Hillary Clinton is a criminal
Debate Rounds (4)
In this debate, I will argue AGAINST the statement that Hillary Clinton is technically, or ought to be, a "criminal". My opponent will argue that Clinton is, or should be, labelled as a criminal.
I will define these two terms:
criminal: "a person who has committed a crime"
crime: "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law"
First round will be acceptance, the following rounds will just be plain ol' debating.
I accept this challenge and look forward to a cordial, substantive, fact-based debate. I, however, am highly stressed and short on time, so please excuse that I may post my arguments at the last minute.
Thank you Pro for accepting this debate! No worries about late arguments :)
I will start off my opening argument with this statement: Hillary Clinton has not done anything worthy of earning her the title "criminal".
Hillary has been involved in countless scandals and has been accused of lying dozens of times. How can she possibly be clean of any wrongdoing?
I take a two-pronged approach to this question:
1. Despite being accused of these "scandalous" activities, Hillary has never been arrested, indicted, or charged with any crime. Each one of the media-enhanced scandals have been investigated - and each one has been found to be crap, with no fault or broken laws by Hillary. The "Hillary for Prison" movement is just silly, because if she had done anything worthy of imprisonment... one of the many scandals would've stuck, and she would've been imprisoned by now. But she hasn't. Which leads into my second point:
2. Each of the scandals were driven out of proportion by media hype and conservative-driven efforts to damage her reputation. Hillary may have been responsible for minor mistakes, but the media makes almost every controversy seem far worse than it was. They make it seem like she's broken laws, when in reality it was a small mistake, oversight, or more often nothing at all.
Let's take her two most recent controversies:
Benghazi. While the deaths of the Americans in this incident was tragic, Hillary played little to no direct role in those deaths. She does not micromanage everything that goes on in every US embassy and had no way of knowing that more security ought to have been in place in that specific compound. At the very worst, Hillary could be blamed for no more than a slight lack of oversight- which is ultimately far from incriminating.
Her private email server. Laughable- the FBI is turning up without any evidence of any laws broken, and no confidential information that was marked confidential at the time of sending. There were no laws in place specifically preventing her from using a private server - and although she is now admitting she shouldn't have used her own server, you still wind up with no laws broken, and no harm done.
I close my opening argument by reiterating the statement that Hillary, despite being involved in lots of controversy and many scandals, is unfairly referred to as a criminal because said controversies are completely media-driven, and aren't in any way legitimate proof of her supposedly being corrupt, untrustworthy or deserving of the title "criminal".
WilliamsP forfeited this round.
WilliamsP forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lwittman 5 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||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I just wanted to vote.
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.