Hillary Clinton (Pro) or Bernie Sanders (Con)
Debate Rounds (4)
This debate is focused on the two democratic candidates. Please stay on topic and do NOT change the topic to Democrats vs. Republicans.
The rounds will be administered as followed:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Closing Arguments
A few rules that both parties should follow:
1. Please use correct grammar
2. Please use reliable sources
3. At the end of each round, please type your sources for that round of the debate.
Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge and good luck!
Furthermore, I will not change topics as that would be unfair to Pro.
I look forward to Pro's opening arguments.
My opening arguments will be brief but accurate.
Hillary Clinton would serve as a better president than Bernie Sanders. Secretary Clinton has plans to make America a better place for the next generations of Americans. She has plans that can be put into action. For example, Secretary Clinton has plans to build upon the Affordable Care Act, which would save a lot of money.
Senator Sanders is a socialist democrat. This is common knowledge. Socialism is a great ideology for countries like France, but not for the United States. Senator Sanders has plans to give free health care and college to all. All together, he would need to spend a lot of money to get his way. For every major spending bill, there is a corresponding tax plan. Senator Sanders will raise taxes on all big businesses, some of which have done nothing to deserve this prejudice. Senator Sanders would put a tax on workers" wage, which would make it nearly impossible for paid family and medical leave.
Senator Sanders"s single-payer health care plan will drain more money than any of his other initiatives. To get the money for this program, the Senator would have to increase a variety of taxes. Senator Sanders would have to increase income taxes, and would need to create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. And with all this, let us not forget that the US National Debt is at $19 Trillion and counting. Senator Sanders said, "we should look to countries like Denmark" and learn what they have accomplished from their working people." In Denmark, for every dollar earned, about 51 cents go towards taxes. However, Denmark is a much smaller country, so it is possible to do that. In the United States is too large for this to be possible.
Secretary Clinton has an even better plan for debt-free college. In this plan, secretary Clinton would get debt-free college tuition, just as Senator Sanders would like. However, this plan would make students still contribute towards their education, but through work, or other activities on campus. This way, the students get a debt-free college tuition, but also help the American economy.
Senator Sanders wants to "expand social security" for everyone by increasing payroll taxes. Secretary Clinton will improve social security for those "who need it most." Secretary Clinton will not increase payroll taxes to accomplish this goal.
All in all, Hillary Clinton will be a better president than Bernie Sanders.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Speaker"s opening arguments.
I will be arguing that Senator Bernie Sanders is qualified for the United States presidency for three main reasons:
1. Sen. Sanders is knowledgeable.
2. Sen. Sanders is consistent.
3. Sen. Sanders is incorruptible.
Let's begin with the first argument.
1. Sen. Sanders is Knowledgeable.
Although Sen. Sanders did not attend an Ivy-league school, he nevertheless put himself through both high school and college. He has an education, which is remarkable considering that he family was impoverished. 
What qualifies Sen. Sanders for the presidency is not only his liberal arts degree, but his knowledge of the political system and his time in it. Beginning when he was narrowly elected mayor of Burlington, Sanders worked hard to improve the quality of peoples' lives. Afterwards, Sanders was elected as an Independent to the U.S. House of Representatives for 16 years (1991-2007). Thereafter, Rep. Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate where he is presently. Sen. Sander's life is one of political knowledge and experience. 
2. Sen. Sanders is Consistent.
For the sake of space, I will list two examples of consistency: opposition to free trade deals and support of marriage equality.
Regarding free trade deals, Sen. Sanders opposed NAFTA and currently opposes the TPTA. Big corporations have not been able to change Sen. Sander's mind with their deep pockets; he protectionist philosophy remains strong.
As for human equality, Sen. Sanders has been a strong supporter of civil rights for decades. In college, Sen. Sanders advocated against segregation and for black rights.   Regarding marriage equality, Sen. Sanders was one of a few members in Congress to vote against President Bill Clinton's discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. 
By contrast, Hilary Clinton has been inconsistent on these two issues. That would explain why Sen. Clinton has been called "dishonest" by voter both in 2008 and now.  
On free trade, Sen. Clinton has publically decried it but has privately worked in support of it. 
On marriage equality, Sen. Clinton is only a recent supporter, largely because public opinion now supports it. 
3. Sen. Sanders in Incorruptible.
To qualify this argument, I am not asserting that it is impossible for Sen. Sanders to corruptible. I am merely saying that, compared to his opponents in the 2016 presidential race, it is very unlikely for two reasons:
A). Sen. Sanders is a man of consistent principles, even when they're unfavorable.
Because Sen. Sanders has a history of integrity, there is no reason to believe that he will cater to big money and special interests. Indeed, Sen. Sanders has nothing to fear and, therefore, is least likely to be corrupted.
B). In addition to consistency, Sen. Sanders is an Independent. Even though he is currently running for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Sanders still thinks and acts like an Independent. As such, the undue influence from party caucuses is minimized. Quite the opposite, Hilary Clinton would have to cater to the Democratic Party and her Wall St. donors if elected. 
For these three reasons, Sen. Sanders is more qualified to be president than Hilary Clinton.
Thanks for reading. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.
I apologize to the Con for my delay in posting my rebuttal.
In his opening arguments, Mr. Speaker said, "By contrast, Hilary Clinton has been inconsistent on these two issues. That would explain why Sen. Clinton has been called "dishonest" by voter both in 2008 and now." Secretary Clinton has been favored by 56% of people, while Senator Sanders has been favored by 50% of people. 
I would like to acknowledge that Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on some issues. However, I would like to note that Mrs. Secretary did not let her changes of her stances affect her decisions as Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on many issues during the time that she was not holding the role of Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton has not changed her stance on many extremely important issues. For example, in 2006, Secretary Clinton said that agrees with the decision in Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade.  
Mr. Speaker also said, "Regarding marriage equality, Sen. Sanders was one of a few members in Congress to vote against President Bill Clinton's discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act." First, I would like Mr. Speaker to acknowledge that just because Secretary Clinton"s husband was not a supporter of gay rights in 1996, Secretary Clinton was not necessarily holding the same opinion. 
The Con also stated, "On marriage equality, Sen. Clinton is only a recent supporter, largely because public opinion now supports it." Secretary Clinton has been a supporter of marriage equality for years. She has said that "Fitness to serve in the military should be based on one"s conduct, not one"s sexual orientation." Secretary Clinton has also said that "One of Bill's first challenges as commander in chief became the promise he made during the campaign to let gays and lesbians serve in the military as long as their sexual orientation did not in any way compromise their performance or unit cohesion. I agreed with the commonsense proposition that the code of military conduct should be enforced strictly against behavior, not sexual orientation." 
Despite the fact that Senator Sanders has many years of legislative experience, Secretary Clinton has been in scrutiny under the public eye for over 10 years. While Secretary Clinton has been accepting money from big corporations, she is not corrupted. Anti-Clinton Republicans have been trying to make Mrs. Secretary look corrupted even though she is not. 
I look forward to hearing Mr. Speaker's rebuttal.
I'll jump right into refutation.
1. "Clinton has been favored by 56% of people."
Eh, that figure is subject to change in the next poll. Also, it is important to remember the demographics. Mostly older Democrats (Pre-1990s) are supportive of the Clintons because of name-recognition. By contrast, Sanders is especially supported by America's young (i.e. Millennials).
2. "Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on some issues."
I forgot to mention that Clinton also voted for the disastrous Iraqi War. Sen. Sanders - true to his integrity - voted against President Bush's invasion.
Historically, Clinton is a poll-follower. She has consistently changed her position as the polls change. If Roe were unpopular, I suspect that Clinton would be against it as well.
3. "Clinton was not necessarily holding the same opinion."
No, she did hold the same opinion. There is video evidence that Clinton - up until 2004! - opposed same-sex marriage entirely.  Ironically, Bill Clinton now says that DOMA is unconstitutional. Oh the hypocrisy! 
4. "Clinton has been a supporter of marriage equality for years."
Allowing for homosexual sex in the military is not the same as supporting marriage equality. The difference should be self-evident. Again, video evidence confirms that Clinton recently flip-flopped in accordance with changing polls.
5. "Mrs. Secretary look corrupted even though she is not."
Ah ha... How do you reconcile the exorbitant speaking fees?  How do you reconcile her statements against Wall St. while she simultaneously accepts large political donations from Wall St.?
Even if Clinton is not actually corrupt, her lack of integrity on the issues is enough reason to distrust her and oppose her presidential campaign. I would go further and assert that the very appearance of corruption is disgraceful to the presidential office. Do you think our allies will trust her? Do you think our enemies will fear her? The correct answer is a great resounding "NO!"
I look forward to Round 4.
https://www.youtube.com... (Please ignore the profanity)
TheRealSubmarine forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.