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

Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 89891
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (2)




I challenge WilliamsP to a debate concerning whether or not Bernie Sanders would make a good president when elected. I will be arguing that he will not, while my opponent will be arguing that he will. Most of my arguments will be based on economic factors, though there are a few other factors as well.

The first round is for acceptance only. The second round is for arguments only; no rebuttals in the second round. The third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals.
Forfeiture will result in a loss of conduct points.


I accept jamccartney's challenge to debate the effectiveness, stability, and prosperity level of a Bernie Sanders presidency. I consider myself an avid supporter of his campaign, and I too am a Social Democrat. I look forward to my opponent's arguments and hope to counter them in a way which will sway both the viewers and my opponent himself. Without further ado, let us begin.
Debate Round No. 1



I would like to begin by thanking WilliamsP for accepting this debate. Let us get started.


I will begin by detailing some key facts about Bernie Sanders’ economic plan.

By looking at Bernie Sanders’ website, specifically on a page titled “How Bernie pays for his proposals,” it is evident that Bernie will enact policies that, in order to be paid for, will require an increase in payroll taxes and the income taxes of individuals, particularly high-income individuals. After looking at this page, I added up the costs of each of those programs, as well as the amount of added revenue after the tax increases.

Under Bernie Sanders’ plan, tax revenue will increase $13.6 trillion over the next decade. This will include revenue from the new 6.2% employer-side payroll tax and the new 2.2% broad-based income tax. Overall, the marginal tax rates would be significantly increased, as well as the cost of capital and the amount of capital needed to start a business. As a result, the GDP would decrease 9.5 percent long term. After that decade is over, the increase in taxes “would lead to a 10.56% lower after-tax income for” the bottom 99% “and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84%.[3]

Another source of tax revenue under Sanders’ plan comes from healthcare. Currently, people do not pay taxes on the value of the health insurance provided by their employers. Were people to pay taxes on this today, federal tax revenue would increase by over $300 billion.[4] Under Bernie’s plan, though, privately-provided insurance would go away; instead, employers will have to add the value of the insurance policies they used to provide to their employees’ paychecks. This ends up increasing said employee’s taxable income. Furthermore, employers would be required to pay employer-side payroll taxes on that new income. This adds up to $3.6 trillion in added federal revenue.[2] After taking into account the reduction of the GDP? (36*10^11) - ((36*10^11)*.095) = $3.25 trillion.

Presently in 2016, there are currently 7 federal income tax brackets.[5] Under Sanders’ plan, two more brackets are added, and their rates are increased. For example, if you make $10 million or more each year, 52% of your income is taxed. Between $2 and $10 billion a year? 48%. Furthermore, if your wealth exceeds $1 billion, an extra 10% is added to your estate tax.[2](Estate tax increases anywhere from 5% to 25%[3].) Now, in addition to ordinary income, there is also taxation on capital gains and dividends. We know that dividends are taxed twice: Once as income and then again a second time. If you make more than $10 million a year, you end up paying at least 104% of what you received in dividends. It does not take an economics major to see that there is a problem with paying more than you received.[3]

Under Bernie Sanders’ new tax proposal and spending plan, the GDP would decrease 9.5%. Capital investment would decrease 18.6%. Average wages (after taxes) would go down 4.3%. Approximately 6 million full-time jobs will be lost. This would, to say it softly, crush the economy.

Bernie Sanders would also increase the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour. Now, the existence of a minimum wage is an entirely different debate on its own, so I will not go into detail right now, but there are a few key points I need to go over concerning it. A minimum wage decreases the amount of low-skilled jobs. A wage should reflect the amount of work the job demands. Is a door opener at a hotel worth $15 an hour? No. Is it worth $7.25? Probably. Increasing the minimum wage would also increase the cost of running a business and having employees. While this could change in the long run, it will ultimately remove certain jobs from existence and kick out those who are employed in those positions.

I will now go on to talk about trade.

Bernie Sanders is opposed to free trade. In a page on his site, "On the Issues: Income and Wealth Inequality," it says, "Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries." This shows a lack of knowledge of the issues. If Bernie knew what it was like to run a business, he could see that this is a ridiculous concept. One cannot just dictate business activity so recklessly when it will have unintended consequences, which this would. Also, free trade boosts not only our economy, but the global economy as well. While yes, American companies employ people in other countries, foreign companies also employ Americans. It it not a one-way concept. Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company but employs over 30,000 Americans.[7]

Furthermore, the gender wage gap, which Bernie's site calls "an outrage," is a myth.[6] Yes, on average, women get paid less than men, but this is not for the same job. Women tend to have jobs that pay, on average, 78 cents to the average dollar a man makes. It is not for the same job, it is an overall average.


I believe I have sufficiently given a good amount of facts in opposition to a Bernie Sanders presidency. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in favor of it.





Allow me to organize my arguments in favour of a Sanders presidency around these three broad points: a) qualifications, b) character, and c) vision. In the first point, I will cite his experience and his judgement; in the second, I will discuss his honesty, sincerity, and trustworthiness and argue that he is surely the most honourable statesman of our time; and in the third, I will go in depth as to the merits of Social Democracy, the projected successes of his domestic policies, and his judgement in foreign affairs.


Bernard Sanders was born in Brooklyn on 8 September, 1941. He graduated from the University of Chicago and served on the faculty of Harvard. He ran in ‘72 and ‘74 unsuccessfully for the Senate, but as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, from ‘81 to ‘89, he stood up for certain communities’ rights, which would have been political suicide at the time. He was elected to the House from Vermont’s at-large district in ‘90 and served until ‘07, the year he took the oath of United States senator from Vermont. He chaired the Committee on Veterans Affairs in the 113th Congress [1]. Of all current presidential candidates (including the ones who left the race), Senator Sanders has by far the most experience in elected office. Now, the most important question is not of qualification but of judgement. That leads me to my second point.


Other than recent shifts on gun safety measures, the senator is very consistent and never flip-flops. Dave Gram of writes, “During Sanders' near decade as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, during his eight terms holding Vermont's lone House seat and during his near decade in the Senate, the message has stayed the same: The rich are absconding with an immorally large part of the country's wealth, and ordinary people have been getting the short end of the stick. Clinton has gone from opposing same-sex marriage rights to supporting them. Howard Dean, the last Vermont presidential candidate, was a centrist governor who became a liberal representing the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,’ when he saw the left flank open in the 2004 primary campaign.Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-1990s signed by Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton’” [2].

You can disagree with a man’s policies, but it is unfounded—and untrue—to call him just another politician benefiting off of the work and contributions of people and corporations, to say he is dishonest and does not care about the issues or the general populace. I would argue that part of being a “good” president or leader is not just about policies but also about character. Andrew Jackson did not only commit genocide of thousands of natives—he was, simply put, a stuck-up, aristocratic, power-hungry prick. Say Jimmy Carter’s presidency was a bit lackluster—do not attack his character. Credibility is also crucial, which is one of the main reasons I brought all of this up. Someone who has told the truth time and again and truly invested himself emotionally into these issues will be more likely to be truthful as to substance and policy. On to the main argument, now:


Senator Sanders has been very open about his vision for the country, which is one of Social Democracy. Essentially, a system of Capitalism plus a strong social-safety net; essentially, elements and aspects and the general goal of Socialism achieved through democratic means. I happen to be writing a book about Social Democracy (titled The Human Birthright of the Social Democracy) right now, and I have done my research and solidified my philosophies, thus I feel comfortable discussing the topic. Let us first enumerate and analyze the senator’s specific agenda:

  • Single-payer healthcare for all

  • Tuition-free college for all

  • A fifteen-dollar minimum wage

  • Decriminalizing marijuana

  • Lowering incarceration rate, demilitarizing police

  • A logical, compassionate foreign policy

  • Overturn Citizens United and restore democratic power to the people

  • Back out of transnational trade deals

These are the pillars of the society the senator envisions. There are many more details, and these I will go into later. To be clear with my opponent and viewers, single-payer is a system of healthcare lacking private insurance companies and in which government pays all medical fees. I would like to point to Canada as an example.

Bruce Robinson writes, “Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead” [3]. Canada, by the way, is the prime example of Social Democracy at its best. Incompetent comparisons to the USSR or Cuba drive me mad.

Because of character limits, I urge everyone to look at the third source I posted. It provides a clear outline of the Canadian single-payer system.

Do not take government’s word for it that a fifteen-dollar minimum wage can be afforded. How about tech giants themselves? Marc Benioff, CEO and founder of, in response to CNN, says, “I love that, and I think we should do that for the whole country. That's one way to bring everybody up" [4]. I admit to not being an economics expert, but I do know this: All policies may have unintended consequences. Just look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, leading directly to the 2008 financial crisis. Oops, I guess. But the senator also proposes renewing and improving our infrastructure, which he projects to create some 13 million jobs. “Benioff's minimum wage call is part of a broader argument he's making: The old business school mantra that shareholder returns are paramount is outdated. ‘The most important thing that matters is the stakeholder return. You have many different stakeholders. Each one has to be taken care of. You need to rise them all up,’ he said.”

People here, from my experience, cry, “Socialist! Communist! Oh, big government!” when they do not even understand the policies at hand. Maternal leave has been passed in almost every developed nation, and we are one of the only ones that has not passed it. These outrageous college tuition prices, our quality of healthcare… For a country that prides itself in “freedom,” is this not lackluster? Is this not proof of the failure of Western Capitalism? According to Discovery News, the top ten happiest countries are Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Austria, Iceland, and Australia [5]. Now tell me, please, how is it that there is so much gun violence and so much national pride here, such faith in “freedom,” and we are not even in the top ten of happiest nations? We have good reason to be unhappy, for my opponent’s brand of Capitalism, for the Republican Party’s brand of Capitalism, is utterly destructive.

My opponent discusses free trade. I too would like to make this a piece of my argument, so please do not count this as a rebuttal or conduct violation. I will not tackle his points but rather make my own.

In the MSNBC Democratic debate on 4 February, Senator Sanders said, ”I do not believe in unfettered free trade. I believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families, not just large multinational corporations. I was on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA. We heard people tell us how many jobs would be created. I didn't believe that for a second because I understood what the function of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and the TPP is: it's to say to American workers, hey, you are now competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum wage. This is an area where [Hillary Clinton] and I have disagreements” [6].

[My argument is fairly long, so please allow me to post the rest into the comments.]
Debate Round No. 2


jamccartney forfeited this round.



Counter-rebuttals are reserved for later rounds. For now, I will simply be looking at my opponent’s opening remarks. Let me also ask the voters that they do not count jamccartney’s forfeiture as a conduct violation.


Allow me to summarize my opponent’s opposition to a Sanders presidency in point-format.

  • 9.5% reduction of gross domestic product

  • Negative economic impact of fifteen-dollar minimum wage

  • Capital investment decrease of 18.6%

  • Average wage decrease of 4.3%

  • Loss of 6 million full-time jobs

  • Wage gap is a myth

  • Free trade boosts the economy

My opponent utilizes the Tax Foundation, as well as his own math, to come up with all of these different numbers. Alright, I am no economist, nor do I splendidly well in my math classes, but really, I will trust the economists before I trust the mass media or right-wing-biased foundations. And, of course, CNN has its biases, and I would argue it is biased towards establishment politicians from the left and right. If CNN publishes a story in favour of certain aspects of a Sanders presidency, then we can open our eyes.

On 8 February, 2016, Tami Luhby wrote, “Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.” She cites Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor of economics, who I consider to be a greater authority on this than my opponent, who, in comparison to me, is certainly much better at math.

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.

Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders' plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.

Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)

Also, Sanders would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.

"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."

And I believe the facts I laid out in regards to free trade are more than adequate a challenge to my opponent’s remarks about it.

My opponent argues that the gender gap is a myth. Well… no, it is not [2].

[R]esearch has shown that even when women enter traditionally “male” fields, they make less. In fact, research looking at pay changes over decades has shown that when more women enter a traditionally male field, pay within that field begins to decline. As The New York Times reported, when more women began working in parks or running camps, for example, median hourly wages declined by 57 percentage points. Same goes for fields like design, housekeeping and biology. Conversely, when more men enter a traditionally female field, wages go up.

I urge my opponent to read the full Huffington Post article.


Again, I ask the voters to not count jamccartney’s forfeiture as a conduct violation. I thank him for his arguments and his rebuttals and look forward to his next remarks.



Debate Round No. 3



I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving his rebuttals. It is the round for counter rebuttals, and I will give them now.


My opponent begins by denouncing "the mass media or right-wing-biased foundations," also stating that he "will trust the economists before" he trusts those organizations. He then states that since CNN "is biased towards establishment politicians from the left and right," if it "publishes a story in favour of certain aspects of a Sanders presidency," it must be true and "we can open our eyes." This, however, is irrational. CNN, as opposed to Fox News (a right-wing organization), is a liberal leaning news corporation that often favors the top Democratic candidates. Just as I do not use Wikipedia as a source for my arguments, I do not use articles by any of the mainstream media because they are biased in every realm: The researchers are biased, economists are biased, anchors are biased, etc. CNN is the antithesis of a reliable source.
This is why I feel the need to point out that a little over 43% of my opponent's arguments come from CNNMoney, and just over 14% of it comes from Huffington Post, making it a grand total of 57.3% of his arguments being copied directly from other sources. I also feel the need to point out that the Huffington Post article was written by Catherine Pearson, Huffington Post’s Women and Parents Senior Reporter, also the author of the articles “Why So Many Women Love The ‘Pull-Out Method’” and “What You Shouldn’t Say To A Mother Who Is Struggling To Get Pregnant.” The CNN article cited was written by Tami Luhby, a left-leaning Senior Writer. Both sources my opponent cited are from writers who are biased toward the topics they write about, negating my opponent’s point about using an unbiased source.

Moving on to the main rebuttals:

My opponent cites Tami Luhby, who cites Gerald Friedman’s economic growth predictions, stating that “would result in average annual output growth of 5.3% over the next decade, and average monthly job creation of close to 300,000.” According to respected economists Christina Romer, Ph.D and David Romer, Ph.D (long-time Democrats, if I might add), “careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, ‘if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.’ We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.”
Their three problems are as follows:

  1. Sanders’ plans assume that the effects of his policies occur through their “impact on demand. … However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible.”

  2. When you assume that the economic demand stimulus can raise productive output by 37% over the next decade, it is also assumed that the US economy performs far below its capacity, which is not the case. While there is indeed an output gap, it is nowhere near the level Sanders’ plan assumes it is at.

  3. “[A] realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.”

The above three issues are issues with Friedman’s analysis of Bernie Sanders’ economic plan. There is more: The level of redistribution Sanders’ plan would advocate for comes down to between 1% and 1.45% of the GDP. Friedman has also concluded that Sanders’ healthcare plan would cost roughly 4.3% of the GDP. According to the Romers, “Since a permanent change would raise the level of GDP in the first year and then leave it at the higher level, summing is not appropriate.” And, as Tim Worstall says, “the effects being claimed are too large to be even vaguely reasonable, the growth projections require us to be much worse off now than we actually are and the analysis assumes that all the bits of the plan will boost the economy, when in fact some parts will be a drag upon the economy.”

My opponent next goes into how a $15 minimum wage would “do more than merely increase economic activity.” (It was actually Luhby who said this). I must continue to make the same assertion I made in my original arguments: Increasing the minimum wage to such a level would decrease low-skilled jobs that are not worth such a pay. This would in fact lose jobs instead of create them. It is a common misconception that because big companies like McDonald's or Wendy’s generate so much revenue annually, the minimum wage can easily be increased by them. Proponents of an increased minimum wage forget that these companies are franchises, and their employees are actually employees of the individual franchises. Their wages, like that of employees of small businesses, come from the revenue of each store, not the corporation itself. Just as your local mom-and-pop store cannot afford to pay a $15 minimum wage to its employees, neither can franchise owners.

My opponent moves on next to free trade, though he claims his arguments in the previous round were sufficient enough to prove his point. I beg to differ. Free trade increases prosperity for all the people involved, because it gives consumers more purchasing power and better-quality products at lower costs (due to the lower cost of manufacturing). The increase in imports and exports in a free trade system accompany enhanced economic growth. Free trade also does not decrease Americans jobs. In addition, non-free trade does not necessarily increase jobs either; rather, protectionism focuses on jobs that a closed market cannot sustain. When the market is opened to the global stage, companies are able to compete at a greater scale.
Sanders cannot seriously consider the idea of getting rid of free trade if he knows what he is talking about. Not only to hundreds of foreign companies operate in the US, hundreds of US companies conduct business in foreign lands as well. Take Apple, for example, which conducts business in 18 countries, including the US. If it were to stop operating in 17 of them, the effect on Apple would be devastating. Yes, they would liquidate assets and keep that wealth, but it would run out as their market essentially disappears. An increased tariff would also harm the company, as they would have to increase their consumer prices in order to make up for the drastic loss of their net income.

Finally, the wage gap. My opponent asserts that the gender wage gap exists and that women earn 78 cents to every $1 a man makes for the same job. As I said earlier, the idea that women are paid 78 cents to every dollar a man makes is true only to some degree. This is an average. It is not 78/100 for the same job and same amount of work; instead, it is overall. Women prefer different jobs than men, and the jobs that men prefer tend to be higher paying. In Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It (Which is a great book and you should read it), Farrell explains that the wage gap is not because of wage discrimination; no, that was made illegal in 1963 when John F. Kennedy signed it into law. Instead, they make lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. This is not the case with all women, obviously, but it is a fact. The majority of women make the choice to have children instead of work full-time or seek higher-level jobs.

My opponent did not say anything about my point concerning the capital investment decrease of 18.6%, so there is nothing to refute there.


I have made sufficient refutations and have argued my points. I look forward to my opponent’s response.


2. “Senator Sanders’ Proposed Policies and Economic Growth”
5. Free Trade Today by Jagdish N. Bhagwati
7. Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It by Warren Farrell




Let me make note of the fact that many of my originally italicized texts became un-italicized when I copied them into DDO, and I neglected to fix that. Many of the statements I copied and pasted seem to merge with my written remarks. Anyway, I will now move on to challenge jamccartney’s rebuttals.


CNN is in fact biased towards the right. Okay, Cable News Network is owned by Time Warner, a major campaign contributor to establishment candidates. That alone makes it right-winged. On social issues, CNN is definitely progressive, but economically, at least on the surface, they seem to favour center-right policies. Believe me, I am from Europe, and what you call “Liberal” here is actually center-right or flat-out conservative.

Forgive me, but I have limited time, and I wish to draw this particular debate to a close tonight. I have a lot on my mind and a lot of stress, and doing such extensive research and becoming an expert in economics over the course of a few days… that is just a bit too much to me.

The minimum wage issue is an iffy thing, and arguments can be made on either side. I see what my opponent is saying, but there are plenty of well-known, educated economists that favour an increase in the minimum wage. I will leave it at that.

My opponent’s remarks on the wage gap have swayed me, and I concede on that point.

I will add nothing more on free trade. Perhaps I am stubborn, but I do believe my arguments were sufficient.


I will not flat-out concede to jamccartney, but I will be honest and say that he was the better debater here. I hope the voters vote fairly and justly. Thank you for this opportunity.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Clinton_4_prez_2016 2 months ago
I don't think that Bernie Sanders would make a good president. His policies are far too leftist.
I would vote for jamccartney, even though I thought WilliamsP's arguments were written better
Posted by TheDebaytDood 2 months ago
@ImDaBoss Also, your spelling looks almost as bad as your ideology. Can you clarify the meaning of the word "fack"?
Posted by TheDebaytDood 2 months ago
@ImDaBoss What does it matter if Bernie Sanders is Jewish? You are being extremely offensive by suggesting that that's a bad thing.
Posted by ImDaBoss 2 months ago
fack no Bernie is a commie and a kike its true look it up
WilliamsP u an your comminust frinds are al goin to hel you unamercan basterds
Posted by ChristopherCaldwell 5 months ago
If we're talking international politics she is center right. If we're talking American politics, she's socially liberal and economically moderataley right wing. Here in the United States, where we tend to focus more on social issues, Clinton is considered a liberal. This isn't Europe, so we cannot use their political spectrum as a source. If we do, why can't we say "Well in China Bernie is considered moderately libertarian while Trump and Clinton are radicals." Under the US spectrum, Hillary is a liberal. Period.
Posted by WilliamsP 5 months ago
She will not go after corruption in politics and big business, and she will do little against climate change to actually solve the problem. Socially, yes, she is fairly liberal, but economically, there is barely a difference between her and someone like Kasich. Say what you want, but from my perspective, she is definitely, definitely a centre-right politician. What you guys call "Liberals" are actually pro-corporate, centre-right puppets. This is my objective perspective, and this is my subjective European perspective. She is a Conservative. Period.
Posted by jamccartney 5 months ago
No, she's left-wing. Her policies are proof of this.
Posted by WilliamsP 5 months ago
Hillary Clinton is a centre-right politician.
Posted by jamccartney 5 months ago
Contributing to establishment candidates does not make you right-wing. Hillary is left-wing establishment.
Posted by jamccartney 5 months ago
Turns out I have time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Conspiracyrisk 5 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Con's points were that Bernie Sander's tax plans would cause people to pay unfair amounts of money, more than they received, an increase in minimum wage would make running businesses harder and cause many jobs to be lost, and that Sanders's views on trade are contrary to basic economic knowledge. Pro responds by citing other economists' opinions on Sanders. Con responds by detailing problems with these opinions. I find Con's arguments here to be stronger. Pro's main points are that Sanders has experience, consistency, and a vision that will be beneficial to Americans. Con responds by saying that character is low on importance in deciding whether someone would make a good president, and that Sanders's plans would likely cause losses of jobs, less competition, and harm to trade and the economy. Pro makes almost no response to this, and concedes the points on the wage gap and free trade. Obviously, I find Con to be the winner here. Good debate!
Vote Placed by ChristopherCaldwell 5 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had far more advanced arguments than Pro, especially in the final round, where Pro basically rolled over and provided no evidence for their claims. Pro also conceded multiple times, which in the world of rhetoric, is humbling every once in a while, but Pro constantly says he is "not an expert." Pro also had contradicting points. For example, in round 2, Pro says Con used right-wing foundations as their sources and discredits them because of this. Then in round 4, they the source THEY used is also right-wing biased. It should be noted that American politics and European politics are different and CNN is considered liberal, along with NY Times and Huffington Post. Con used a variety of sources and actual math to build their argument, while Pro used specifically liberal websites.