Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.
Debate Rounds (4)
I will argue that Hillary Clinton should run for President in the 2016 Presidential Election. I believe she is a qualified, resilient woman who would be a magnificent Commander-in-Chief. I look forward to debating anyone who disagrees with my view.
The debate structure will be the following:
Round One: Acceptance & Stating Your Stance
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttals
Round Four: Final Rebuttals / Conclusion
I will implement a few crucial rules into this debate:
1. Sources, if any, must be cited.
a. MLA will be the only acceptable format in this debate.
2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
a. Occasional errors will be acceptable.
3. Proper conduct will be utilized.
a. There will be no trolling.
b. There will be no forfeitting.
I look forward to this debate.
My stance is that Hillary Clinton while well qualified is not what the United States needs. I think there are other better candidates that would do well to run instead of Hillary Clinton.
I look forward to your opening argument.
Before we begin the debate, I would like to thank my opponent for responding. I look forward to debating this topic with him and I am enthusiastic about the arguments he may have. I will make my main argument in the section below and I will site all of my sources using the MLA format, as stated in the rules. I would like to remind my opponent of this rule and I would like to make the voters aware of this too. Without further ado, let's begin.
Hillary Clinton, as you have already acknowledged, is a qualified woman. You stated that there are better candidates. I would like to see you tell me of these people in the arguments to come. Of the Democratic Party, I could see Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, two very qualified people, running for the office of President. I do believe, however, that Hillary Clinton is more qualified and that she is what we so desperately need. First of all, we desperately need a female president. The nation, whether you accept it or not, still has a spirit of sexism within it. We can overcome this spirit by electing a qualified, strong, reasonable woman to the presidency.
We cannot ignore what occured regarding Benghazi. However, this event is overcome by all of Clinton's accomplishments in her career. First, she was the First Lady of the United States of America; the wife of one of our greatest Presidents. When she was in the Senate, she endorsed bills that will ensure 9/11 relief, promoted safety, passed resolutions in order to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site, "to establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program, and to recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor." Economically, Hillary Clinton didn't do much in her Senate career. However, when she was First Lady, she was a very active woman and endorsed her husband's policies. Bill Clinton's policies, you cannot deny, were great and positively influenced our economy and our country. I am not Conservative by any means, but some of the policies from the Clinton era would positively influence the economic issues we have today. Hillary Clinton, who is very qualified, would ensure a comeback of these policies and innovation, growth, and reform in order to create, what Lyndon B. Johnson called, "The Great Society."
When Clinton was Secretary of State under Barack Obama, she promoted American ideals and values that restored international faith and trust in the United States that was destroyed during the administration of George W. Bush. She did a great job at diplomacy and foreign policy was much better than it once was. She promoted economic programs, proposed by President Obama, that greatly benefitted us. I could go on and on about the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton, but I believe I have made sufficient arguments to support my claim. Therefore, I will close this argument now and enthusiastically await my opponent's opening argument.
"5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State Tenure." PolicyMic. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://www.policymic.com...>.
"Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments." Buzzle. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
I thank my opponent for his argument.
The biggest problem in this country is how the corporations more or less control the government, in 2010 there was 3.51 billion dollars spent by lobbyists buying politicians  because of supreme court decisions such as corporate person hood and bills like citizens united.
Hillary Clinton has been a proponent of corporations slowly taking over the government and helped them along, marketwatch.com says:
"The two camps are the “corporatists,” ably represented by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their entourage, who have largely shaped the policies of the Obama administration, and the “populists,” whose current champion is Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts." 
With the highest ever spending by lobbyists and corporations  (this source still applies here) including hidden money sent through "charitable" funds . In fact many controversial projects such as the keystone pipeline were passed only because of lobbing efforts supported by establishment democrats like Clinton .
Stopping Other Candidates
If Clinton runs other smaller candidates whose views more represent that of the american population such as Warren  as she has the majority backing of the sponsers and the current regime.
 http://www.ontheissues.org... (bearing in mind this guy was elected with the majority vote on these promises even if he failed to fulfill them, Obama ran on a platform of change which was accepted by the american people).
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I appreciate his argument and I will now rebut it. I will also make a few additional arguments. I would first like to rebut my opponent's "corporatism" argument. He claims that "[t]he biggest problem in this country is how the corporations more or less control the government." I would like to make my opponent aware that he has not yet provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. I do not believe his evidence to be enough and therefore encourage him to elaborate on his point. Also, there is no evidence to support that Hillary Clinton has anything to do with this. My opponent's final sentence is a sentence fragment for it is incomplete. It is grammatically incorrect and therefore it is invalid.
Once my opponent makes stronger arguments, I can make stronger rebuttals. I await his response.
My opponent claims that I have not substantiated my claim that corporations have not taken control of the American government. I would argue that I have but I will lay out as much evidence as I can here.
How the System Works
Corporate personhood is the result of a supreme court decision to allocate the same rights (but not the same liabilities) given to humans to corporations . Corporate personhood means that a corporation can donate money to politicians through lobbyists .
Citizens united allows for unlimited money to be spent by people (and thereby corporations) in there lobbing efforts, this means that corporations can effectively buy off politicians .
Corporations can now hide the money they are sending to politicians through lobbyists by hiding it in so called charitable entities, this is commonly known as dark money 
In large parts because of this US politicians have been constantly performing favours to those who can pay them legalised bribes in the form of lobbing. A good example of this was the keystone pipeline where over a million dollars was spent in "lobbing" efforts targeted at individual politicians .
How Hillary Clinton Relates to this
I don't think there is any doubt that Hillary Clinton is a corporatist, for a start she has started to model herself on the republican candidates especially in relation to Crimea where she compared Putin to Hitler . Hilary Clinton has attempted to put herself to the far right of the democrat party and does support the status quo of legalised bribes    .
I actually agree which much of what you are saying here, yes Hillary Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate in the 2016 election but let me ask you the question: Can a candidate be suitable for office based solely on qualifications? Hillary Clinton seems to be a supporter of many of Obama's policies which have caused massive problems because Obama has been so hesitant to push forward important changes .
You say that Hillary Clinton "promoted American ideals and values that restored international faith and trust in the United States"
I don't know if this is really true, under Hilary Clinton the abuses that lead to the Snowdon revelations were taking place  which stretched foreign relations  and I doubt foreign heads of state would take her seriously.
Debate Review & Conclusion
In the first round, I stated basic rules, one of which my opponent has chosen to not abide by. I said that sources must be cited using the MLA format. My opponent has cited his sources using a different format. Also, I would like to point out that my opponent mainly uses .com websites. I would prefer .org or .gov. Granted, I used only .com sites until now, but I cited them properly and they are therefore more reliable. I am sure you can find the exact same information I have presented from other sources, such as books published about Clinton and encylopedias including her. Given the arguments I have made and given the fact that my opponent's sources were not properly sited, I must say that the voters must consider this before voting.
I would also like to point out that both sources offered by my opponent are broken links (at least for me) and not in the MLA format he wanted to use, I think putting him more at fault than me in this regard. Also in an attempt to justify his precarious position my opponent has stated that
"I am sure you can find the exact same information I have presented from other sources, such as books published about Clinton and encylopedias including her."
Without citing those encyclopedia's and as I have already said referring to broken links and articles that when dug up turn out not to be in the MLA format he has attempted to corner me with.
Also even if you discount my sources that do not adhere to MLA format, my opponent has not given any sources that are of any meaning to this debate and not come up with convincing counter arguments or arguments.
I would like to ask voters to take this into account.
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.