Hillary Clinton for President
Debate Rounds (4)
ROUND ONE: Pro will give argument.
ROUND TWO: REBUTTALS
ROUND THREE: REBUTTALS
ROUND FOUR: CLOSING STATEMENTS
I thank my opponent for commencing this debate and I wish him good luck as well.
Hillary Clinton has multiple stances on multiple issues. In order to stay within the confines of this debate, I will start with her 3 stances on the most controversial issues in the United States.
Hillary Clinton's plan for gun control is to heavily curb the feasibility of accessibility to acquire a firearm in the United States. Her plan consists of exponentially expanding background checks in order to maintain the database of psychological evaluation prior to selling a firearm in order to lessen gun sales to the mentally unstable, accompanied by a government intervention of the controversial gun lobbies that are known for penetrating the American congress through shady financial dealings and removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions which nulls any form of responsibility for attacks. Finally, the plan also tackles the 'Charleston Loophole' of gun sales which allows gun shows and internet purchases to skip background checks . I can assume my opponent will start his rebuttal in round two against gun violence by stating that there is no correlation between the accessibility of firearms and the number of shootings. My argument to that is that Australia is a prime example of how it can work. Australia is politically synonymous with the United States, making it applicable for using their strict firearms control as a way to curb violence to work in the US. The policies Australia had implemented federally has worked, ever since their mass shooting 20+ years ago . International studies have also shown causation between the feasible accessibility of guns and the quantity of shootings, whereas stricter policies will help with the occasional mass shootings in the United States .
Hillary Clinton is also against the conventional American policy of "Invade First, Ask Questions Later" has proven to be a failure in the advancement of global stability and American ideals. Hillary Clinton has advocated for more diplomatic congregations instead of blatant military intervention and economic sanctions which prove harmful to the World Economy, and not just the targeted nation . Hillary Clinton also thoroughly advocated against American intervention in Iraq  and currently inside Syria against Assad as she fears (and is right to do so) of the incoming power vacuum if the US does reach it's goals .
It is no question that the United States has one of the most divisive wealth gaps in the developed world, it is an incredible abomination that .01% of the US owns over 10% of American income 
Hillary Clinton has made many statements regarding the effectiveness of a progressive tax system which can combat wealth inequality and the profit would help against American debt . Hillary Clinton has also made many statements in her taxation plan for the rich, stating that with the new income of the progressive tax system, it will help move the US towards the path of a single-payer tax system and lessened college expenses which has utterly destroyed much of the fiscal stability of American youth . The ultra-rich in the United States have also known to commence industry monopolies which is another subject of economics that Clinton has advocated against with the same progressive tax reform (Refer to Source 8), a virtually un-refutable benefit to America.
Hillary Clinton's 3 most organized policy positions are a great benefit to the American socio-political and economic issues today. Her stance on gun violence has been solidified with international examples as functional, her stance on foreign policy is a great progressive leap away from the current violent tendencies of the US, and her taxation system will prove helpful against current American wealth inequality. To the voters, I will save my mentioning of Trump and immigration as my opening argument is only for the policies of Hillary.
"Her plan consists of exponentially expanding background checks."
Expanding the background check system doesn't make much sense and is an inconvenience to law-abiding gun buyers. It would make much more sense to fix the broken system instead. First, perpetrators of mass shootings typically pass background checks (as the primary argument of expanding the background check system is to prevent these crimes). Second, criminals can easily obtain firearms on the black market, through individuals with clean records, or by theft. Third, it will forcefully disarm thousands, if not millions, of non-violent gun owners, for example, illegal drug users, individuals who overstayed a visa, individuals with court-ordered psychiatric treatment (even if it is not threatening), and non-violent felons. 
"Australia is politically synonymous with the United States, making it applicable for using their strict firearms control as a way to curb violence to work in the US. The policies Australia had implemented federally has worked, ever since their mass shooting 20+ years ago."
The policy the Australian government used was a mandatory buyback program - in other words, they forced citizens to hand over their guns for compensation. You stated that this policy worked because they have not had a mass shooting in over 20 years. What really occurred after the ban was an increase in murder rate before it eventually returned to around the same as it was before the ban was enacted. In other words, it wasn't effective. Yes, the mass shootings may have stopped, however, nothing really changed. 
I agree with you and Hillary on: Government intervention in shady financial dealings within Congress and punishment for any illegal action committed by the gun lobby (whether for or against gun control). The government must crack down on the gun show loophole.
"Hillary Clinton has advocated for more diplomatic congregations instead of blatant military intervention."
Hillary, as a Senator, voted to authorize force in Iraq in 2002. She also intervened in Libya as Secretary of State, which turned the country upside down and contributed to the rise of ISIS. I don't think her track record matches up with the idea that she opposes the "Invade First, Ask Questions Later" ideology. 
"Hillary Clinton also thoroughly advocated against American intervention in Iraq."
She only advocated against it when the American people began to oppose it. Hillary Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on issues to match the opinion of the majority. On top of that, she initially supported the Iraq war and voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq when she was a Senator. 
I agree with you and Hillary on: We should seek diplomatic solutions rather than blatant military intervention and the use of economic sanctions. (although Hillary's track record says otherwise).
"It is no question that the United States has one of the most divisive wealth gaps in the developed world, it is an incredible abomination that .01% of the US owns over 10% of American income.
Why is that? If someone works hard and becomes part of the top .01% without doing anything illegal, I see no reason to attack them for being part of a group that makes over 10% of American income. If someone in the top 0.01% is found (in a fair trial) to have done something illegal, they should of course be held accountable. I wouldn't call that idea radical, or an 'abomination'.
"Hillary Clinton has made many statements regarding the effectiveness of a progressive tax system which can combat wealth inequality and the profit would help against American debt"
The progressive tax system is beneficial to a certain extent. What I would personally advocate for is a limit on how much one can be taxed as well as a higher sales tax on more expensive items (yachts, mansions, luxury cars, etc.) that only high income Americans can afford. I am opposed to a progressive tax on corporations.
"Her stance on gun violence has been solidified with international examples as functional."
I wouldn't call the Australian buyback program a success; I will give you that mass shootings have declined, but I will not say that the program was functional or effective as the murder rate returned to what it previously was. 
"Her stance on foreign policy is a great progressive leap away from the current violent tendencies of the US."
In other words, the view she supported when it was popular, 
"Her taxation system will prove helpful against current American wealth inequality."
I will only support a progressive taxation system if there is a limit on how much one can be taxed.
I thank my opponent for providing his argument. I'll start with rebuttals followed by their counters.
My statement of expansion of background checks must have been misinterpreted by you. I didn't mean just expanding the numbers, I meant also upping the standard of criminal regulations. The standard would be raised higher and reach farther to ensure it doesn't fall into wrong hands. Your statement of mass shooters passing background checks is due to a weak system currently in place, while Clinton aims to fix that . My opponent makes a second statement regarding criminal feasibility, and while I doubt how 'easily' can they obtain one, many measures will be taken to minimize all attempts. The last argument of my opponent boils down into perspective. If these 'millions' of gun owners don't pass the second standard established, and their guns are revoked, they deserve to be revoked because their psychological stability wasn't as sound as it seemed. They will be refunded for most of their weapons revoked, as was the case in Australia . In a case like the United States, the less guns, the merrier, especially since you did not refute my claim of the causality and correlation of guns and murder.
The next argument of my opponent isn't very relative. The small spike of murders 2 years after the buyback was coincidental and done mostly through different weapons, other than firearms . The increase rate also wasn't as strong as you'd think as you can see in the graph below (also obtained from Source 3).
(The restrictions were introduced in 1996)
My opponent's final rebuttal is "In other words, it wasn't effective. Yes, the mass shootings may have stopped, however, nothing really changed", however that is a contradiction. 20 years without mass shootings after the buyback was established, shows an obvious difference especially when 7 years later, all murders started to decline.
I won't refute the 'hypocrisy' of Clinton concerning her previous experiences, I don't want to be accused of a "tu quoque" fallacy towards Donald Trump. All I can say about Hillary concerning Iraq and Benghazi is that positions change. Hillary has changed towards a more progressive foreign policy instead of military intervention at first move. It has been 8 years since Benghazi and 14 since her first stance on Iraq. The greatest defence I can really apply is that her position changed towards diplomatic procedures versus military procedures more than 6 years ago, before this race came to be. Now, concerning you agree with her current stance on diplomacy versus violence, this is one topic in which you believe that Hillary should be President, especially since her opponent does not make his own decision and keeps changing stances on military intervention .
My opponent does not do a very good job in explaining the cause of the wealth gap in the United States. In a very skeptic view, such as mine, I can accuse with very good reason that the ultra-rich secure their position by making proxies out of the Republican party members. Many republicans, especially on the far-right, are known to be susceptible to be 'convinced' by lobbyists by accepting their 'financial donations'  in order to keep maintaining tax breaks for the rich . My opponent argues that the top .01% 'earned' this money when all they have done is monopolize current fiscal empires into coercion with competitors to enforce market dominance . The US is not a laissez-faire economy, and Americans deserve protection from ultra-rich corporations using government puppeteering .
My opponent cannot say that the Australian buyback wasn't a success because they has been a 20 year streak on mass shootings being absent along with a 20 year decline in gun violence. Relating to gun control, my opponent left my proof of causation and correlation between the ownership of firearms and gun related shootings and murders un-refuted. In foreign policy, my opponent failed to refute that Hillary Clinton has updated her stances in a more progressive manner with examples such as temporary leaving Assad in power to plug a power vacuum. My opponent did admit that he accepted this new diplomatic stance "I agree with you and Hillary on: We should seek diplomatic solutions rather than blatant military intervention and the use of economic sanctions. ". I guarantee you, and the voters if Hillary didn't update her stance, you would have called her position outdated and dysfunctional, simply because she changed it. It is better she realized it was wrong now than never. On taxation, my opponent has stated he supports a progressive taxation system which Hillary advocates for, including individuals, and has left my argument of her attempt to eliminate oligarchical monopolies un-refuted. My opponent has left half of each arguments without a rebuttal.
I look forward to his explanation and next argument.
Background Checks - Thank you for that clarification, however, I have not seen anything about how Hillary will fix the broken background check system (I read your sources on guns and her campaign website as well). Her campaign website (that you cited earlier) states that she will only "expand background checks to more gun shows - including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes - and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called 'Charleston Loophole.'"  It's very important how she phrases this, because what she really means by it is that she will close the 'gun show loophole' in gun shows and internet sales, and she will get rid of the Charleston loophole. The Charleston loophole basically means that anyone (including dangerous felons) can purchase a gun without a background check if the FBI does not complete the background check in three days.  Other than ending the Charleston loophole, Hillary doesn't confirm that she will fix the system as a whole or how she would do it.
Obtaining a Firearm - If a criminal wants something illegal, a piece of paper saying they can't have it won't stop them. When alcohol was banned back in the Prohibition, black markets opened and people managed to buy alcohol illegally. Today, with the War on Drugs, black markets have opened to sell illegal drugs. Of course these are examples of full-on bans, but what they tell us is that if we try to take something away from criminals, they'll find a way to get it. In the case of guns, you did not refute my earlier claim that some ways criminals can attain guns are through buyers with clean records, theft, or black markets (whether physical or online). It would be very difficult for the government to crack down on these attempts, probably why Hillary only mentioned one of them - criminals attaining guns through buyers with clean records. That leaves out theft and black markets. 
Australia - I noticed we're not on the same page about the Australian buyback program. According to your first source, Hillary said the program was "worth looking at". An 'American buyback program', if implemented, would apply to all gun owners (not just those with psychological issues even if it is non-threatening). But back to the Australian buyback program - did it work? Not really. According to a 2007 report, the gun-homicide rate in Australia had been steadily decreasing 15 years before the massacre that spawned the buyback program. The report concluded that the buyback program did not have a "significant long-tern effect on the Australian homicide rate".  A second source confirms this, stating that the homicide rate returned to normal and is currently decreasing - although it says that this decrease is only temporary and the homicide rate will continue to fluctuate as "exhibited in other nations".  You also used Australia as an example the less guns, less crime idea, however, I would say the sources I provided say otherwise - hence the correlation of guns and murder which you claimed I did not refute.
The point I was attempting to make was that Hillary changes her stances to match that of the majority. I have always been in favor of diplomacy before intervention - it costs less, it saves lives, it creates peaceful solutions. I do not trust Hillary to uphold diplomacy when she voted in favor of the Iraq war as Senator and when she intervened in Libya as Secretary of State and got many people unnecessarily killed in both countries. I like that Hillary shifted towards diplomacy in recent years, although I'm not ready (and I may never be ready) to trust her in charge of our country's foreign affairs considering her track record of advocating for violence and military intervention. So no, although I agree with her current stance, I do not think she should be President because of it until the American people and I can trust her.
Am I against tax breaks for the 'ultra-rich'? Yes; it is unfair to middle class and low-income taxpayers. Do I think monopolizing current fiscal empires is bad? No; when the government sued John Rockefeller to stop his monopoly on oil, he defended his company by bringing up how his company created jobs, helped American families, and brought in money from exports. Making a monopoly takes a chaotic market and turns it into an industry. Think along the lines of supermarkets. Before supermarkets, there were individuals stores for produce, meat, and baked good. The creation of the supermarket brought all of them together and brought order. It created jobs and helped American families. I would consider creating monopolies a form of earning money.
Guns - I take back what I said earlier about there not being any mass shootings in 20+ years as my opponent falsely claimed. There actually were mass shootings after the buyback program. There was a series of mass shootings from 1992-1999, one in 2000, one in 2002, two in 2009, two in 2011, and four in 2014.  It would appear mass shootings are actually increasing. My opponent also used Australia as an example that more guns equals more crime. I proved that to be incorrect with a 2007 report that stated that the buyback program had no significant long-term effect  and a second source that claimed that while the homicide rate is currently decreasing, it was steadily decreasing before the gun ban and this decline is part of an expected fluctuation.
Foreign Policy - What I'm getting at is that it's difficult to trust someone that promises diplomacy now when only a few years ago, she voted in favor of the Iraq war and got us involved in Libya. Because of her, millions of lives have been lost in the Middle East and North Africa. And then she called Libya her greatest accomplishment - President Obama calls it his greatest failure. It is unreasonable to forgive and forget just because she changed her mind (like being in favor of keeping Assad in power), and I'll add that she only changed her mind when her view became unpopular - just as she did on issues like LGBT rights, the Keystone Pipeline, NAFTA, illegal immigration, etc..  So yes, I am 100% for diplomacy, but we're talking to a candidate who, first of all, has a track record that completely opposes diplomacy, and second, has changed her mind repeatedly when her views became unpopular - which would make it seem like she is doing it to remain popular with the American people. Furthermore, you said that "it is better she realized it was wrong now than never". If that's the case, then by that logic, she was wrong on LGBT rights, the Keystone Pipeline, NAFTA, illegal immigration, and many more issues. I don't think someone who always gets it wrong (again, by that logic) is fit to be our President.
Taxes - Yes, I support a progressive tax system in moderation, where there is a limit on how much one can be taxed. Hillary, as far as I know, has never advocated for a limit on taxation. As far as your argument on 'oligarchical monopolies', I do not see an issue. You call it monopoly - I call it enterprise.
I thank my opponent for providing his rebuttals.
My opponent starts off his rebuttal in a fairly ridiculous attempt to deter the voter from my sources. If anyone has any doubt about them, I urge you to look at it yourself. My source regarding how Hillary Clinton will expand background checks was written, and I'm willing to believe you chose not to put in the effort to look for the facts. There was a source link within it showing the detailed process of the new system . In this system, like I stated before, by expansion, the system will raise the standard for sales high enough that the current system, with its weak foundation of allowing psychologically unstable individuals to obtain them, removes their eligibility. Something you already pointed out, repetition doesn't help. Your next statements regarding the Charleston loophole isn't offering any help to your argument, you just gave the definition and admitted that Hillary will attempt to plug the loophole. My opponent started to make a strawman fallacy in order to question how Hillary will fulfill these promises. The Charleston loophole can be plugged with extending the background check to an unlimited amount of time, and granting more powers to the checks of the FBI . If you really have to resort to asking 'how' on a subject area as menial as this, you can look it up in any finer details of her sites.
As for obtaining firearms, my opponent has also resorted into assumptions. Alcohol and firearms are not the same, guns don't have psychologically addictive chemicals. Not to mention, the police forces of the United States today and their expertise, along with yearly expenditure are far greater than the weak mismanaged police forces of the 1920's . Sure, criminals will find a way to get their guns, but they'll have to try hard for it, and it is better we apply the pressure of the restrictions hard enough the criminals will feel it on their backs instead of inviting them into buying their own arsenals. The next argument of my opponent becomes a lack of me refuting his argument of criminals attaining guns from buyers with clean records which is a fallacious claim. I responded to his prior claim with "My opponent makes a second statement regarding criminal feasibility, and while I doubt how 'easily' can they obtain one, many measures will be taken to minimize all attempts". I didn't need to go into details before, as I mentioned how the background checks and loopholes would be plugged, which I have now gone to the effort of also solidifying (Refer to Source 1).
Continuing with Australia, I already refuted your claim that "it didn't work". I provided a graph, along with a two sentence response on how the system worked. If you doubt me, look at the previous round again. Your own source which you used to back your claim of how it didn't work backfired. You should read it closer next time as it states that after the system, the murder rates in Australia "flattened" (As in, fell) with the exception of a brief spike . Your current argument also contradicts with your previous argument stating that "What really occurred after the ban was an increase in murder rate before it eventually returned to around the same" unlike how you are stating now that it was "steadily decreasing 15 years before the massacre" without foundation. I also ask that the next sources you use regarding gun control (National Review) isn't an obvious Republican leaning website with Republican-friendly articles , as I provided the effort to present sources news sources, not opinionations. My opponent also attempts to excuse himself for a lack of rebuttal in the prior round to correlation of guns and murder with his current articles, as I pointed out, were biased opinionations.
This next argument of my opponent is the cleanest and shortest. My opponent virtually concedes as due to the rules laid out in round 1 "In this debate, I [Con] will argue against a Hillary Clinton presidency. My opponent will argue in favor of it.", he did not make an argument against her foreign policy, he states he "agrees with it". My opponent uses his own personal matter of trust, but using subjective terms is not helpful to your argument in this debate. Whether you trust her or not, these are her current stances and you have admitted to agreement.
My opponent defends the argument of monopolies in this section of the debate by relying on John Rockefeller, known for using coercion in his monopolies with competitors to raise out the price and profit of his company . You can't expect him to not defend himself, even if he is wrong. "Making a monopoly takes a chaotic market and turns it into an industry." is not what a monopoly is. It dominates the market and destroys competition  leaving no obstacles to stop its growth of power until the nation becomes a puppeted oligarchy. That is one of the most dysfunctional principles of laissez-faire . Supermarkets aren't monopolies, because they have competition which they do not coerce with, especially giants like WalMart who still fight against companies like Amazon and Target .
In guns, my opponent decides not to recognize that the recent mass shootings after the system were mostly out of terrorist attacks, such as the 2016 Sydney Hostage crisis. The shooter had outside support and was able to funnel weaponry into Australia . The recent surge in terrorist attacks in developed nations is the surge, not the mass shootings as independent psychologically unstable outbreaks . My opponent proved nothing with his opinionation article which was marked with bias, not statistics against correlation, as well as his unfounded statements of the decreasing murders prior to the gun ban, when in actuality, guns were already being slowly restricted .
In foreign policy, my opponent makes the ridiculous unfounded claim that "millions of lives were lost" in the Middle East and North Africa because of Clinton when Iraq would have already gone through  and Libya was already doomed to fall , even without her own intervention. As for my opponent and his trust issues towards Clinton, that is not relative to all, nor is it a solidified argument accompanied by his other subjective claims.
In taxation, I don't know where my opponent gets the idea that she "didn't advocate for a limit on taxation", whatever that means. I already gave the definition of a monopoly, and I suggest you update your vocabulary.
I thank my opponent for his argument, once again. I'm sorry if I was curt or if I seemed rough in my debate, I just wanted to get my point across strong.
As I stated in round one, round four is to be used for closing statements only.
I'm afraid I still don't agree that Hillary should be our next President. On guns, I think the National Review is credible. It links to other sources and studies, and uses facts, therefore, it is not solely one's opinion as my opponent believes. On foreign policy, I believe she is untrustworthy - and yes, that does matter. We are electing a person, not an idea - and trust is just as important as ideology. On tax reform, I support a limited progressive tax, however, I doubt a progressive tax will be enough to stop the monopolies my opponent warns about. In fact, it may be what pushes the wealthy to leave the country, thus greatly harming the American economy.
I thank my opponent for this debate and urge the voters to vote Con.
Guns have a proven correlation and she wishes to act upon it, foreign policy is based more on policy rather than trust, and tax reform has the ability to shape the economics of a nation.
Thanks to my opponent for providing this challenging debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Will continue in comments if needed. Conduct: Even S&G: Even Sources: Even. I'd give a slight edge to Pro, but it isn't to the extent where any points are deserved. Arguments: There are really three key voters in this round, Pro's three points. I'll analyze them as such. With the format Issue-Winner, and an ensuing explanation. Gun Violence-Pro Though Con arguments are compelling, I would have liked to have been given a weighing mechanism for how expanded background checks would take away guns from non-violent criminals. I thoroughly enjoyed this argument and was hoping Con would expand upon it, but was disappointed by the lack of follow-up.This argument not be quantified, you could've gone a "gun rights route" Con's Wiki article about mass killings in Australia actually pushed me Pro, as the number of deaths from mass shootings has decreased. Decreased gun violence = success, and if Hillary were to implement a similar plan in the US, we would likely see the same results. See c
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.