The Instigator
ho11yw00d
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Reformist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 86045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

ho11yw00d

Pro

Pro argument: Hillary is not a liar

Con argument: Hillary is a liar

I await a challenger.
Reformist

Con

I accept

The definition of liar is: a person who has told lies

We have all told lies so we are all liars

Therefore you need to prove that Hillary Clinton is a somehow pure being that has never lied in her life
Debate Round No. 1
ho11yw00d

Pro

Hillary told America that the Benghazi embassy attack was due to a protest about a video tape when it was actually a terrorist attack. She said that intelligence was bad. It was not a covered up to make her or Obama look bad. We should believe her because she is an honest person.

She did not lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, she just mis-remembered. It's not a lie if you say that you mis-remembered. Therefore she did not lie there.

She also did not lie about having classified emails on her home email server. She originally said there are no emails, but, then when the FBI found some, she said, "there are no classified emails", but then when they found classified emails, she said, "they weren't classified at the time". This is all a setup by Republicans according to Hillary, Therefore, there is no lie here.

On to you Con
Reformist

Con

Again according to laws he definition of liar

Everyone is a liar

So again you need to prove Hillary Clinton ia a somehow pure being that never told a lie

While you did list 3 things hillary Clinton did not lie about it does not stop the obvious conclusion that everyone lies in one point of their life
Debate Round No. 2
ho11yw00d

Pro

I've stated 3 facts, my opponent has stated zero. He is off topic and should forfeit.
Reformist

Con

You can name any fact you want and you would still lose this debate

Your resolution of this debate was: Hillary Clinton is not a liar

I have successfully proven through usage of a definition that all people lie. Hillary Clinton is not some pure divine being and even if she was you still have not proven that she is

You lost this debate when you made it
Debate Round No. 3
ho11yw00d

Pro

Con is off topic and gives no facts. By calling everyone a liar is false on many accounts. Are all Nigerians liars? How about ancient Egyptians? What about the Vikings? How about newborn babies, they are people, are they liars too? Where is any of your proof Con? Stay on subject next time or do not accept debate.

Con has failed to provide any factual argument and is only here to disrupt this debate. His debate skills and intellect are sub-par and this shows by his lack of staying on topic.

My argument gave three factual reasons to support my position. The Con did not even talk about the position, he went off on a tangent that was not even about the subject.
Reformist

Con

Pro has shown no proof of any of these scenarios happening. No sources or anything

Again there is no being that is able to talk that has never told a lie except for newborns

Hillary Clinton is not a newborn

Because of this she must be a liar

Pro never even contested my definition

So that means I win
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ho11yw00d 1 year ago
ho11yw00d
My next debate will be "Democrats win will Presidential election". I will take the Pro position. You need to stay out of this one.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Uh i dont really care. Ill gladly debate something thats against my beliefs. But I mean if it makes you happy I got played. :D
Posted by ho11yw00d 1 year ago
ho11yw00d
I called them morons because they don't understand what the work, LIAR, means. I never mentioned their votes. I created half of my debates the first day, before you start stalking me. I knew, once you saw an open debate about Hillary, from me, you would jump at the chance. You got played, just admit it!!. Congratulations on winning the HIllary is a liar debate. This will forever go down in history as Reformist confirming that Clinton is a liar. It doesn't get any better than this. Like I said, I would have taken a dozen debate loses to make that happen, but it only took one. HAHAHAHAHAHA. You suck!!
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Out of 7 debates i was in 2

Not only that but you called voters morons for not voting for you

Give up dude.
Posted by ho11yw00d 1 year ago
ho11yw00d
You are a moron. The chance of you accepting was extremely high......you've been stalking me all over this site. Did you notice that I never told you to "go away" after you accepted the debate? I must have told you at least a dozen times before to "stop stalking me". I wanted you in that debate. I wanted you to admit that the witch queen was a liar. You got reeled in like a fish and now your hanging on my wall with your mouth wide open. A sorry, dead, Reformist fish!!
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
No you didn't

Anybody could've accepted this debate and the chance of me accepting was very small.

Your saying this because you lost, your mad, and you are immature.

I think we all know at this point that your not 20 and your about 10
Posted by ho11yw00d 1 year ago
ho11yw00d
Are you ssa sdrawkcab? I created this debate so that I would lose, get it? I got you to argue Hillary as being a liar. That was the whole point. This went exactly as I had planned. I would never defend the Liars(Clintons). It's even more sad that I have to explain this all to you still. You are still under this impression that I care what my win/loss record is. I come here to expose ignorance.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
No i knew. Your a biased rightist why the hell would you defend the Clintons.

I just did it for an easy win because your terrible at debating
Posted by ho11yw00d 1 year ago
ho11yw00d
Do you see now Reformist, Sincerly-Millenial understood what I did right away. Why did it take you a week to get it?

It's impossible to defend Hillary's lies. She is a two-faced, crooked, career liar. Even the most loyal liberals can't possibly defend her.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
Pro you just pointed three facts that Hillary in fact LIED about then said she wasn't lying....isn't that against your own argument?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 1 year ago
kkjnay
ho11yw00dReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: For future reference, Pro should clarify terms and stances... because this is a very broad argument and essentially comes down to whether Hillary Clinton has ever lied, Con wins.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
ho11yw00dReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate wasn't even really about Hillary at all, it was more or less simply an argument about the definition of a 'liar', so I'm pretty much forced to vote on that. Since pro never actually put forward or challenged Con's definition of 'liar', pro never actually shows how Hillary Clinton has NEVER been a liar, (nor is any of her examples sourced) which leaves a big hole in pro's case. I didn't really like the way con brought forward the debate however, I find it a rather cheap tactic somewhat to broaden the definition like that and not actually provide an argument proving Hillary Clinton as a liar, so conduct actually goes to pro but arguments go to con.