The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bernie Sanders Should Win The Democratic Nomination Over Clinton

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 377 times Debate No: 87824
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




First round is for acceptance. Good luck!


Hillary Clinton deserves the Presidency over Bernie Sanders for a great number of reasons.

For starters, Sanders is a self-defined Socialist. Being that liberal rarely ever got any past President the nomination, because for the most part, being Socialist is a one issue path. Sander's only argument over Hillary ever is "The Wall Street crooks are destroying this economy."

Sanders is more interested in taking down the the backbone of the American economy than making a foreign policy that could save America from terrorism while stopping big business from outsourcing jobs to Mexico, Vietnam, etc. (Which is exactly what Hillary plans on doing.)

Sanders also supports removing the federal prohibition on marijuana, while Clinton wants it less restrictive to better the research on its use. This will only benefit Americans because marijuana is a gateway drug which will only make it easier for teenagers to get their hands on it which is dangerous. The growing mind doesn't need a drug clouding judgement and leading towards poor choices.

Both candidates aggressively support LGBTQ marriage equality, but Sanders is not as rigorously fighting for gender equality as Clinton is.

The only upper hand that Sanders had over Clinton is trustworthiness. The e-mail scandal is very popular, but lacking greatly in substance. The most common argument is "she lied" about them, which simply is not true. She only told what she could about the situation because she didn't want a foreign hacker to get into the less secure (although still government issued, and therefore secure) account. She was simply looking out for the best for Americans and still does today.

She also has great experience with being Secretary of the State department. She personally visited 112 countries and made deals to make America (pardon me for saying this...) great.

However heated the argument between the two Democratic candidates, anyone can agree that either would be better than any of the Republicans running.
Debate Round No. 1


Konichiwa! I'd like to start off this debate by thanking my opponent for accepting. Arigatou!

Case 1: Clinton is a Proven Hypocrite

Something I'd like to point out:

"Asked by The Post last month about the role of the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, Clinton shrugged her shoulders and said, “I don’t know.”"

Wow. Clinton doesn't know. It's funny how Hillary denounces Super PACs but relies on two of them. (1)

Hillary Clinton was against LGBT for the longest time. She came in favor of gay marriage in 2013. In 2003, when she was pro-traditional marriage, more than 60% of the American people were for traditional marriage. When she came out for gay marriage in 2013, it was around 60% in favor! (2) A quote from the article:

"Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.

As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.

It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop."

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War when it was popular. She now comes to regret that decision. A quote from the article:

"After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation." (2)

She voted for it when 62% of Americans were for the Iraq War. Here's Clinton going for the mainstream again. But howwould she know that the war was a mistake? How could she know? Oh, poor Hillary! She would've known if she would've listened to Bernie Sanders!

Watch Sanders' stance. Clinton went by polls. Sanders went by logic. I'd rather have a president who's logical than a president who's weak and goes by the polls.

Case 2: Bernie's Plans Will Work

"Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.

This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.

Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term."




"The most commonly proposed alternative to both government or private control is worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Sanders has expressed his support for such systems and there is indeed much to be said about them. But the problem I find is that they will still operate within a capitalist society, which means competition, survival of the fittest; which means that if you can’t sell more than your competitors, if you can’t make a sufficient net profit on your sales, you will likely be forced to go out of business; and to prevent such a fate, at some point you may very well be forced to do illegal or immoral things against the public; which means back to the present.

Sanders has to clarify his views. What exactly does he mean by “socialism”? What exactly is the role the profit motive will play in his future society”?

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War Fulbright Scholar in Warsaw: “I asked my students to define democracy. Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education and housing for all. In other words, socialism.” (3)



A controversy arose in March 2015, when it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton exclusively used her family's private email server for her official email communications while she was the United States Secretary of State, rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal government servers.

There is debate as to the propriety of various aspects of Secretary Clinton's arrangement. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her use of privatemessaging system software, and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. In response, Clinton has said that her use of personal email was in compliance with State Department laws and regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts.

Nearly 2,100 emails on the server have been retroactively marked as classified by the State Department, though they were not marked as classified at the time they were sent. This includes 65 emails deemed secret and 22 deemed "Top Secret". Government policy, reiterated in the non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton as part of gaining her security clearance, is that sensitive information should be considered and handled as classified even if not marked as such. After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question fell into this so-called "born classified" category, a probe was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding how classified information was handled on the Clinton server." (4)


In a February 2010 message, Clinton exclaimed: “It’s a public statement! Just email it.” Sent moments later, the document merely said U.S. and British officials would cooperate to promote peace. “Well that is certainly worthy of being top secret,” Clinton responded sarcastically.

But the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act reviewers found plenty of cases where releasing the emails in uncensored form today, more than three years after Clinton left office, would pose diplomatic or national security concerns."(5)

She seems so worried about the American people there.

Clinton failed. My earlier statement proves that.

I have reached the character limit.

In Conclusion:
Clinton is a hyprocrite.
Sanders' plans will work.
Clinton goes off of polls.

I am a conservative; but I back Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz.



jacobryder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


jacobryder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


jacobryder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Valkrin 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: In addition to better conduct for Con's forfeiture, Pro demonstrates Clinton's hypocrisy as well as demonstrating that Bernie's plan can work.