The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jays_slayer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Hillary Clinton is honest.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 94924
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Hillary Clinton is honest. Innocent into proven guilty burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and on Con.
jays_slayer

Con

Hillary Clinton is not honest and there's a lot of prove about it
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

What is this alleged proof you speak of? Innocent until proven guilty.
jays_slayer

Con

yes innocent until proven guilty, but innocent doesn't mean you are not or have not lied.

there's a lot of instance where she lied, I'll try to keep it short. Here's a list of 4 I can remember on top of my head

Claims by Hillary Clinton

1. "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email"

2."I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two"

3. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Clinton claimed she landed in Bosnia "under sniper fire"

4. In an interview, Clinton stated that she "came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt".

Proof that she lied.

1. According to James Comey (FBI director), "a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received."

2. "Clinton used "multiple devices" throughout her four years as the nation"s top diplomat, according to the head of the FBI "

3. "as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem."

4. "A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clinton's were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. by 2004 Hillary was ranked the 10th wealthiest member of the senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $ 50 million"

Reference.

1. http://thehill.com...

2. http://www.zerohedge.com...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

4. http://www.politifact.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

First, unless you can read people's minds you can't prove she was lying. The best you can do is prove she was telling a falsehood. Then, it comes down to probability if she was knew she was telling a falsehood or not.


Let's look a the claims one at a time.


"1. According to James Comey (FBI director), "a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received."" jays_slayer


First, she was sent thousands of emails. It is very possible she simply messed up and didn't notice they were classified. [0]


"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked." [0]


Out of 55,000 emails 110 emails had classified emails, of those 110, three had markings. Out of those three all three were improperly marked. [1]

Was Hilary telling the truth? Almost, she missed 110 emails out of 55,000. Was she lying? Almost certainly not, this can easily be attributed to human error. Impact, Hillary made an honest mistake on .2% of emails and thus was honest, despite telling a falsehood.


As for the server, as you can see she only used one server. Also note, a server can be multiple machines. Impact, Hiliary was telling the truth. Without a falsehood, my opponent cannot hope to claim she was lying.


"CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service." [1]


"3. "as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem."" jays_slayer


That was just be a mess up. She was probably tired. Campaigning takes a lot of energy. Honest mistake.


""A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clinton's were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. by 2004 Hillary was ranked the 10th wealthiest member of the senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $ 50 million"" jays_slayer


Bill Clinton was president of the USA, which virtually guaranteed income the mortgage sounds correct. As for the $855,000 that was probably why they were broke. Notice the cash down payment was made before they were broke. Thus, it is reasonable to assume they were broke because of the cash down payment. Remember the president and first lady live within the White House, so they needed a place to live after leaving office. As for 2004 being 10th wealthiest member of senate, this was three years later.


I ask for you not to make any new arguments in the last round, since I will not be able to respond to them. Thanks for the debate.

Sources
0. http://bluenationreview.com...
1. https://verdict.justia.com...
jays_slayer

Con

your last point just proved I am right

"the best you can do is prove she was telling a falsehood."

Falsehood = Lie (1)

source

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Thanks for letting me debate you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheCritic89// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: The conduct was fine. The grammar and spelling was about equally, regularly incorrect (without actually counting individual errors). I give the more convincing argument to Con because I think Pro's argument that Clinton would not have known what she was doing is extremely unlikely given the level of expertise she would have to be operating on with the number of advisors, both technical and political, assisting her (that is to say, there is no way Clinton would receive or send e-mails potentially classified without an advisor having told her it was a possibility that they were classified ahead of time). Lastly, I would say very few of the sources utilized could truly be referred to as "reliable." Though, I cast a vote for Con because Con's sources are generally those that would be more inclined to be more liberal-leaning sites. It's unlikely they would regularly take a stance against Hillary Clinton, therefore I give them a little more reliability when used against her validly.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Much as the voter does analyze arguments made by Pro, he appears to do so entirely based on his own arguments against Pro's points rather than anything stated by Con. The voter is required to assess the debate as it is, and not to add to it with their own points. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that one side had left-leaning sources, ergo theirs were more reliable. It must be clear why the content of those sources are reliable, and not just why their perceived bias may contribute to their reliability.
************************************************************************
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
"I think Pro's argument that Clinton would not have known what she was doing is extremely unlikely given the level of expertise she would have to be operating on with the number of advisors, both technical and political, assisting her (that is to say, there is no way Clinton would receive or send e-mails potentially classified without an advisor having told her it was a possibility that they were classified ahead of time). "

You seem to be basing your reason for decision upon arguments my opponent did not make.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
You can tell by the context which definition I meant.

"First, unless you can read people's minds you can't prove she was lying. The best you can do is prove she was telling a falsehood. Then, it comes down to probability if she was knew she was telling a falsehood or not. " stupidape
Posted by jays_slayer 9 months ago
jays_slayer
leaving definition out to make them fit your narrative doesn't make them disappear. you forget to put the first one

Full Definition of falsehood

1 : an untrue statement : lie

2: absence of truth or accuracy

3: the practice of lying : mendacity
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
Falsehood "2
: absence of truth or accuracy"

As you can see this definition of is not lying.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
There is a vast difference between lying and a falsehood.

lie

"1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2
: to create a false or misleading impression"

The difference between stating a falsehood and a lie is intent. You can unknowingly state a falsehood, a lie is deliberate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
JiffyCones

Appeal to personal incredulity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Posted by JiffyCones 9 months ago
JiffyCones
I love a good joke!

"Hillary Clinton is honest!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
No votes have been placed for this debate.