Debate: It is preferable Hillary Clinton is elected rather than Donald Trump
Resolution: On balance, it is preferable that Hillary Clinton be elected President of the United States in the 2016 election rather than Donald Trump.
Kritiks are not allowed and Con ought to present arguments in R1 and waive R4 and no new arguments in final round of argumentation.
I shall first start by quoting George Orwell: "Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity."
sources in comments.
Let the show begin.
1. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
First let me state that in 2003, like many other Americans, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supported the War in Iraq. However, the Donald, at the time, was little more than a private citizen. Hillary was an elected official: It was her duty to understand the facts, and not just vote in the heat of patriotic fervor for a war with Iraq (a state that had done nothing to the United States or her allies for over a decade), especially when there was a war already raging in Afghanistan, which needed more urgent attention and resources which were inevitably wasted in Iraq, both on the invasion and overthrow of Saddam, as well as the propping up of the officially recognized puppet state there now.
The problem with the War was how the rules of engagement were adjusted to make it a more politically fought war than a violent war, a decision that cost many US and coalition soldiers dearly. This is not a critique of President Obama's decisions, as that the policies he enforced were already in place during the Bush Administration. However, such policies, such as adopting the counter insurgency tactics of the French in the French-Algerian War, particularly those ideas of David Galula. It should be noted that France lost this war. So the US adopted the failed tactics of a defeated military to fight two wars simultaneously.
This decision was not made by US soldiers on the ground. These choices were made by individuals who sat in comfortable offices in the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill, quite safe from the reality of the violent nature of war. Clinton was one, and staunchly remains one, of these people. Trump has stated that he will adopt different, more violent tactics to win these wars.
2. Foreign Affairs Such as Trade, Refugees, and with Respect to Foreign States
To keep this brief, and elaborate at a later date, many of the free trade deals benefit not the American People nor the populations of other countries, but the multinational corporations which found sources of cheap labor. Americans lost jobs which were sent overseas to factories which employed what amounts to slave laborers.
Those staunch Capitalists who dislike my abhorrence of these internation free trade deals, please understand: These deals are not Capitalist. They are Corporatist, the scary bridge between Capitalism and Socialism. In Wealth of Nations, in those chapters dealing with Colonization, Adam Smith discusses, at lenght, what happens when large Corporations and Companies gain special favors from the government to conduct free trade outside of its borders. I encourage you all to read it, but in short, the larger companies, such as the British East India Company, profited greatly at the expense of indigineous peoples in India, as did the British African Company (at the expense of native Africans). Also, true British Capitalists, those entrepreneurs who sought to trade with far away lands and make a small fortune of their own found themselves at odds with trading laws. They were forced to pay a share of their profits to the big companies and were eventually swallowed up by them. Likewise, today the big American Corporations benfit, while small American companies must either rely on their gargantuan competitors for supplies, effectively giving them a share of their profits, or be willingly absorbed in the monster that is economic globalism.
The Refugee Crisis is certainly a heated topic. I wholly admit that Trump's plan to ban all Muslim immigrants (refugee or not) is foolish: A dedicated Wahhabiist will merely lie about being a Muslim in order to gain access and attack. However, this does come from the intention of protecting American citizens, which is a government's primary purpose. Clinton wants to accept many more refugees, putting more at risk of an attack. Even if not one of these refugees is a Wahhabi or Salafist, there is still the cultural clash to deal with. Look at what happened in Germany on New Year's Eve; a night of celebration turned into a nightmare for women as they were groped, robbed, and some even raped by refugees from an entirely different culture.
This final one is a topic which will touched upon again in a future number: donations made to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is known for not only funding terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, but also pushing the ideology of Wahhabiism in order to expand its own political influence. Mr. Trump has stated that he would enter into negotiations with many other Nations, and many times drawn criticisms for his comments, which included admitting he would talk to Kim Jong-Un. These policies, although not the most informed, are also not those policies which retain alliances and good relations with donors to a personal slush fund, as Ms. Clinton does.
3. Civil Liberties
Many of those policies enacted on the homefront as measures against terrorism were rightly criticized as erosions of Constitutional Rights and hard won civil liberties. Clinton and the Democrats were among those politicians pushing for these programs, claiming she favored "legal" spying. To quote my avatar "National Security at the expence of Personal Liberty is hardly a bargain" -The Marquis de Sade.
This is coupled with her avoiding prosecution for careless and wreckless handling of classified information. Whereas any other citizen, be it an individual who somehow gained access to classified information or a servicemember with a grudge, would not have gotten off so easily. However, the anointed successor to the current POTUS is free from even being charged with such treasonous behavior. This is truly Hobbesian. The President is still a citizen, and thus bound by the rule of law. All citizens are equal before the law, and Hillary does not get a free pass for herprogressive views.
4. Gun Rights
Here's a hot button issue. So, those of you who claim that you want to ban guns, may I make an argument made by many (especially in Progressive ranks) regarding the ban on drugs: How did banning someting work out during Prohibition?
The Right to Bear Arms is meant to keep the government in check. It keeps assemblies of the people peaceful, because should the government attempt a violent crackdown (as governments are historically prone to do), this can only ignite a civil war or a full-scale revolution (something nobody in a position of power wants). Hillary wants to remove this Right, so fundamental to Liberty. Donald does not. Although one may call me a conspiracy theorist for assuming she wants to instill authoritarian measures, her character certainly points to that conclusion.
5. Prominent Journalists Have Abandoned All Ethics to Support Hillary
This is shameful. Indeed, there is no wrong in reporting with a bias, but to deliberately ignore facts about her health and ask her softball questions such as "How was your weekend?", the prominent journalists of the mainstream have betrayed the ethics once made their professions so revered. The have disgraced the name the profession held by men like Jean-Paul Marat. To stand by, allow this to happen, and vote for Clinton is to betray not only the Revolutionaries who wrote our Constitution, but also those Revolutionaries in France, who crafted the Decleration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a document that was the foundation for defining Human Rights in the Twentieth Century.
Essentially, the Second Estate has been again filled with many individuals claiming to be Intellectuals, but avoiding Intellectual debate. The Fourth Estate, which has been so praised as the watchdog against tyranny, has been abandoned by its members who flock to the Second Estate. They, like the Cardinals and Bishops of that Second Estate not so long ago, have rallied to coronate a ruler. They just want the Third Estate to shut up and sit down, and meekly accept their serfdom.
6. Clinton's Corruption
Something I have touched upon already many times in this argument. From shady dealings with Wall Street Big Shots and Hollywood Progressives*, to accepting donations to the Clinton Foundation from shady sources and Totalitarian Regimes, Clinton has been caught numerous times with her Corruption in her hand. As stated above, her supporters in the Media have not even tried to spin this in her favor, they have merely written it off as business as usual. "The most corrupt candidate in history" must not win, for then the Nation is sold.
7. Trump's Business
The Donald, although he started off with a decent inheritance from his old man, did reinvest that money and become a billionaire. There is much criticism of his failure at a few businesses, but many of his businesses thrived. Many entrepreneurs fail, but Trump succeeded many a time, and failed occasionally.
He could bring his expertise into the political world. His ability to negotiate could help this country avoid more costly wars and more costly trade deals. Besides, unlike Clinton, who is a Progressive, Trump is a true Liberal is the classical sense of the word.
8. It comes down to this: Authoritarianism vs. Liberalism
Tonight I caught a brief glimpse of Obama's speech to the UN. In it, he said the current election is a contest between Authoritarianism and Liberalism. How right he was! However, he made the error of placing himself and Clinton as the Liberals. Are they not the side that wishes to remove the right to Resistance to Oppression? Is it not his Justice Department that wants to prosecute those who criticize theories of gloabal warming? Indeed, it is the current establishment which is authoritarian. It is time for a new leader, a man of the people.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!
The first reason has to do with the tax policies that the candidates plan to implement. Trump’s plan to reform how the US collects taxes focuses heavily on tax cuts. All income levels will experience them but the biggest benefits will go to the high-income elites due to reduction in income tax. The second area is in business taxation in which the corporate tax rate is reduced from 35% to 15%. The effect of these tax cuts is a huge loss of government revenue, a calculated $9.5 trillion. The impact of this is enormous, as the current US debt is already $19.3 trillion , a loss of $9.5 trillion in revenue would further harm the US’s ability to pay back the debt. The ability of the US to pay back the debt is imperative because of how much the debt hurts US citizens.
National debt has been shown in the past to cumulatively decrease economic growth by 25% , which is huge. Economic growth is the increase in a country's gross domestic products over a year. If this is cut by a quarter, the benefits that high economic growth are also pared. The benefits of economic growth are in reducing unemployment, raising individual incomes, and private investment, which maintains the cycle of growth . All of these things are highly desirable for citizens as they increase the quality of lives, which is the highest value a government can seek to achieve.
The national debt also leads to increased interest rates because of the increased consumer debt, which has various negative effects. People are incentivised to save money rather than spend it on goods because of the attractive interests in savings accounts, which leads to less money being spent on businesses and thus less money available to businesses to pay wages for employees.
Clinton’s tax policy would increase the income taxes on individuals and businesses slightly and thus increasing government revenue by $191 billion dollars even after accounting for decreased economic output because of decreased incomes .
Clinton is heavily preferable to Trump based on the economic effects of tax policies.
Trump opposes free trade and instead embraces a protectionist policy by promising to repeal free trade agreements and put tariffs on foreign (mainly Chinese) goods.
Free trade is an essential policy to keep because of its benefits. Imposing tariffs on countries with massive amounts of poor people that rely on cheap food (such as China and Mexico as Trump has proposed ) would raise the prices of the goods in order for the company to compensate for the extra expense on tariffs. This hurts the poor and starving’s ability to get subsistence. Even adopting the ideology of protectionism would likely lead to the punishment of oppressive governments through tariffs and given that oppressive governments are filled with at-risk people, this is extremely harmful to their wellbeing. Free trade is essential to their survival, and thus a Trump presidency guarantees the further suffering and impoverishment of at-risk people.
Not only that, but free trade is essential to the American jobs. “Exports to Mexico were over $1 billion in 31 states in 2015. It is the biggest export market for California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. It ranks second for 25 other states.”  Imposing tariffs on trade with Mexico would hurt US jobs by forcing businesses to compensate by raising the prices of goods and reducing the amount of employers and their wages.
The main focus of US foreign policy currently is terrorism. Clinton’s plan to fight terrorism consists of (a) taking out strongholds in Iraq and Syria through air attacks (b) supporting local forces on the ground and (c) pursuing diplomatic ends to the Syrian civil war and the Islamic sectarian war which led to the creation of ISIS .
Drone warfare has been found to be the most effective tactic against terrorist forces so far, and the biggest contributor to shrinking ISIS owned territory . The Kurds has also led the largest usurpation of ISIL territory thus far in the war, and most effective in holding gained territory . Utilizing both of these and maximizing their effectiveness is the best way to end terrorism.
Trump’s plan to defeat ISIL is to enlist the help of other countries such as Jordan, Egypt, NATO and Russia . The problem with these is that they are the same exact plans that Obama used during his administration, and none of them helped the war effort. Yet those that Clinton has suggested (drone attacks) were the sole one’s that were effective in fighting ISIS. Trump has provided no reasons for why his plans would succeed when they have failed in the past, thus it is reasonable to conclude that Trump’s plan will also fail, more so given his abrasive attitude.
Defeating ISIL is essential to the inhabitants of the Middle East. The death toll of ISIL related violence to be 55,047 civilian casualties, 18,802 people killed and 36,245 wounded. The violence has also caused 3,206,736 civilians to become internally displaced in Iraq. This inhibits the ability of over 1 million school age girls and boys access to housing, clean water, or education . Electing the best possible candidate is paramount to stopping this suffering, thus it is imperative that Clinton be elected rather than Trump.
I’ll now go to rebutting my opponent’s arguments.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
This argument has no impact as it doesn’t forward how the fact that Clinton and Trump both supported the Iraq war makes one of them preferable to the other. How does this affect how effectively Clinton will govern? It doesn’t, and the argument becomes increasingly pointless given that both candidates falsely supported the war (which even further wasn’t Clinton’s fault since Con concedes it was Bush’s), but what makes the fact that Clinton supported it different than Trump? Trump is a candidate for president, his past political convictions are *just* as relevant as Clinton’s (read: regardless of whether Clinton held office.)
Foreign Affairs Such as Trade, Refugees, and with Respect to Foreign States
Many of Con’s points here overlap with my opening arguments. This is true of free trade, but my argument trumps Con’s because Con provides no warrant for his claim that Americans lose jobs or that it exploits cheap labor (the former is flatly untrue and my argument proves that), but regarding the latter; the alternative, tariffs, would not change the fact that companies exploit cheap labor. Free trade actually mitigates it (read: doesn’t instigate it) because companies who have to pay tariffs look to make up for the lost costs and find it in exploiting cheaper labor. Tariffs will only incentivise companies to pay workers cheaper, or switch from waged employees to cheap labor (or child labor) as Con talks about.
Con’s immigration argument can be negated by referring to my argument on immigration.
The impact of Con’s final point about Saudi Arabia donating to Clinton Foundation isn’t clear. It begs the question: “So what? How does this make Trump preferable?” I already analyzed Trump and Clinton’s approach to terrorism, so any impact that could come out of this already falls under that.
The first point on national security is merely asserted, and thus isn’t expanded on enough for me to respond to (argument doesn’t have any impact.)
The second point about Clinton mishandling classified information asserts that all citizens ought to be equal before law, thus Clinton should have been punished for her crimes. This is wrong for two reasons: firstly this has no relevance to preferability (has nothing to do with how the country will be improved) and secondly, Clinton is not exempt from the law and had multiple investigations done into the scandal of which nothing was found that could incriminate her. Thus, since she is prosecuted as a normal citizen, there’s no impact here regardless.
This argument is a straw man, Clinton does not believe in a gun ban, she believes in universal background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and enforcing the no-fly list. That’s it .
This doesn’t become irrelevant until it affects the wellbeing of the country which Con has failed to elaborate on making this argument non topical. But regardless, Trump is equally or more corrupt than Clinton due to his Trump University scams, hiding tax returns, asking a foreign nation to hack his opponent, financing his own campaign, making business deals with the mob, ditching the Vietnam draft, adultery, accepting KKK endorsement, etc. This argument is negated by Trump’s own corruption.
Con argues that since Trump is a businessman he will avoid costly wars. But it doesn’t take a businessman to avoid costly wars firstly because there are hundreds of economic advisors smarter than Trump advising Clinton, and because it only takes common sense to avoid wars that will harm the US more than it helps. Plus the cost of wars is an issue of military strategies not buisness. Trump’s business experience is completely irrelevant.
Sources in comments
Sources in Comments. May also provide postscripts designated '*' and '^'.
The very first error in Pro's argument comes from his support for a Progressive Tax, something that I myself support. However, Clinton merely supports an increase in the progressive tax now. He neglects to mention that Trump does the same. However, Trump supports a progressive tax which includes all individuals in the upper class. Progressive Billionaire Warren Buffet pay almost nothing in taxes. The same is true for many of the elites on Wall Street and celebs in Hollywood. Should one truly believe that Clinton, with all of her Wall Street connections and Hollywood ties, that she will do anything the stop this tax avoidance by the elite using various loopholes designed for them?
In addition, Pro discusses how an income on taxation will improve the economy and decrease the National Debt. Simply raising taxes does nothing to decrease the National Debt, as that the expenditures of the US gov't tend to far exceed its incomes almost every year by trillions. A mere $191 billions will do little to decrease the debt, more on this later.
Clinton's plan is known as Keynesian* economics, in which in times of hardship, the gov't injects money into the economy, hoping this will work. In other words, the same old plans of both the Bush and Obama admins that failed each time. Thus we see that Clinton will simply try the same old tricks and hope for different results, mainly because the same old tricks are pleasing to her elite allies.
My opponent argues for Free Trade, but neglects to do so on an economic basis. Instead, his arguments are emotional, pleaing for the well-being of foreign factory workers and claiming that no US jobs are lost in these Corporatist trade deals. Noble as it may seem to take care of "at-risk people" under foreign and oppressive regimes, this is not the duty of the US gov't. The duty of the US gov't is to ensure the well-being of American citizens, not try to improve the lives of all people in the world. That job lies to the individual in other countries.
In addition, Pro makes the argument regarding Mexico and 25 other States. This assumes that Trump wants to cut off all ties. This is absurd, as a businessman such as Trump understands the importance of foreign trade partners. He has stated many times he merely wishes to renegotiate these trade deals. I also find it absurd that Pro supports a corporate tax but abhors a tariff, which is a tax in and of itself, one that will draw further income from powerful corporations.
Pro called my argument a straw-man regarding this topic. Then why is there a Delegate saying that Ms. Clinton will support a total gun ban, under the guise of "Common Sense Legislation?" http://townhall.com.... To quote David Hume, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
Pro sites many examples of Trump's corruption, and claims this negates Clinton's corruption: "This doesn’t become irrelevant until it affects the wellbeing of the country which Con has failed to elaborate on making this argument non topical." Clinton's corruption is in fact a major threat to the security of the Nation. First, I must discuss how all of Trump's "corruption" is either nonsense or not corruption at all. There are many successful graduates of Trump University. The whining of a few failures who have been picked up by the Progressive media is equivalent to an unemployed Stanford grad blaming Stanford for his failures. Hiding tax returns can be the same as Obama choosing not to expose his Birth Certificate. Personal documents, he has a right to privacy. Financing his own campaing! Are you mad, Pro? How is this corrupt? It should be honored and revered as opposed to Clinton who accepts large swaths of money in exchange for shady deals with gov't. Dodging the draft is something that should also be praised. No one should go to a war that they do not support. Accepting KKK endorsements, well, this Trump supporter expains it better than I can. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
As for adultery, did not Hillary excuse the infidelities of her husband, does she not excuse his repeated trips with the Palm Beach Pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.^
Now we come to the joint issue of asking a foreign Nation to hack Clinton's emails. First, this claim was little more than a conspiracy theory put forward by the Clinton Camp to hide their manipulation of the primaries to steal it from Sen. Sanders. However, I'll bite that Trump did so: but if we accept one conspiracy theory, why not two? There has been one theory floating that the Sandy Hook Elementry massacre was a false flag, done by the US gov't in otder to create an oppurtunity to enforce stricter gun legislation. This was done while Clinton served as Sec. of State. IF we can accept one conspiracy theory, that Trump asked the Russians to hack Dem emails, than why not accept an equally valid theory.
The final case for Clinton's corruption is one Pro tried to ride off as unimportant. Saudi doantions to the Clinton Foundation, her family's personal slush fund. Discussed below.
First, let us explain what ISIS is: They are a Wahhabiist movement that utilizes Maoist guerrilla warfare to fight against superior forces. One must ask, where exactly do they get their funding? Look no further than the pushers of Wahhabisim for the last 400 years: Saudi Arabia. To end what was said above, Clinton happily accepts donations to her personal funds from a bunch of theocrats, regardless of the consequences, even if those consequences are Iraqi, European, or even US casualties. Even from an altruistic point of view, Clinton cares little for her fellow man and is unfit for the Presidency.
Pro also knocks Trump's plan of enlisting allies, comparing it to the now failed Obama plan. It is nothing like the Obama plan, which seeks to place the same Galulan limits upon foreign armies as Bush and Obama did to the US army. Trump's plan is to wage a violent war with ISIS. And yes, violence includes civilian casualties.** Clinton's plan amounts to little more than trying to prop up a puppet state under the same old idiotic mantra of "bringing democracy to Iraq". It is, as I have stated above, absurd that the US gov't should place the well-being of foreing Nationals on it list of priorities. Win the war at any cost. This obsession with the welfare of foreign peoples is exactly the same nonsense that led to the fervorous support for the initial invasion. Even if Clinton's plan to destroy ISIS works, there will be another enemy rising in Iraq to replace, funded with Saudi money given to them by Clinton's deals. One cannot merely export democracy, or any ideology for that matter. To quote "The Incorruptible" Robespierre, "Nobody likes Armed Missionaries".
Trump's plan would allow for the defeat of ISIS, which would most likely end with the dissolution of Iraq. This is good because this decreases Saudi influence in the world, and would again show the other Nations that the US is unafraid to wage war as it used to do.
Pro claims I made some argument against immigration. I cannot recalle one. I do support Mr. Trump's opposition to illegal immigration, though. However, what I did discuss was the Refugee crisis currently plaguing Europe. It is far better for the US to accept all of Mexico than to accpet one million migrants desired by Clinton. This is because the US and Mexico share similar cultures, although not the same. The Middle East is nothing like the Western World. The rapes cited in the previous argument will only come to America, because the culture of the mideast is quite misogynistic. This is who Clinton WANTS to import. Clinton will not care, because she and her own loved ones will be safe behind the protection of the Secret Service.
Trump in Business
Unlike Clinton, who's experience in dealing is merely bribing with other people's money, Trump has had to negotiate many deals with many people. This would be very beneficial when dealing with foreign Nations. Unlike Clinton, who will serve her own interests (as she has done countless times before), Trump understand how not to "give away the farm" when dealing. He could preserve US interests instead of merely bribing, as Clinton is want to do.
Although Trump does have his support from select news sources, the Progressive media outlets, as said before, have abolished all standards with regards to this election. They see it as tolerable to lambast Trump while asking Clinton simple questions, but are infuriated when Jimmy Fallon laughs with Trump like a regular man.
This is dangerous because Progressive Journalists do not want to be the journalists. Instead, they strive to assume the roles of priests and ideologues, telling the people what we must believe, instead of merely reporting facts. How can we be sure, if we allow Clinton to win and their wishes to be fulfilled, that they will be honest ever again? To elect Clinton will give her friends in the Media a free pass to act like Soviet State Media.
Pro wrote this off as unimportant, claiming that Clinton broke no laws. This is flatly untrue. Clinton violated the Federal Records Act, Executive Order 135126, and arguably the whole thing was designed to protect her during the Benghazi affair.^^ Again, this is truly Hobbesian. Comey merely refused to go forward with further investigation (he is an investigator, not a prosecutor, thus he cannot decide to charge) in order to garner favor with Clinton should she win the White House. This is quite akin to J. Edgar Hoover's corruption in office, andd again we see that Clinton relies on the corrupt to hide her own corruption.
Con argues that both Trump and Hillary support a progressive tax. The difference is that Trump supports a tax on all high-income elites whilst Clinton will allow loopholes for Wall Street billionaires. Regardless of the fact that Con’s argument here is completely unwarranted (Con provides no evidence that Clinton’s plan allows loopholes, and it doesn’t ), even if this path of thought works, Trump is *more* likely to use tax loopholes given that he *is* a high income elite businessmen, and businessmen have many connections with other businessmen. Also, I *turn* Con’s impact that the wealthy-elite don’t pay any taxes by bringing up Trump’s massive tax cuts for the rich.
Raising taxes creates revenue for the US. This can be used to pay off the debts. Having lower revenue makes it harder to pay off the debts. A positive $191 billion is better than losing $9.5 trillion. *Turn* my opponent’s argument that the national debt is caused because, the expenditures of the US gov't tend to far exceed its incomes almost every year by trillions.” because Trump’s plan would decrease the income by $9.5 trillion, and thus by Con’s reasoning Trump’s plan leads to a greater national debt.
Side note: Con’s weird argument on Keynesian tactics or whatever is simply false given that Obama has significantly benefited the economy including 9 million new jobs, decreased crime, and 15 million more people with health insurance .
Con argues that Presidents ought to seek to benefit the US rather than other countries. This is simply logically false. Every single entity intrinsically seeks to maximize desirable states and minimize undesirable states. I as an individual seek to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering to myself, because this is what I desire. I can also see that other beings desire this too, that is why saving someone from suffering out of no exceeding harm to myself is a *good* thing. Creating a thousand employment opportunities at the expense of a million lives simply isn’t a morally or logical thought. A president is a being, a government is an acting entity, thus they still fall under the scope of moral action. They still ought to seek to reduce suffering, they *have* to as acting entities. Thus, governments and presidents have to use utilitarian calculations when making decisions. Obviously they can value bringing bringing a thousand jobs to the US rather than to Australia. But not killing millions for such a superficial value such as employment. The reasoning is inherently flawed. In accordance to the truism that is moral calculation, Clinton is preferable to Trump.
Even regardless of this, free trade helps the US, it doesn’t hurt us. Con’s arguments against this is that (a) Trump wants to renegotiate the trade deals which isn’t true as Trump wants to “rip them up” and doesn’t work anyways because it is unwarranted and doesn’t work anyways because he supports tariffs thus against free trade. And (b) cutting corporate taxes makes up for it. This doesn’t work because the difference is that tariffs result in retaliatory tariffs, as when China nearly collapsed the poultry industry by raising their tariffs in retaliation .
Side note: Con does a straw man when he says that I assume Trump would cut all economic ties, all I said was that he will impose large tariffs which Con concedes.
The audience is faced with two sides, a volunteer local campaign organizer versus Clinton herself. Which source is closer to the truth? Hmmmmm…..
Trump University was sued due the fact that they broke the law by claiming that they were a university, which it is not. And secondly that it systematically preyed on the uneducated and elderly to sign up for business education when all it actually gave were motivational speeches: thus dishonest advertising .
Regardless, debating this point is boring. The only way that these corruption arguments have an impact is if Con proves that they affect the national wellbeing. How does Con argue that corruption affects national welfare? He doesn’t, thus the idea that either candidate’s corruption has impact is negated.
First of all, Con’s point that Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with stopping terrorism since Con does not connect it to Clinton being kinder on terrorists, or any effect in the violence of terrorist groups. If anything it is a positive since the “terrorists” lost 25 million dollars.
But regardless of that, the claim was fact checked and it was donated to build a library. Of which was built with the funds and no further donations given .
Con’s argument after this does not make sense. It compares Trump’s and Clinton’s plans for defeating ISIL and completely ignores their tactics for doing so which I went over last round. So remember that Clinton’s plan will be more effective in defeating ISIL. Con instead skips ahead until after we defeat ISIL and set up a government, of which Con criticizes Clinton of trying to set up democracy which will simply be taken over by radicals again. This reasoning begs the question, what is Trump’s strategy then? What’s the alternative to Clinton’s plan? After we defeat ISIL we can either stay in the region or leave the region. Leaving the region will make the region be more likely to be taken over by radicals again than not leaving the region. So assuming Trump’s plan is different from Clinton’s (otherwise Con has no point), Clinton is already better than Trump. Then if we do stay around, the best government to implement would be a democracy since the people can check the power of the government and prevent it from becoming tyrannous like in Syria. Clinton ends up being preferable.
Clinton wants to increase the amount of Syrian refugees immigrating to the US to 65,000. This will have no discernable harms and all of the harms that Con brings up are negated by my assessment (which I referred to in the previous round “my argument on immigration” but deleted due to character space.)
The process for admitting a refugee begins when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends a referral to the state department after conducting in-depth interviews, home country registration checks and biological screening (eye scans.)
Among those who pass these background checks, a small portion are referred for overseas immigration based on their vulnerability (survivors of torture, sexual violence, political persecution, female head of household.) The state department then does its own intensive screening, which goes through nine different governmental agencies. The entire process takes around 2 years. Of the 750,000 refugees admitted to the US, two have been connected with terrorism activities . Regardless of all of that, given that only 2% are single-males, the amount of rapes and crimes that they would do is relatively low.
Trump in Business
Con gives zero examples or evidence that Clinton bribes foreign powers. But regardless of that, Trump’s egotistical personality and lack of diplomatic tactics will lead many foreign leaders to hate Trump, which is evidenced by the most influential and powerful foreign world leaders saying they hate Trump .
This argument has no impact anyways because Con fails to show how this would affect the country if she became President. I wish debates like this would be intellectual, about the policies and economics not conspiracy theories about corruptions. Bleh
Where to begin, where to begin. I know, I'll start with the nice ad hom by Pro: This argument has no impact anyways because Con fails to show how this would affect the country if she became President. I wish debates like this would be intellectual, about the policies and economics not conspiracy theories about corruptions. Bleh"
Here we see that Pro either does not know or does not understand what kind of content would be on the emails of the Secretary of State. This would not include asking the President what time is tea or telling her closest aides a funny joke. The content on those emails discuss top secret information that is critical to the international and internal affairs of the United States gov't. There is evidence that one of her hacked emails might have gotten a US spy keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear program hanged. This is also, as stated previously, blatant disregard for the Executive Order of President Obama. If she so fragrantly ignores the orders of the President whom she is serving under, what guarantee do we have, as the American people, that she will pay attention to our concerns?
She shows complete disregard for top secret information combined with a Hobbesian opinion of herself. This is not some one who we should have as President.
Here Pro makes a false cry of strawman, when above he concedes my point. "Con’s arguments against this is that (a) Trump wants to renegotiate the trade deals which isn’t true as Trump wants to 'rip them up' ".
However, a renegotiation of trade agreements is very much in order. Many US manufacturing jobs are exported overseas to be done by cheap slave labor, something that is not Utilitarian. This brings us to the Utilitarian argument Pro tries to make: Governments must provide the greatest good to all world inhabitants. First, Pro's argument revolves completely around emotional appeal and assumption that Global Utilitarianism is preferred to National Utilitarianism. A Gov't has a duty to act as Utility not to the citizens of another gov't, but the the citizens of itself.
In addition, the moral good, according to Pro, is that people should continue to work in (astonishingly) low wages of factory labor. A renogatiation of trade deals would lead to necessary albeit drastic reforms in those countries due to a plummet in quality of life. Thus the true "moral calculation" is to allow the oppressed people take control of their own destiny instead of continuing to support international Free Trade deals which serve only to enrich the gov'ts which oppress them. For example, 36% of the Chinese population lives on perhaps $2 a day.
Again, this argument presented against Trump's Free Trade policy is pseudoUtilitarian, illiberal, and concerns itself with the well-being of mass collectives and not individual persons. Ultimately, it amounts to an emotional appeal masquerading as an logical argument: "It's nice, so we should do it."
Gun Rights (merely a rebuttal)
Pro misrepresents the truth here. This was not a "volunteer local campaign organizer" but a Democrat Delegate who had pledged to vote for Clinton at the DNC. She would have most certainly done her in depth research into Clinton's actual positions.
According to Pro's argument here, "The only way that these corruption arguments have an impact is if Con proves that they affect the national wellbeing". This negates his entire argument on Trump's supposed Corruption, but does nothing to minimize the effects of Clinton's Corruption. (Yet one must ask, do we really want a corrupt individual?)
The amount of money to be spent on a war, and the subsequent Nation-Building effort proposed by Pro's description of Clinton's strategy. However, Pro has done nothing to discuss the nature of Guerilla Warfare and the manipulation of Galulan tactics. Pro asserts that if we leave, Iraq will fall to the insurgents again. Instead, he proposes we continue to prop up a puppet gov't which will continue to need US presence and protection for many years to come. Instead, the plan should not be to prop up a pupper gov't, but to acknowledge that the time for Iraq to exist is now at an end. Perhaps part of it going to the Kurds and another part of it should go to Iran. The alternative to Clinton's drone warfare and postwar puppetry is to simply acknowledge to end of Iraq. Make sure it goes to allies after waging a fierce war with ISIL and other Wahhabis.
Brings us to Iran
This brings us to the second part of Trump in the Middle East. Trump's ability to negotiate. Although he has made many rhetorical criticisms of the current Admin's negotiations, he would most certainly continue the negotiations started by President Obama. This is necessary because this allows the US to become more of an ally to one of Saudi Arabia's major regional rivals; and one that is primarily controlled by Shia Muslims, and thuse not at all likely to support the Wahhabis of Extreme Sunni Islam (nor their Salafist cousins). It would be far better to try to make up with Iran and form an alliance there than to continue allowing Saudi Arabia to channel trade money and foreign aide to be channeled into the pockets of Wahhabists in order to further Saudi influence internationally.
brings us to Saudi Arabia
Using the sources cited by Pro, one can quickly see that Pro completely misrepresented the evidence he himself provided. As stated: "The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library". This goes on to state that Saudi Arabia ceased donations to the Clinton Foundaion only while she wass Secretary of State. It also claims that Saudi has given very little, providing a hyperlink to its source. This source says "some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating." It continues to say "Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors — or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to “materially increase” their support — was never initiated during Clinton’s State Department years."
The only reason that Saudi Arabia would have had a gap in between donation periods during which Clinton served as Secretary of State was to avoid the possibility of a Political Scandal.
Again, Saudi Arabia has been found to be funding Islamic Extremism (most notably Wahhabism but Salafist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, have always found those pockets open). It is time to shift from the Wahhabi State to the Iranian State which has shown, with its negotiations with the Obama Admin, that it is willing to engage in talks. These negotiations can be continued and strengthened by a Trump Admin, but would be halted for the sake of Foundation donors.
It should be pointed out that the Clinton Foundation is little more than a Clinton Slush Fund, spending less that 6% on charities it claims to support. Even the library Pro mentioned was the Clinton Presidential Library: a monument Bill Clinton built for himself. Hillary has been personally profiting from this slush fund. Again, this Corruption may seem innocent and unimportant, but this is some one who seeks the highest office in the land. I have provided many examples of this Corruption, whilst Pro has merely provided Trump University, as all other claims have been debunked.
That Precious List of Leaders who Hate Trump
In no particular order:
Barack Obama would prefer to see the political platforms of his own party and "his legacy" continued, so of course he'd support his own party's nominee.
Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud has been proven to support Clinton and be an aide to America's enemies in the Middle East. It is obvious that he would dislike Trump.
Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who's Nation grows wealthier each time Mexican immigrants in the US send money back home. What possible reason could he have against Trump? Could it be that he understands the Mexican gov't must be a Utility for the Mexican people, not for world people?
Or what about David Cameron, who was so out of touch with his own people that he has now decided to resign after being on the losing side of the Brexit vote?
How about Boris Johnson, who claims that crime has gone down. What about the Rotherham child prostitution scandal, where the gov't chose not to do its job and ignored the exploitation of young British girls? Does he count this, or ignore as the authoritied did?
Erdogan, who, in response to an attempted coup, cracked down on the civil rights of all his citizens.
My personal favorite: The Socialist Pope who has decried Individualism, Capitalism, and Money as the Devil's Dung, who says those who build walls are immoral ("not Christian"). Is this the same Pope who lives safely behind the walls of Vatican City? The same Pope whose Church continues to accept billions, if not trillions in tithes?
On Keynesian Economics
In his final sentence (the adhom), Pro claims he wishes these arguments became more economic: In the beginning he proudly admits he has no idea what Keynesian Economics are. Not knowing who Keynes was, or at least not knowing Keynesian economics, should be evidence enough he is not ready to engage in economic debates. https://en.wikipedia.org...
An example of Keynesian economics (provided here merely for example, not argument) is the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Here the US gov't encouraged banks to make riskier loans to lower income individuals. Although altruistic and provided immediate benefits, this is considered to be one of the major contributions to the Housing Bubble and Economic Recession of 2008.
Trump is preferable to Hillary Clinton not because Trump is perfect or magnificient, but because Clinton is least preferable of any possible candidates, with many Dems preferring a third term for Obama instead of Clinton. Thus, VOTE TRUMP!
Con starts off by arguing why the content of Clinton’s emails matter. But this is a new argument in the final round of argumentation, thus the judges cannot take this argument into consideration. Note that Con has never argued that the corruption of Clinton would harm the US until now, and thus under my framework that I established and Con accepted this argument is negated.
Con responds to my argument that a government as an entity ought to value all lives globally by writing it off as an emotional appeal. My argument was not an emotional appeal as it was based entirely on sound logic. The closest Con actually gets to responding to my argument was merely a sentence followed by a lack of justification and thus a bare assertion, “A Gov't has a duty to act as Utility not to the citizens of another gov't, but the the citizens of itself.”
Con also argues that free trade makes people work at low wages in factories, and that a trade deal would reform this. Yet, when examined the logic doesn’t add up. Any trade deal that would abolish free trade would naturally have to make trade taxed (thus not free) and thus add tariffs. Tariffs makes a corporation pay more money and thus in able to make up for the costs the company (a) pays the workers less or (b) highers less workers. Both of these outcomes are bad, and Con doesn’t explain how tariffs would help workers besides arguing that workers have low wages because of it. But this doesn’t work because firstly a job with low wage is better than no job at all for workers (so free trade is already preferable to Con’s world already) and the alternative would only mean lower wages. Con’s position simply doesn’t work.
She was a former delegate, but now only a campaign manager. http://dailycaller.com...
Regardless, it is a truism the best indicator of what someone will do is what they say they will do (especially in this instance) so feel free to look through all of Clinton’s quote on what she believes in. Just background checks, closing loopholes, etc. Common Sense stuff
Con argues that instead of using Clinton’s after-winning plan of establishing democracy in Iraq (dropping the fact that Clinton’s plan is better at defeating ISIL than Trump’s) that we divide it up and give some to the Kurds and Iran. The problem is that this isn’t Trump’s plan, this is Con’s plan. And thus this doesn’t advance the burden to prove Trump is preferable to Hillary at all. It is irrelevant.
Brings us to Iran
Con argues that Trump would continue negotiations in the Middle East and then how continued negotiations are important. This argument has no impact because Clinton will also continue diplomacy in the Middle East , and thus this argument doesn’t show Trump as preferable. It actually shows it as unpreferable since Clinton has better relations to foreign leaders (see my link to all the foreign leaders who hate Trump.)
Brings us to Saudi Arabia
Con’s conspiracy theory here is simply unfounded. They donated once to build a library, and a library was built with the money. That was it. An connections to corruption or such are simply unwarranted, and all other points that Con makes aren’t relevant to the debate.
That Precious List of Leaders that Hate Trump
Con shows that the people that hate Trump are on balance bad people. Although the claims may be true, this doesn’t change the fact that they hate Trump or that they are influential foreign leaders. And those were the impacts of my argument. The impact of my argument is unscathed by this rebuttal.
Peace and love. Remember to waive next round
Thanks for the debate.