The Instigator
jc1996
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
devinator534
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump.

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 1 vote the winner is...
devinator534
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 103122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

jc1996

Pro

Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 US Presidential Election over Donald Trump, because of the two candidates, she has grace under pressure, and have words that are so inspiring that the legacy of Barack Obama are placed beside her. After all, she is the first female nominee of a major political party for President of the United States. She was a First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. She put America's reputation in the world back when she visited over 100 countries and she did something presidential: putting U.S. foreign policy to the table.

I know that from the very start of her campaign, she has the courage to do what no other woman would accomplish: to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the world's strongest democracy.

I hope that this debate will be fair and square, and I will defend it to the best of my ability.
devinator534

Con

So to start off to this debate round, I first thank my opponent. Secondly, though, I believe that my opponent had a slight typo when phrasing the resolution and meant to state, "Hillary Clinton should have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump." If I am incorrect in this statement, my opponent can correct me and I will delve into further argumentation on why this is incorrect grammar. With that established we will examine several off case points and then look at some on case refutation by examining my opponent's arguments.

Resolutional Analysis:
Because we are talking why or why not Trump or Clinton should have won the election, this debate should stay based only on the facts of the election (campaign, platforms, scandals, policies, etc.) Simply put, Pro should not be allowed to bring up whether or not Trump has instituted his campaign stances or anything like that because that would be outside the bounds of the resolution.

Contention 1: The Outsider
For years the American people have been told by politicians that they will go into office and get the job done. Donald Trump ran off the platform that he was anti-establishment. This resonated with voters throughout the country. His phrase, "Drain the Swamp" was chanted by his followers at rallies because the American people were tired of the same people, making the same promises, running for office and then not fulfilling any of it. Trump should have and did win the election because he was able to connect with what voters wanted on the issue of not being an inside politician. This goes hand in hand with my second contention. [1]

Contention 2: Political Correctness
Not only were the American people tired of the insiders making the same promises and not fulfilling them; they were also tired of politicians being politically correct. He was successfully able to take strong stances and say things that most politicians would never dare say. He communicated what the people wanted to hear. Yes, he communicated by not using political language but rather using the language of the people. In fact, one of his opponents, Bernie Sanders, said that this one of the major reasons Trump won. Sanders said, "[Trump] said he will not be politically correct. I think he said some outrageous and painful things, but I think people are tired of the same old politically correct rhetoric. I think some people believe he was speaking from his heart and willing to take on everybody." Now lets examine the third reason why Trump should have and did win. [2]

Contention 3: Ousting of Fake News
This is pretty simple. Major news media corps. obviously tainted the news towards Hillary Clinton. Trump repeatedly emphasized this at campaign speeches and debates. Once again, he communicated what the people had been wanting to hear for years. Not only did this help him, but just look at the current ranking of CNN in prime time ratings. CNN trails Nick at Nite and Yogi Bear reruns. Simply put, the fake news ousting helped boost Donald Trump's "ratings" among the people. [3] [4]

Contention 4: Policies
Trump's tough stance on trade and immigration gave the American people more reason to vote for Trump. Trump ran off the platform of bringing more jobs back, boosting the American economy, and securing the American borders. This platform was something that people were willing to rally behind. People were sick and tired of thousands of jobs being outsourced. Trump promised to bring back jobs. Hillary Clinton on the other hand was caught contradicting herself when talking about the coal industry v. the solar industry. This allowed Trump to come and promise both industries the ability and opportunity to grow. He also was able to rally voters behind the idea of building a wall. The American people had been asking for years to increase border security and the Democratic party sat back and did nothing. He once again communicated to the American people the message that they wanted to hear. [5]

Now let's move into some of my opponents arguments

First off he talked about how she has inspiring words and I agree. But at the end of day, what Trump was able to hammer home to the American people is that those are just words. A lot of politicians have inspiring words. but they don't fulfill them. He was able to successfully show to the American people that all she has done her entire life is promise things, and then not fulfill her promises.

My opponent contended that she was the first person nominated by a major political party. This is simply a fact and there is no reason to prefer. If a dog ran for office and was nominated by the Democratic party, just because he was the first dog nominated by that party gives the American people no reason to prefer the dog over the other party. This is simply an appeal to say that because she is a woman, therefore we should vote for which simply does not make sense.

Next my opponent contended that she has been elected into many offices. Once again, Donald Trump hammered this home. Yes, she was elected into many offices but has done essentially nothing. Unfulfilled promises and corruption is what she leaves behind her. As I talked about in my first and second contention, the American people wanted an outsider who was not politically correct. Hillary Clinton was the exact opposite.

My opponents final point was that she had the courage to do what no other woman has done. This is simply hearsay until backed up with evidence because many women have run for the President of the US. Pro must provide quotes by every single woman who has run for President that they did not have the courage or even the want to win the Presidency if Pro expects to win this point.

It is because Trump struck a chord that the American people wanted, he should have won the Presidency. Thank you, and I await the Pro's response.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com...
[2] http://reason.com...
[3] http://thefederalist.com...
[4] http://www.zerohedge.com...
[5] https://qz.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jc1996

Pro

The question on why Hillary Clinton should've won the election is because of the outdated system called the Electoral College.
In fact, it has been occurred in American history four times. [1] [2]

The most recent one before the 2016 election was the 2000 election [3], which George W. Bush, despite winning the Electoral College with 271 electoral votes, lost the popular vote to Al Gore by a margin of 541,895 votes or 0.5%. That is the outdated system still practiced up to this day. Sixteen years later, the "Gore phenomenon" still happened, but this time, the margin was about 3 million votes.

Comparing to the two campaigns, Donald Trump is more extreme, bragging about the things he has done as a businessman, bullying other presidential candidates, and even worse, attacking without any concrete evidence. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is more vibrant, defending about the legacy of Barack Obama. In fact, even the Obamas themselves campaigned tirelessly.

Challenging on the third contention, I find it very vague because if you look at the opinion polling [4], the fake news ousting helped boost Donald Trump's "ratings" among the people, but instead becoming extremely unpopular with an average of 55% of Americans disapproving it.

From the moment Donald Trump become president, all of the world's nations view Obama more favorable than Trump, with no surprise the only country showing more confidence in him is Russia. [5] [6]
Also, his decision to withdraw from the Climate Change Agreement with the three words "Pittsburgh, not Paris" drew negative criticism not just from other countries, but also at home soil as well.

My opponent contended that Donald Trump was able to connect with what voters wanted on the issue of being an outsider. He also contended that Donald Trump was successfully able to take strong stances and say things that most politicians would never dare say, communicated what the people wanted to hear, and by not using political language but rather using the language of the people. I find those contentions as simply worthwhile but lacking its luster because Donald Trump's words are nothing but like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators.
Donald Trump joined the ranks of Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Nicolas Maduro, Kim Jong-Un, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan as leaders who did nothing but violating the human rights of their own countries.

Thanks to Donald Trump, the United States has turned from the world's strongest democracy of the free world, to being a laughingstock and a third world country. The American people don't want him to be their president.

I await the opponent's response on this matter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://occupydemocrats.com...
[6] http://www.pewglobal.org...
devinator534

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments and I cannot wait to respond!

So first off, I would like to address that my opponent ignored my resolution analysis and has decided to drop this. I ask the judges to view all of the arguments that referred to how Trump has been viewed after his election or how he has implemented his policies null and void simply due to the fact that we are debating why they should have or should not have been elected. This should be a debate on their platforms and campaigns. If my opponent had wished to debate Trump is a bad President, he should not have chosen this resolution.

Now moving into his point about the electoral college. I am a bit confused. Is he saying that Clinton would have won if there was no electoral college? If so, that should have been clarified in the resolution or in the first speech because that is a simple fact but I guess I will debate on why the electoral college is an important of our American society. You see, people tend to believe that America is a democracy, which is true to a point, but rather we are a Constitutional Republic. The Founders wanted to avoid the "mob rule" system. They sought to avoid contentions within the system. Imagine if an election came down to a tiny margin (like the Trump v. Clinton election). Trump would have called for a recount in just about every state. This would be a waste of federal funds and time.

The Electoral College also forces candidates to win votes in states that where he does not have as much appeal. With a simple majority rule system, the President would simply be a regional favorite instead of a candidate who has to go to places where he is not supported as much and win the tough votes. [1]

His next point about how Donald Trump was a bragger. Um? I think that could be said about any Presidential candidate? Every Presidential candidate tells the people how great they are and what they have done and how they can use that if they are President. I fail to see how that point applies.

My opponent then talked about how he bullied other candidates. My opponent never provided a definition of bullying so it is hard to know exactly what he means when he says bullying but let's say he means that Trump called them names. Once again, negative campaign ads that are meant to hurt the other candidate's credibility are run a lot. Trump was simply taking a full negative ad and simplifying it into catchy nicknames that the people wanted to hear. This once again applies back into my second contention. The people wanted someone who was going to take a tough stance and not be politically correct.

So I have two major responses to my opponent's response to my third contention.

First off, I believe the article he cited comes from a biased source. It was written by Occupy Democrats, a site that is meant to support Democratic ideals.

But if that isn't enough, this article falls outside of the bounds of today's resolution. The study cited talks about he is dislike because of his ousting of fake news AFTER he became President. Because this does not deal with during the election I ask this study to be thrown out of today's debate round. Even if you decide to count this though, let us look at a study that disproves my opponent's study. According to Forbes, only 29% of the American people trust the media and 37% believe the White House. Yes, the numbers are low on both sides but the American people currently trust Trump more than the media showing us that he is winning the war on fake news. [2]

Pro next went on to talk about how world leaders hate him once he stepped in office. Once again, I remind you that anything that happened once he stepped in office should not be allowed in today's debate round because it does not fall under the resolution

Finally, he argued that Trump's words are "like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators." This is completely hearsay until my opponent brings up specific language that copies "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators." Not only must he bring up just a copy of just one (which would be interesting to see) but Pro must bring up how Trump has used the words of all those dictators because my opponent used the conjunction and. When using the conjunction "and" my opponent is referring to these as a set. He is simply saying that Trump has used the same words as all of those dictators and if that is true, I would love to see evidence of that.

The American people elected Trump to be their President because he ran a better campaign, tore off the shade of political correctness, and engaged in communication that the people wanted.

[1] http://www.slate.com...
[2] https://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jc1996

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments, but here is my response:

First, Donald Trump is the most unpopular president in American history, because from that moment he stepped into office, majority or even a plurality of Americans disapprove him. In fact, on his first week in office, he has 45% approval and 47% disapproval rating. On his 170th day in office, his approval rating has gone down to 38% while his disapproval has gone up to 57%. [1]
In the latest polling statistics conducted by Politico [2], 46% approve of him and 50% did not. In New Jersey alone [3], 35% approve while 58% did not. If my opponent had wished to debate this argument, he should have given the facts and statistics on how he made to that point.

Second, the evidence why I said like that is because of the Amnesty International Report entitled, "The State of the World's Human Rights" and said that whether it is Trump, Orban, Erdoğan or Duterte, more and more politicians calling themselves anti-establishment "wielded a toxic agenda that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people." [4]
My opponent challenged me to give more evidence to prove, here is another one coming from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein and said that Duterte and Trump are "breaking long-hard taboos" because the former "has spoken openly about extrajudicial killings", and the latter said that "torture could be necessary in certain circumstances." [5]

Finally, he argued that Donald Trump ran a better campaign, tore off a shade of political correctness, and engaged in communication people wanted. If that is certainly the case, let my opponent answer those questions: Why did he say that Mexicans were "asumably good people"? Why would he said that he would "drain the swamp in Washington", yet some of his cabinet are extremely unpopular like Betsy DeVos and Neil Gorsuch? Why did he say that John McCain is not a war hero just because he was captured? Why did he win the election with the help of Russian intervention, and caused the delight of Vladimir Putin? And, is it a better campaign if he publicly insulted Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, and especially women?

In short, Trump's "Make America Great Again" means "Make America White Again", "Make America Hate Again", and "Make America Great Again with the Republican Party". That is the truth that Donald Trump simply does not have the temperament to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States and the American people will pay the price for turning their country into a laughingstock and they will suffer the consequences for voting Trump.

Hillary Clinton ran a better campaign and she would have been in the White House.

I presented hard FACTS and gave my opponent real TRUTH. I await for the opponent's response.

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] https://morningconsult.com...
[3] https://www.monmouth.edu...
[4] https://www.amnesty.org...
[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
devinator534

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments but first off, I am going to have to say that many of his arguments cannot count on today's ballot. Why? Because he has ignored my resolutional analysis. The resolutional analysis I presented was simple and he has dropped it throughout today's debate round. This said, his points about Trump being unpopular and all the points I cited in the second round do not stand and should be thrown out of consideration. But even if you want to consider polls I would like to take two points into consideration

1. Polls were completely wrong
The funny thing is that Donald Trump has been on a bad side of polls throughout the entire election. EVERY SINGLE POLL said that Hillary would win. What happened? Trump won. As we sat there that night, and states were repeatedly called for Trump, we sat in shock. Why? Because the polls were wrong

2. Poll among the base
I believe it is important to look at how polls are conducted. The polls my opponent cited included many people who did not vote for Trump? Hm, wonder why they said they didn't approve? I am going out on a limb here, but is it maybe because they didn't like him the first place? Let's look at how his base voters approve of him for more accurate statistics. 88% of Trump's base voters according to a recent poll [1] have said that they approve of Trump's work in office.

Alright, I found this next point very interesting. He talked about how his amnesty source talked quite a bit about how being anti establishment makes Trump bad. I challenge you to read this article and the heart of this article is a bash of President Trump for signing an executive order that prohibited illegal immigrants into the US (or as the article puts it "refugees").

He then said well the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights said Trump says torture is necessary in certain circumstances. First, I would like to say that this commission is a very flawed commission. It takes very weak stances on how it deals with terrorism. To clarify what Mr. Trump had stated, it is that he believes that waterboarding should be allowed to be used on terrorists. This is a very controversial issue and to be honest, if a group of terrorists is planning to bomb the United States, I believe we should do everything in our power to protect US citizens. If my opponent does not believe in the protection of US citizens, lets have another debate, but I think we should put the safety of our country first.

This final argument, my opponent comes into this with a flawed mindset. I could ask him the same question. Why did Hillary Clinton call Republicans a "basket of deplorable?" Why did Hillary Clinton call us racists, sexists, and homophobics? My opponent also asked why he would put Neil Gorsuch in his cabinet? If my knowledge of current events is correct, he is an associate justice of the Supreme Court which is not Trumps's cabinet. He next asked why he used Russian intervention? My opponent is not able to decisively show that he used Russian intervention because the FBI cannot even prove after investigating for six months that Trump even allowed Russia to meddle in the election and help him win. Due to character count, I cannot go down each group of people he listed but simply put, Trump did not insult these groups of people, rather he talked about policy reform that he would bring to each of these separate groups. If insulted these groups so bad and called them horrible names, why did they vote for him? A great number of women, African-Americans, and Latinos voted for him.

He finally talked about how Trump is make America white and hate again and used different catchphrases, but this my opponent's opinion. I backed up with hard facts that the people of the United States wanted Trump to be President. Trump has not turned our country into a laughingstock but instead has made it a stronger country that has a booming economy. [2]

Before I finish out this round, I just would like to quickly say my opponent did drop some of my arguments. He failed to address my point where I asked him to bring up how Trump has said things similar to "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators." This was a major accusation brought up by Pro but never supported. He dropped my resolutional analysis and instead decided to bring up arguments outside of the bounds of today's resolution. He dropped my response to his point about how Hillary Clinton has held many positions. He also dropped my point where I talked about how other women have run for President and wanted to win the Presidency, Hillary is not the first.

It is hard, no impossible, to sidestep the facts and this why my opponent has failed to address many of my arguments. I thank my opponent for his time, but I urge a ballot for the Con. Thank you!

[1] http://www.newsweek.com...
[2] http://www.politico.com...
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zookdook1 1 year ago
zookdook1
Unfortunately I cannot vote but if I could it'd go to con for refuting pro's arguments and sticking to the resolution.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: /ILikePie5// Mod action: Removed<

5 point to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied as there was no ad hominem attacks. S/G is tied as both sides had minimal grammatical errors but nevertheless were understandable. Arguments goes to Con as PRO refused to follow the resolution they provided at the start of the debate. Moreover, they failed to support claims about Trump being like dictators (a damaging accusation). Sources also goes to Con as they had non-biased articles while PRO used Wikipedia which is known to be unreliable..

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. Merely stating that Con managed to stay on topic is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess sources given by both sides and explain why they are or are not reliable. Merely stating that they are unreliable, or that they are unbiased, is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Feel free to send me a debate challenge JC, I have all the research needed to destroy your liberal talking points...
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Gorsuch in the cabinet??? Wow you sure know "facts." Keep using the liberal talking points that I have destroyed in my debates countless times.

One more thing, how does Trump being bad make Hillary good??
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Keep dreaming liberal....
Posted by jc1996 1 year ago
jc1996
ILikePie5, yes I followed that resolution very accurately, based on FACTS.
Posted by devinator534 1 year ago
devinator534
ILikePie5 isn't it a little to late to do that now lol :P
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
JC, you might wanna follow the resolution you gave...
Posted by jc1996 1 year ago
jc1996
philochristos, the resolution there is that Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency if Donald Trump didn't have contacts with the Kremlin, but he is still the Republican nominee.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I think you mean "should" and not "would."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
jc1996devinator534Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied as there was no ad hominem attacks. S/G is tied as both sides had minimal grammatical errors but nevertheless were understandable. Arguments goes to Con as they answered every single argument layed out by PRO. The Electoral College argument was conceded by PRO because there was no response to the rebuttal layed out by Con. In addition, Pro failed to rebute all of Con's arguements in terms of Hillary Clinton. After the initial argument layed out by PRO which said why Hillary was good and Con refuted, PRO conceded that Hillary was indeed bad. This defeats the entire resolution as the goal was to prove why Hillary would win (qualities she had) not just why Trump should've lost. Sources goes to Con as well because PRO used left-wing sources such as OccupyDemocrats which is clearly biased and they used Wikipedia which is infamous for being unreliable as anyone can change the info on the site. Con, on the other hand used fairly non-biased sources such as Politico and USAToday