans as many of the costal states would have high minimum wages, many of the Midwestern states would have a mimium wage that is decreased which would harm the well being of every single American as many would be unable to afford many of the rising prices that would occur with this as their incomes shrank.
The next key issue is abortion. Hilary Clinton has been a great supporter of women's rights, but Trump on the other hand, has said some terrible things on the matter. Trump had stated that women who recieve abortions should be punished. This was an outrage that someone who is running or even going to be President, would even consider. This is a clear violation of female rights as the SCOTUS has ruled Abortion to be Constitutionally legal. Within 3 hours of his statement, Trump changed his stance on it, not once, not twice, but three times . This is something that shouldn't be over looked as he simply did this as damage control to hide his own motives and this isn't someone we should have as President.
Hilary Clinton has supported clear common sense gun control, but Trump on the other hand, has flip flopped many times on this issue. Trump had stated that he had supported the second amendment, but he has also stated that he supported Assault Rifle Ban, magazine bans, and longer back ground checks. He has also stated the exact opposite . Can we really support a President who flip flops so many times on these issues that are extremely important to our nation? Especially when these flip flops are within months of each other, others over time.
1. Alan Greenspan, PhD, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, stated in his Apr. 30, 2009 testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security
6. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 443–453.
I'd like to thank my opponent for his timely opening round.
Before I begin going into specific responses to my opponent's claims, I'd like to note a glaring theme - or lack of one - throughout his opening statement; namely, his case is build virtually entirely around a negative one of Trump. That is, with the exception of a few relatively minor social issues, he does not argue affirmatively that Hillary Clinton would be a good president. Instead, he instead argues that Trump will be a bad one. Now, I completely understand why he might be reluctant to lay out an affirmative case for Hillary Clinton: it just isn't possible. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politican who has been on virtually every side of every issue. I do not envy his task, but my opponent's strategy is incredibly flawed for one reason; even if we accept Donald Trump as most likely being bad president, he must still prove Hillary Clinton would be better, and in absence of that, he really doesn't have a case.
Argument 1 - Immigration and deportation
Without a doubt, Donald Trump's stance on immigration is a key factor in his sudden rise. I'm not going to question the fact that Trump's stated positions on this issue are well outside of what one might expect from an ordinary politican. He cares deeply for the American worker, which is why he is understandably upset that people are losing their jobs to illegal immigrants, and that people like Kate Steinly are being killed by violent illegal immigrants the government has refused to deport.
My opponent notes several benefits of illegal immigration: he argues it heavily accounts for economic growth, a sixth of our economic growth from 2000-07. Unfortunately, this is a misrepresentation of his source; Greenspan only argued illegal immigration accounted for a sixth of our increase in the civilian labor force over that period. This is not a good thing; a sixth of our jobs created over that period went to people who aren't legally here and don't pay taxes, rather than Americans or those with legal status who pay taxes. Our unemployment rate peaked at 5.8% during that period - imagine how low our unemployment rate could be if we let Americans do these jobs!
He also notes that illegal immigrants have sent $63 billion dollars back home just in the past year. While he presents the latter as a positive fact, demonstrating the humanity of illegal immigrants, I would argue to the contrary: it demonstrates the damage illegal immigration does to our economy. Putting aside the issues with non-payment of taxation as well as the fact these immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans who would do them, this is a net loss of $63 billion from our economy. According to my opponent's own source, 20% of Mexican households are supported by these sorts of remitances. In effect, we are subsidizing Mexico and getting nothing in return. This is the sort of unfairness Trump has correctly brought to attention during his campaign.
My opponent also notes that deporting illegal immigrats might result in a slight reduction in wages; however, Tump's tax plan alone would raise wages by 6.5%, far more than the minor losses my opponent notes might occur under deportation. In the case of flip-flopping my opponent attempts to make, Trump did not actually alter his stance on illegal immigration; all he did was argue in favor of high-skilled visas. This is consistent with his platform, which argues for retaining them but raising the prevailing wage. Rather than teetering, Trump has presented a consistent message: we must protect our borders.
On a final note, my opponent argues that there is an immense cost to deporting all illegal immigrants. I don't deny that it would not be cheap; two things are worth noting here, however. The first is that Trump has, in actuality, expressed an openness to compromise on this issue. The wall and deportations are a starting point, but everything is negotiable; Trump noted that Rubio's views on immigration are "OK" and that, while he is tougher on it, it is only a difference of 'degree'. Trump is a master negotiator and will no doubt get a great deal.
In regards to Mexican rapists, Trump never said all Mexicans were rapists. Rather, what he noted was that the people coming over the border illegally aren't necessarily the best Mexico has to offer - many are criminals, such as the muderer of Kate Steinly, who liberal Democrats in San Francisco refused to deport. Clinton supports such 'sanctuary city' policies.
Trump has also not caused any riots; Trump supporters have never rioted. These riots are led by leftists, and many of these riots are being caused by paid agitators who oppose him. You may disagree with what Donald Trump says, but the fact is the rioters are people who oppose him. And yes - many riots are being caused by Bernie Sanders supporters. At the recent San Jose riots, Bernie Sanders supporters were documented assualting fellow Sanders supporters after mistaking them for Trump suppoters. My opponent cites a study that has nothing to do with this scenario - it pre-assumes Trump supporters are rioting and harming others. I defy my opponent to provide just one instance of a Trump supporter refusing to help a minority.
My opponent also argues that Trump's proposal to surveil certain Muslims neighborhoods and mosques is bad because it is impossible to work and unconstitutional; I disagree. A 2011 survey from Pew noted that nearly half of all American Muslims believe their leaders have not done enough to speak out against terrorism, 20% believe support for terrorism has grown, and 60% are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the US. This helps my opponent, right? Wrong. American Muslims recognize the problem and are willing to help. Trump's proposal to surveil mosques and neighborhoods is not a draconian measure - in fact, it requires the help of American Muslims to work. Surveillance could be as simple as finding patriotic Muslims willing to investigate dangerous neighborhoods and mosques so that their communities can live securely. Is that such a bad idea? By rejecting any surveillance outright, my opponent rejects that very reasonable idea.
Now, we finally get to my opponent's affirmative case for Clinton. My opponent notes Hillary Clinton has released more policy papers than Trump. This is true. But does it really matter? I would argue not. Policy papers alone do nothing that verbal statements don't accomplish. Trump is in fact far more open than Hillary in regards to media access - at one point, she hadn't had a press conference in over 180 days, while Trump is grilled almost daily by the media on every issue.
In regards to minimum wage, I will note that Trump is open to a minimum wage increase if it helps American workers. Clinton only recently supported raising one after receiving pressure from unions. Abolishing the wage would indeed harm Midwestern states, but so would raising it; after all, the cost of living in San Francisco is more than Witchita. According to the CBO, increasing the minimum wage to just $10 nationwide would result in 500,000 lost jobs. In a way, this would continute the Clinton cartel's disastorous record of destroying jobs - remember that NAFTA killed 700,000 jobs.
On abortion, my opponent argues vaguely that Clinton's stance is great and Trump's is awful. I disagree. Clinton's stance on abortion is that it should be legal up until very late in the third term. Contrary to what my opponent says, this is not required by Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade allows for restriction of late-term abortion. The stances of neither candidate are popular; only 20% support a total ban, and only 30% support total legality. While Trump's position on abortion has changed, so has Clinton's; in 2000, she supported late-term abortion bans.
Finally, on guns, my opponent makes a baffling argument: Trump has flip flopped on guns. It is true he used to support gun restrictions. But Hillary used to oppose them! In 2008, she ran to the right of Obama on guns. Additionally, given my opponent views SCOTUS rulings as valid, how can he support a candidate who rejects the court's ruling that there is a right to guns? Like Hillary, he must twist himself into a pretzel to attack Trump.
I thank my opponent for his patience. In this round I shall be posting the last of my remaining Case as I was unable to fully post it last round and any attempt to add on to it this round would count as a rebuttal. For this round I shall post the last of my case and then move on to rebutting my opponent's case.
Contention 4: Leadership Trumps.
Bad puns aside, the race for the Presidency must be focused around leadership which is obviously Clinton by a mile. Don't believe me? Let's hear what Trump has to say.
"Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trooper. Her history is far from being over," and "I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president." 
As a senator from New York, she was the first ever New Yorker to serve part of the Senate Armed Services Committee and helped for the Family and Medical leave Act, she also worked to expand health care for the National Guard. Where does Trump stand on this, he makes fun of POWs and attacks our nation's vets. What kind of Commander in Chief would do such a thing? Vetern groups have actually condemned Trump because of this . Our nation's troops wouldn't even respect him.
On immigration, she took charge by help passing the DREAM act. She introduced two key bills to help our new immigrants by introducing S. 764 (110th) by extending medical care to low income LEGAL immigrants and pregnant women. She also helped introduce S. 1543 (108th) which helped give new immigrants job training and help them learn English. What does Trump want to do? Deport all illegal immigrants claiming they are all rapists and criminals. Is this the message we should be sending to legal immigrants coming to America of what we think of them?
Hilary has helped broker a key Cease fire between Israel and Hamas . If the allowed to continue, Israel would have launched a ground invasion of the Gaza strip possibly leading to massive war in the middle east and oil prices to skyrocket.
Rebuttal 1: Economy
Donald Trump is going to make America poor again. A group of expert economists did a study on Trump's purposed 35% tarrif on Mexico and 45 tarrifs on China and the results are disasterous. It will cost the Average American $11,500 in increased prices over the next 5 years, and these numbers are expected to continue to climb . It will cost poor Americans 53% of their income and prices will rise 30%. US exports to these nations will decline by 78%! If you want to make America great again, then Trump is not the right answer. Sure Trump may oppose the TPP, but so does Hilary .
My opponent claims that Trump is willing to work with Americans, but we can see that he's in love with Hillary and the Democrats, "I've been around a long time. And it just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than under Republicans. "
Rebuttal 2: Foreign Policy
I have previously brought up Hilary's peace deal with Israel and Hamas stoping a war. What has Trump done to even come close to this? Trump actually supported the Iraq War, Trump had stated on the Howard Stern show that he supported the Iraq war when asked. In a seperate interview, he said he'd supported it since the markets would skyrocket . Sounds like strong support to me. As much as Trump likes to bash the Iran deal, we can call this a huge success for Hilary, she created the sanction that finally brougth Iran to it's knees while all the other sanctions just encouraged Iran to continue nuclear developement . Trump stated that he would hammar them with sanctions, but if that was true, Iran would have a nuke under Trump. Speaking of the Iran deal, Trump had originally supported the deal . This is just another foreign policy flip flop by Trump. Bengahzi is a dead issue, Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the Bengahzi investigation pannel headed by Trey Goudy and easily won out. There's nothing else here to prove. We are talking about Donald Trump here who wants to bring back torture and kill family members of terrorists. Which is why so many people actually oppose the US in the first place.
Rebuttal 3: Corruption
Some of these don't actually apply to Hillary as they are more Bill than her. Hillary was a Public defense attourney and had no choice in the child rapist case. Coming out of law school, there's really nothing much else to do in that field outside of being the Public Defense attourney where you get impossible cases like this. She actually won the case though. We may look at it bad, but it shows she did her job right. Sadly, that's just how the American justice system works. Saul Alinsky is irrelevent as many could say the same thing about Obama, but the Historical Presidential ranking for Obama is 17th out of the 44 US Presidents . Trump has done some terrible things like how about his bankruptcies or what about his creation of $1 billion in junk bonds? What about how he went so far into debt that the Saudi prince had to bail him out  and we expect him to run our nation's budget? Trump had forcefully taken a women's property just to use it as part of his corrupt business. This list is simple ludicrious as even with this, Hillary is a better candidate than the corrupt Donald Trump. #NeverTrump.
Rebuttal 4: Judges
My opponent is talking about how Trump is better than Clinton because of his judges. This is simply rediculious as the GOP Congress is refusing to do it's Constitutional duties where they must nominate a judge and this is harming our political process as the SCOTUS has to make rulings with 8 judges, which only benefit the left, making this a loss for the Right. Trump is making matters worse here by failing to uphold our nation's laws and encouraging his party to disobey the Constiutition.
3. ( http://tinyurl.com...)
5. ( http://tinyurl.com...)
11. ( http://tinyurl.com...)
I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. I'll respond first to his new arguments.
My opponent notes Trump had previously praised the Clintons. This is a bit of a silly claim - the entirety of Trump's praise for them came when Hillary was a Senator from New York, Trump's home state. Trump, being a businessman, needed to play both sides. Why alienate a Senator who is the wife of a former President? Unfortunately, this is the sort of dirty politics the Clintons run. This is the sort of politics Trump seeks to end.
My opponent also notes several achievements Clinton had as Senator. These seem like good ideas, I'm not going to dispute that. But to argue Trump fails in supporting the military is silly. Rather than wasting time debating a bunch of empty suits, Trump held a fundraiser to raise $5.6 million for veterans. It is no surprise military voters prefer Trump to Clinton by a margin of 15 points and he holds a favorable approval rating among military members and households.
I'm a bit confused by the claim Hillary helped pass the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was never implemented. It did not pass. He also criticizes Trump's immigration plan as being a bad signal to legal immigrants. How so? How is fair for illegal immigrants to instantly become citizens, but for legal immigrants such as Trump's mother and wife to wait years or decades to become citizens? Trump notices this unfairness and wants to fix it - Hillary does not. My opponent also notes Hillary helped broker a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. This is a very, very low bar to clear. Israel and Hamas have continued sporadic attacks for years since then. Trump seeks a lasting peace in the region, and who better to negotiate it than the best negotiator on the planet?
To begin my rebuttals, I'd like to note my opponent's rebuttals only very rarely respond to my points. Because of this, a traditional response is difficult. I hope my opponent will use his next roun to get into policy specifics, such as the benefits of Trump's tax plan or the harm caused by free trade deals.
My opponent argues tariffs on China and Mexico would harm American consumers, especially poor ones. This is true, but it would also hurt China and Mexico worse. The proposed tariffs are not policies - they are negotiating positions. Unless Mexico and China act fairly, they will be treated as economic enemies. Mexico and China, who rely on US purchases of their exports, will not risk losing the US market and will comply with demands. Contrast this pretty solid position with Hillary, who praised the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals before deciding to oppose it for political reasons. Trump saying Democrats tend to run the economy better isn't a problem either - unlike Hillary, he's willing to cross party lines and work with the other side, and recognize when they do accomplish things.
My opponent argues Trump supported the Iraq war. This is misleading at best. Trump gave a few comments along the lines of "sure, I guess", but noted the job should have been finished during the Gulf War. During the early stages of invasion - which were undoubtably the best periods of the war - Trump was more optimistic. But he quickly realized the war would be bad well before many others. Contrast this with Hillary, who voted for invasion and then attempted to duck the blame when it backfired. My opponent also attempts to defend the failed Iran Deal. While she claims it helped keep them from a nuke, that's silly. It awarded Iran over $55 billion to fund it's terrorist regime and nuclear program. If that's a success, I don't know what failure is.
It is also an outright lie to claim Trump supported the Iran Deal. He did not. In 2011 - well before the 2015 Iran Deal - he supported negotiating with Iran's then-President. His negotiation plan? Threaten war if Iran didn't stop developing nukes. That's far, far different from the 2011 deal. To say Trump supported the Iran Deal negotiated in 2015 by John Kerry is a lie. Point blank.
My opponent also argues Benghazi isn't a problem anymore. Like Hillary, he thinks at this point it doesn't matter. That's wrong. The Benghazi scandal revealed her illegal use of a private email. It also revealed her early acceptance of the attacks as terrorism, despite her later claims it was just a reaction to a youtube video.
My opponent dismisses many of these scandals by claiming they only apply to Bill. Considering Hillary has said Bill will have a big role in her administration on the economic front, it is entirely fair to bring them up. He tries to defend Hillary's defense of a child rapist by claiming she did her job. That's true. But it's one thing to do your job, another to laugh at the victim and accuse her of lying. This woman - who we know was raped by this man - had her life ruined by Hillary Clinton. He tries to defend Hillary's link to communist Saul Alinsky by arguing Obama was linked to him too. This is maybe the worst excuse I've ever heard. He then tries to pivot to Trump's business bankrupcies, but it's not very effective. While it is true Trump has failed in some businesses, that is what happens when you are a businessman - you win some and lose some. And, being worth over $10 billion, he's certainly won far more than he's lost.
Finally, on judges my opponent argues bizzarrely that because Congress won't confirm Obama's SCOTUS pick, Trump can't be trusted to appoint judges. That's silly. Congress is not run by Trump. Trump does not run Congress, but even if he did stalling a nomination is a perfectly legitimate strategy. The Democrats stalled many judges under Bush. My opponent never contests that Hillary's justices would strip our constitutional right to keep and bear arms or push a far-left agenda. What does that say about his case here?
This round I shall be defending my case, as my opponent did in his previous round, this will include C4 since it is part of my Opening Arguments.
Unlike my opponent's claims, I have easily provided cases for Hillary, he just fails to see it as I add it in constantly with the bombardments on Trump, though it may not be as obvious. As much as I dislike both politicians and really don't think either of them should be president as a personal opinion, Hillary is obviously the better choice.
Contention 1: Immigration and Deportation
My opponent claims that they are doing bad things like taking our jobs, but the thing is, they are taking jobs that no one actually wants to do, from farmhands to maids/buttlers. We also have to remember, unlike Trump's claim, they are sending some really good people as 34% of software engineers, 44% Medical scientists, and 25% chemists . We want to deport these people? Do you know what this would do to a vast majority of America? Getting rid of almost half of our Medical scientists is something that will significantly harm our nation. If anything, we should ennact Hillary's plan and grant them anmesty as not only are they working, but their work is benefitting all Americans, no matter who you are.
My opponent claims that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, but that's absurb. The National Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has reported that in this past year, illegal immigrants have paid over $11 billion . I don't know about you, but that's a huge amount of taxes that we would be getting rid of. If you actually go to this source, you'll see it has an interactive map on how much taxation was paid by them. They have also reported that Obama's executive action has lead to an increase in local taxes profit by $805 million. My opponent states that this is not a lot, but we do still have to realize that they accounted for that much of our growth is still a huge aspect. If you get rid of that our growth would have lost $698,809,333,333 . That is a huge loss for the US that would have occured. My opponent can downplay these numbers all he wants, but you can't defy simple statistics. My opponent harps on American jobs with the unemployment, but we still have to see that the US would have lost $700 billion if this would have occured. That is appalling.
My opponent is simply doing incorrect math here. Illegal immigrants are sending $63 billion home, but they are adding $700 billion to our GDP and they are paying $11 billion in taxes. These numbers completely trump my opponents arguments. Even if that's the case. We can see that the US is one of Mexicos top trading partners and they can easily be purchasing American made products leading to more American jobs based on the increased demand on the foreign market for American products. If you take this away, outside of all the other bad effects I've already mentioned, but we would see a loss of American jobs as these Latinos would be unable to purchase as much American products as they would have less money to purchase them with.
My opponent wants to talk about how Trump's taxes will increase wages by that much, but let's look at some other effects of it, like the decrease of national income by $12 trillion. With the ballooning of interest on debt as well as our Social Program, the US deficet will skyrocket . This isn't fixing the issue, it's making it worse. Hillary may lower wages by 0.9%, but we are able to actually come close to paying all of our bills compared to Trump where we are destroying our economy, paying for more projects than ever, and loosing income to pay for it all . That's not fixing the problem, that's making it worse, while Hillary solves for taxes. Either way, my opponent has dropped this argument, so please extend it across.
Though Trump may has talked about compramise, we can't ignore that his plan will cost our GDP over a trillion dollars and will plunge our economy into a Depression. This argument has a huge Impact in this debate and it has been dropped. This is a huge economic depression that could wreck our economy and Trump would lead the charge off the Fiscal cliff and make America poor again. Hillary, will help us by granting amnesty.
Contention 2: Clinton the Unifier
My opponent claims that this statement is false, but even if that's even remotely true, which it's not. We can see that Trump is stereotyping all Mexicans, legal and not, that they are all villianous people. Hell, there are people who are getting brainwashed by this propaganda that he is throwing out there.
As much or whatever my opponent wants to spin this, Trump is causing these riots happening through his hateful speeches. Even if they are Bernie supporters, things like this wouldn't be happening if Trump wasn't such a demagogue. My opponent has discarded my study saying it's untopical, but it's a legittamate study contrary to whatever my opponent believes as it help shows, without the political aspect, that this does occur. You have to accept my scientific study in this debate as it's political neutral in this case. Trump has caused these issues and there is no doubt that this is true. Does this happen at Clinton rallies? The answer is no. Why? It's because she's not a hateful bigot just saying terrible things just to get people on board, though he has no idea what he's talking about. I mean what do you call Trump thanking the Orlando Shooter and patting himself on the back after the shooting? Do we really want someone who ignores the people killed just for his own agenda?
My opponent is miscontrewing the data that I provided. My opponent talks about Muslim American support increasing things about Islamic Extremism in the US, but no where in the study or what my opponent is talking about saying anything about surveillance in Muslim American Neighborhoods and Mosques. My study has shown that not only does it not work, but it's unconstitutional. My opponent has dropped this argument, please extend it across in this debate.
Contention 3: Domestic Policy
My opponent talks about how Trump is grilled by the media and this somehow makes him more open. This is absolutely false. Trump has only stated in stone that he talks about just a few issues, 7 on his website. This shows he has some sort of a hidden agenda. Donald Trump has banned the Washington Post for their coverage of him . I would like to remind you that Richard Nixon was the only US President to ban them. It goes to show you just how corrupt Trump is.
Indeed it would harm jobs, but we do have to remember that abolishing the minimum wage and leaving it to red states would harm all Americans. This point was agreed to by my opponent, he also dropped how Trump has flipped flopped on this issue and certainly he is even arguing it here in this debate.
Even if Clinton changed her's in the 2000, Trump changed his 3 times in three hours. Do we want a Presidnet who can't actually make up his mind on the issue. My opponent has also dropped the Trump comment on Punishing women for getting an abortion. Not just late term, but any abortion at all.
I have absolutely no idea what my opponent is talking about here. In the Court Case DC V Heller, Late SCOTUS Justice Scalia on page 53-54 of his ruling claimed that there can be limitations in the Right to bare arms. Meaning that Congress can Constituionally create Gun Control . This is from the most Conservative Judge that was on the SCOTUS. My opponent's case is simply a farse. Please extend my arguments.
Contention 4: Leadership Trumps
My opponent is incorrect, these comments were made when she was running against Obama. This can still hold true through today as my opponent's claim is incorrect here.
Trump has made some outragous comments on the military and many military groups had selected Clinton over him. Overall, Veterans support Trump, but only by a slim, very slim lead, while in many other elections, the Veterans had a significant lead of the GOP over the Democrats. This just shows how bad Trump is. I've already refuted much on immigration, so please extend that from C1. My opponent claims that Trump is the best negotiated, but I guess that's what we get from a man who has faced several bankruptcies, Trump University being a failure, and Eminet Domain, it seems like failure and force to me.
I'd like to thank my opponent for a solid debate.
Throughout this debate, there has been a pretty clear pattern: while I give solid, affirmative points in favor of Trump, my opponent mostly ignores whatever positive qualities of his candidate in favor of attacking Trump. He didn't begin truly giving affirmative reasons for Hillary until I pointed this problem out. As much as he wants to say, his focus in this debate was not constructive, and in abscence of a compelling case for Hillary, it's impossible to call her better than Trump. As I said - Trump can be a bad person with bad policies. But that means absolutely nothing if you don't prove Hillary isn't better.
I would also like to note the massive numbers of arguments my opponent never even touched this debate. These include:
*The massive benefits of Trump's tax plan (notice he never gave a Hillary tax plan).
*The destructive harm of trade deals like NAFTA and TPP that the Clintons either negotiated directly or supported.
*Hillary being more liberal than Obama, as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and only marginally less liberal than avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.
*Hillary would continue the disastrous war policies of the last 13 years, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
*Most of her scandals
*The massive economic harms of her $12 dollar minimum wage policy.
*Clinton's support of sanctuary cities, which resulted in the murder of Kate Steinly.
*No Hillary press conferences in 180 days.
My oppponent also outright dropped his abortion argument (where I noted Hillary's defense of late-term abortion was outside the scope of Roe v. Wade and public opinion), one of only three constructive arguments he made in the first round. In other words, a third of his case for Hillary was thoroughly refuted to the point he never mentioned it again.
The themes here are obvious: Hillary just isn't defensible. She's a corrupt politician who has had more scandals than you can count on your fingers and toes, and is also a partisan hack who would institute a radical agenda. Because of this, it is necessary to attack any opponent first and then say "Well, we know she's bad but maybe he's worse", which is a terrible way to argue. In contrast, as I established early, Trump is a unifier. He will work with both sides to bring the best outcome for the American worker. He'll bring jobs back from countries that have stolen them. He'll protect the American worker and legal immigrants from people who violate the law. He'll protect your right to keep and bear arms. He'll appoint judges like Antonin Scalia. He'll avoid our current situation of endless war brough on by both parties. But above all, he'll Make America Great Again.
I like to thank my opponent for this debate. Before I go into my conclusion and the key voting issues on this debate, I will show a political cartoon to lighten the mood a bit.
Throughout this debate, one thing has remained constant. The failures of Donald Trump and how he's toxic in for this country. My opponent has brought we have to realize how much of a failure and how much damage he is going to cause to our nation. He doesn't even know what issues he believes in on many issues.
In this debate the key issue that you should be voting on is the one with the greatest impact and that it Trump's dangerous immigration policy. We can see that it will cost America $1 trillion of our GDP, that will wreck our economy. This is a huge issue that occurs and my opponent has dropped it. We can also see that illegal immigrants pay their fair share in taxes and unlike what Trump says, Mexico is sending some great people as they have a great deal of important high skilled people. We can see that if we do this we'd lose $2 trillion just by ennacting this and nearly $700 billion each year. This entire argument was dropped, and since it has the most important and worst negative impact, this should be reason enough to vote for me off of this argument alone.
We can see that unlike Trump, Hillary is quite quallified with introducing a multitude of bills and has helped out in a ton of places. Trump has been shown to have a multitude of bankrupticies and his Trump University issue that he's being sued for that scam. My opponent targets Hillary on a multitude of things, but we have to realize that a lot of these things she's proven otherwise or these things are applicable to Bill. We also have to remember that Trump has flip flopped on several issues throughout the debate. Trump has only written 7 issues in stone to Hillary's 35. Hillary has been open and transparent vs. Trump and his hidden agenda. Trump doesn't really support our country as he thanked the Orlando shooter and patted himself on the back on this issue just hours after it happened. How can we trust a guy like this.
We've looked at Trump's tariff plan and seen the issues involved hear on how much it will cost Americans. This is another huge impact that my opponent has dropped. We will lose 78% of our exports to our greatest trade partners. You want to talk jobs, Trump kills more than he will create. We also can see that prices will rise by 30% while the average American will lose 53% of their income. Here is another impact that this debate that my opponent drops. It will significantly harm our country and destroys way more than Trump claims to save.
With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Since I did not award any points, I do not have to explain my decision.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Half vote in the comment section... But as unfinished, it cannot be anything more than a tie.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Test
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.