Hillary Clinton would make a bad president
I accept this debate, and would like to thank pro for the chance to debate such a topic. As pro has not provided any arguments in the first round, I will deduce that the first round is relegated to acceptance. However, I would like to discuss the resolution and BoP.
Resolution: Hillary Clinton Would Make a Bad President.
What does it mean to be a bad president? While this is an incredibly complex topic, it may be summed up simply. Since pro has not put forth what a bad president is, or any methodological tools for determining if one would be a bad president, I would like to present the following definitions and methodology. A bad president is one, who if elected, would entail a net degradation of well being for the country, and the way in which this would be achieved is through bad policy. I believe this is a sound definition, because a good president is often said to be one who entailed an increase in well being for the country, and furthermore that this was done through good policy. So through negation of what a good president is, we can reasonably interpret what a bad one is.
Pro is making a positive assertion, that something is the case, namely that if Hilary Clinton were to be elected president, it would be the case that she would be a bad president. As such, pro is required to provide argumentation for such a claim, and as con, it is merely my job to negate pro's arguments for the proposition. I am not required to argue that Hilary Clinton would make a good president, but I very well may.
I look forward to engaging with pro on such a relevant resolution, and would like to thank the voters for their participation in advance.
She has also failed horribly with the War on Terrorism, not only has she not been able to control terrorism in the middle east and created ISIS, but in her time as Secretary of State, there has been a total of 66 acts of terrorism on US soil. Security being a crucial part of running a country, it demonstrates one fault she would have during her presidential term.
Hillary has also showed herself untrustworthy through her constant pathological lying. Some examples are:lying about "sniper fire" in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone, was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying, the Whitewater scandal, in an interview, Clinton stated that she "came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest, although the explorer didn"t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old. Hillary also claimed to have been turned down by the Marines when she applied in 1975, which was later proven false. Hillary has also made a mockery of 9-11 by claiming her daughter was jogging around one of the twin towers when the attack happened. Most recently though, she had lied multiple times on camera directly to the FBI about her email scandal. This long list of lies represent perfectly that Hillary should not be trusted to be transparent with the people of the US, if given more power, will most likely continue to tell more outrageous lies.
Her recent email scandal is another example of how irresponsible she is. Hillary first of all handled classified information on a personal server that has less security than a Gmail account. She claimed she didn't know C meant classified, consider that she has been involved in politics for over 20 years now. I that's true then it makes me uncomfortable to think that someone so incompetent can be put in charge of being president. If it isn't true that makes her a liar, either way she loses. Even though she has apologized for her mistakes, they still happened. She did not consider that it is illegal to set up a private server the way she did and that it could put valuable information at risk.
Lastly, I would like to list the many scandals she has been involved with. To save time, I will only list the names of the scandal, not the descriptions. Here is the list of her scandals: The Clintons" Private Email Server, Clinton"s State Department Emails, Benghazi, Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom, Sidney Blumenthal, Speech Profits, The Clinton Foundation, Clinton's turn IRS into "Gestapo", Covering Bill"s dirty deeds, Looting the White House, Filegate, Hillary"s "Muslim Brotherhood princess", Vince Foster"s 1993 death, Chinagate, Travelgate, Whitewater, "missing" law firm billing records, Pardongate, Hillary"s cash cows, Clinton body count, Saul Alinsky, Hillary laughs about defending child rapist, and Iranian fundraising. If she can commit this many scandals with her small amount of power, think what horrible things she can do when she has the most powerful position in the world.
I have decided to first offer argumentation for why I believe Hillary Clinton would be a good president. I was initially going to take a weak position and merely negate pro’s claims, however this is a topic I feel quite strongly about, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so. I will offer refutations in the following round. However, I am puzzled at pro’s round as he didn’t question policies as a standard of measuring good presidents, but he has mentioned nothing of Clinton’s policies, he has just put forth a structureless Gish Gallop of asserted scandals. Furthermore, he has failed to establish how these necessarily entail that Clinton would be a poor president. I suggest that pro take one or two good arguments and develop them as opposed to hurling a lot of minimally developed arguments at me.
P1) Good presidents have good policies
P2) Hillary Clinton has good policies
C) Hillary Clinton would make a good president
P1) This is true by virtue of the definitions advanced in the first round. Pro has not demonstrated any contention with this issue, so I take it to be the case that we agree upon the notion that Good presidents possess good policies.
P2) While I can’t defend every policy Clinton holds given character limits, I will argue a couple in detail.
Taxes on The Wealthy:
Hillary Clinton has planned to raise taxes on the wealthy. If it is the case that a policy is moral, then the policy should be enacted, contingent upon if humans should act moral. While I find this to be somewhat of analytic proposition, I will formulate my argument in the form of a syllogism.
P1) Humans should act in a way that maximizes well being
P2) Imposing higher taxes on the wealthy maximizes well being
C) We should impose higher taxes on the wealthy
P1) This is axiomatic. While P1 explicitly endorses utilitarianism, however I would assert that all moral systems reduce to this common goal. On deontology certain acts are said to be definitively right or wrong, under the assumption a respective prohibition or permission will increase well being, which may be deduced from the categorical imperative, at least in the functional sense. Even under a contractarian framework, upon forming societies individuals relinquish some of their natural rights in order to promote well being. Increase in well being is especially important in policy making.
P2) Most economists, even conservative economists admit that Republican tax plans would entail a severe budget gap, increases in borrowing, and even less taxes paid by the rich. Over the last 15 years tax exemptions have increased, and as the filing of tax returns of such individuals using these exemptions has declined. Furthermore, 70% of capital gains benefits go to the top 1%. However, raising taxes on the wealthy will generate sufficient revenue to fund a multitude of public institutions. Furthermore, raising taxes on the rich will generate revenue without entailing a financial strain, which cannot be said for the middle class, who pay proportionally more than wealthy individuals, who evade taxes via exemptions. Raising the tax burden to 40% on the 1% would generate 157 billion dollars in the first year. Raising it to 45% would generate 276 billion dollars. Raising the tax burden to 40% on the top 0.1% would generate an extra 55 billion dollars the first year, which is more than the combined tuition of every single four year public university in the nation. Raising it to 45% would generate 105 billion dollars. Regarding the 95-99 percentile, a 30% tax would generate 86 billion dollars, and a 35% tax would generate 176 billion dollars, which is the amount the Federal Highway Administration would need to make vast improvements to infrastructure per annum. Imagine that, a 35% tax on the top 4.9-1.1% would pay for the entire cost to significantly improve highway infrastructure. As the well being of the middle class declines, and the rich get richer, I see no justification for the wealthy being able to evade taxes through exemptions. According to the CBO, less invasive methods such as subsidizing capital gains on inherited assets would produce 644 billion dollars in 10 years. Eliminating deferral on foreign profit would generate 900 billion dollars. Individuals who are extremely wealthy, wealthier than ever before, especially taking into account that the middle is worse off than ever before, need to pay their fair share of taxes.
C)If we agree that humans should behave morally, and that what is moral is what produces the most well being, which I have established, and that raising taxes on the wealthy would generate income, which can be used towards the public good, then it is demonstrably the case that taxes on the wealthy should be increased. Furthermore, by virtue of our definition of what a good president is, and what good policy is, this constitutes a good policy, and provides a reason for why Hillary Clinton would make a good president.
Clinton’s gun control policy will entail a net increase in well being. As P1 is the same in this argument, and has already been reasonably affirmed and the P2,C, can be reformulated inputting gun control, I will merely argue that gun control will entail a net increase in well being. The United States is disproportionately affected by gun violence. A United States citizen is ten times more likely to be killed by a firearm than citizens in other developed nations. Gun related death is in the United States is 25 times more likely than in other developed nations. It is necessary to impose background checks to prevent the mentally ill and criminals from obtaining guns. A study authored by contributors from FSU,US, and a North Carolina judge states the following”evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates. Kalesan et al states the following regarding the effectiveness of these measures:”The three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0.39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100R00;000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100R00;000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100R00;000.” While second amendment fervor makes it extremely difficult to reduce the number of guns in America, it is an extremely measure in other countries, subsequently one would rationally deduce that it would be effective in America. Look at the following graphs:
s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="736" />
Australian gun violence dropped 72% after imposing stricter gun control after a mass shooting. America has experienced a multitude of shootings, but nothing has been done. In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. It is demonstrably the case that gun control is effective in other countries, and furthermore there are measures within the US gun happy paradigm that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Clinton advances stricter gun control policies which will entail a net increase on well being, given that less gun violence is conducive to producing well being, and as such this is a good policy and by virtue this is another good reason for why Clinton would be a good president.As aforementioned, I will conduct my rebuttal in the next round, however I would like to first say, any asserted scandal that my opponent has merely listed but not explained in detail should be disregarded as he has not shown why this would establish Clinton to be a poor president. Furthermore, he has not explicitly stated why the contentions he has raised would establish Clinton as a poor president. I humbly ask my opponent to abstain from introducing a veritable plethora of unsubstantiated arguments in his next round, all of which I cannot possibly refute given character limits, and instead to stick to refuting my claims and further establishing his arguments. I do not intend any of these criticisms as ad hominems, I’m merely looking to have a structured framework, in such a manner which produces a productive and vigorous exchange.
I agree with Con on most factors of what a good president should be defined as. But I think it is important to be more specific. I would add on to Con's definition by saying the following:a good president must be able to unite a people, must be able to grow a following, and most importantly to create a sense of nationalism through out the country. This is because nationalism is an important factor in creating a successful imperialist state, although that has negative connotations, it can be beneficial to not only the country in question, but to the people of the world in general. Now to Con's statement, I agree that my format was not adequate in the last argument and I do apologize, but there was a meaning to my "structureless Gish Gallop," I would like to clarify what that meaning was. After I clarify my argument in round 2, I would like to rebut Con's statements claiming Hillary would be a good president.
1.) In the list of scandals I provided in Round 2 I was attempting to illustrate that Hillary is frequently involved in lying, deception, illegal activity, and endangerment. As to allow Con to try to rebut my claim I will instead choose the scandal that I believe best illustrates my point. The scandal I choose to be a representation in the scandal popularly called, "Whitewater." This not being one of her more recent scandals, you may be unaware of this scandal so I will illustrate it for you. In the 1970's and 80's Bill and Hillary Clinton did not have the surplus of money they now have. So since Hillary was in law and both Hillary and Bill are businessmen, they took advantage of their skills which is by no means wrong. But the problem is how they took advantage of them, Hillary and Bill convinced a couple who did have a large sum of money, to give a large investment. They then bought a large plot of land and built a series of houses on it. They would then hand pick people who may not be able to pay there mortgages with out any hiccups, if you were even off on a payment by one dollar, they would take your down-payment as well as any other money you have paid and kick you out again. Once you were out they would repeat the process. To make it even worse they would target, although it wasn't exclusive, retired/elderly citizens. This was eventually discovered, a total of seven people, including the Clinton's, were involved in this scandal set up by the Clintons. All people were prosecuted and convicted for fraud except Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In the outlines for a good president I added and of what was originally stated, this would be very counter intuitive to what she should be trying to accomplish. By doing what she did, many people would become bankrupt after retirement and would most likely never recover. Committing repulsive acts like that would not unite a people, would not make people proud of their country and grow nationalism, and would definitely not contribute to increase well being. This was a extremely selfish act, it is important to have a leader who would be a role model citizen for Americans, if she was the role model citizen then the state of America would not improve.
2.) In my round 2 argument I was very specific in her failure of security. The three examples being her email scandal, Benghazi scandal, and her failure with the War on Terrorism. The well being of a country is very much effected by it's security. To have productive people you first need to have healthy, happy, comfortable, and most importantly living people. It is clear that a president must be able to keep people safe because of that, but she had gone out of her way to act on something that inturn compromised the US' cyber-security and the Lybian ambassador's security. Although you may argue that it was unintentional, that is irrelevant to the point. Wetter you intentionally mess up or purposefully mess up, you still mess-up. In a country one mess-up could lead to deaths of many hundreds of people as demonstrated in the 9-11 attack.
3A.) Con's argument on Hillary's tax plan started with him claiming the proposed republican tax plan would leave a large budget gap. Although that is a good point in a debate that does need to happen, it is not viable in this debate. We are arguing if Hillary would make a good president, not Donald Trump. Saying this I ask that you disregard that point, but I will rebut his claim that it would be effective to raise taxes on the upper-class. Although I have not heard the statistics you have provided I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's true. First off, I would like to point out that you repeatedly said the first year. This important to point out, although the profits from the first year would be quite substantial, what would it be the second year. Then each year you would have less and less money to tax until you finally and inevitably run out. The problem with high taxes like the one proposed, is eventually you run out of other people's money. It is also important to keep in mind that people in the upper-class are the ones who are providing many jobs, starting and investing in many businesses, and are very large consumers. Taking away there money would take from all of society one way or another. Another important factor is that it is unfair to tax that much money. Money is a physical representation of how much work and/or risk you have put into society. Although they may not be working hard now, they had to get there somehow and most of them worked their way from the bottom.
3B.) Con's last point argument was gun control. Statistically background checks and phycological evaluations do not work. They have been implemented in different cities/states but have not shown a decrease in gun violence. One reason is because only 10-15% of all criminals obtain gun legally. Even when they are obtained legally, they often do not catch people who should be owning guns. For instance the Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook the San Bernadino shooters both went through the process you proposed and still got guns legally. An example that was given by Con was Australia. They way that Australia did what they did was unconstitutional and would violate more than just the second ammendmant.
I would like to thank pro for focusing his arguments, and I would like to apologize for exercising what may be construed as poor decorum. Now I would like to remind voters that it is merely my job to negate pro's claims that these would entail that Clinton would be a poor president.
It would appear my opponent has 2 primary contentions:
1) Security(Benghazi, Isis)
2) Moral character(Whitewater,Emails)
I agree that these scandals are certainly not of no importance, but I hope to establish that they are not sufficient to establish Clinton as a poor president.
Taxing the wealthy again:
The second objection regards economic theories. Pro actually espouses trickle down economics in the following quote:”It is also important to keep in mind that people in the upper-class are the ones who are providing many jobs, starting and investing in many businesses, and are very large consumers. Taking away their money would take from all of society one way or another.” So should we give them more tax breaks so there prosperity can trickle down to the middle class? Of course not, this didn’t work under Reagan and it’s not going to work now. Trickle down economics ensures the prosperity of the rich, and with the current tax loopholes, the rich move their money into tax havens. The IMF says there is no demonstrated positive effect on lower classes if the wealthy get richer, stating”I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.” I encourage everyone to read the IMF study and check out the link immediately below to view graphs that demonstrate how ineffective trickle down economics is.
As for fairness, this is a red herring, as we have already established the criteria for good policy. Furthermore, I believe it is unfair that they aren’t taxed that much. Even after these tax increases they would still be significantly better off than the vast majority of Americans. So is it unfair? Debatable. Is it detrimental in any meaningful sense?no
Also here’s the source for the stats I quoted
In this round I would like to Rebut Con's claims, as well as to protect the arguments I presented in the previous round. I will Follow the same order as Con's rebuttal in the previous round.
As Cons states, "He fails to mention anything of prospective diplomatic consequences, or the incredibly complex process through which a response is formulated." That statement is correct, if I were to deny that it isn't as simple as making a call it would be a lie. He also brought up the point that Hillary Clinton's elected role is not to manage defense. But you have to keep in mind, although it is not her specific role, she is involved in decisions as well as communication. She was aware of this and even though it was obvious no one seemed to be doing anything about it, she decided not to step up to the plate. It is not rare for someone of a certain position to step out of what they were originally elected to do. For someone running for president I would expect her to make those strides to try and better America and the world to the best of her ability, even if that is not what she is specifically assigned to do. Con later on questions how this would be relevant to making a good president. As I said before, I expect someone who will be assuming the role of the most powerful person in the world to be willing to go the extra mile and work harder than expected. They need to show excitement at the sight of opportunity to better America and the world, in this case she was given an opportunity to go the extra mile but did not take it. I would also like to point out, although it is true that it does take a long time for information to be processed, the Ambassador began sending warning weeks before the attack. Even excluding that, it is not considered normal to have a 13 hour response time to a problem like that. Even in Iraq, Iran, etc. response times are very quick even for single units that have been caught in an ambush. Lastly as directly requested by Con I would like to answer, "explain how this doesn’t implicate the secretary of defense, as opposed to Clinton who was the secretary of state." To answer it, I do not believe that the Secretary of Defense should not be held responsible for what happened in Benghazi. I do not believe either of them should face any legal punishment, but I most certainly believe it shows incompetence, which is bad to have if you are running a country.
Once again Hillary Clinton was obviously not the only person involved in this argument. But nevertheless she was involved, not only directly, but in many speeches she supported taking boots off the ground. When they succeeded and this happened, it left a hole from were the Taliban used to be that was replaced by ISIS. I feel like I was quite clear in my argument why this shows that she would be a bad president but I will restate my point more clearly. In order to have a productive country, you must have a safe country. Seeing that Hillary has had trouble with her involvement with security as fore mentioned, that would mean she would have trouble keeping a productive country.
The scandal regarding Whitewater to me is one of her worst. I am aware that Hillary was tried three times, but the point is, why was she ruled innocent three times? She directly helped write the contract, she directly helped manage the properties, and she got money directly from the investments in question. Everyone involved, including some less involved, were jailed for fraud except Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Con brought up the point that it is not illegal to use a private server, which he is correct in saying. I did say that it is illegal to use a private server, but I was not specific enough. What I meant more specifically was that it was illegal to use a private without approval. Before you can use a private server for government use you must first get approval from the State Department inspector general. She did not get this approval, therefore she did not do it legally. Yes she has admitted it was a mistake she still did it. For instance, if accidentally crashes into another car, even though it was accidental it still happened. That person would still have to face the consequences of their actions. Con has also claim that this does not establish Hillary as a bad president, I would disagree. As you may know it is difficult to set up a serer system. Although she did not set it up, she did pay money to get it running and keep it running. That was not an accident, she also didn't look at the laws, even though she used to be a lawyer, and she didn't think of the possible negative consequences of her actions. It is not good for a president to first of all not look at laws and second to not fully think out all there actions.
Taxing the wealthy again:
In Con's rebuttal, "If tax rates are held steady as a function of income, how could it be the case that less money is generated in subsequent years," is based on the understanding that having less money does not decrease the amount of money you will get. But that is inaccurate, there is a reason the rich got rich in the first place. The reason is because the rich got there because they new how to do business, make investments, and how to save the money they get. So if you take away their money they can make less businesses, make less investments, and are forced to push money of shore to avoid taxation to save their money. It's true that the rich will continue to generate money, but they will generate less because they have less money to make investments. It would make people instead of investing $2 and getting $4 back so you have more to tax and they have more to invest next time, you force them to invest $1 so they only get $2 back but you tax that $2 so they only have $1 to invest again.
In the second part of this argument Con says, "this didn’t work under Reagan and it’s not going to work now," but what you failed to know is that it did work for Reagan. Frequently Reagan critics like to point to his first and second year of his first-term, which was a complete disaster. But his last six years as president were exceptional, he was one of the last president to deliver consistently high GDP growth with an average of 3.64% per/quarter. Reagan is also credited with stabilize the growth of the national debt which later exploded under Bush[II]. Reagan was also able to stabilize inflation which allowed for it to be diminished under the following presidents. Reagan also created an average of 165,760 jobs per month. Reagan was also able to lower the unemployment rate to the lowest it was for the past 15 years before he left office. So based on those statistics I would argue Reagan economically a very good president. I would also like to point out a recession hit America weeks into his first term which is not completely based on national, but often on the global economy. But even with the recession, Reagan was able to become economically one of the most successful presidents in recent history.
To be honest I am quite confessed about was Con is trying to say in his rebuttal, but he starts off by saying, "Pro did not argue that control wasn’t effective in other countries." I have never claimed gun control has not been effective in other countries. But besides Australia which Con mentioned and England, I don't know where gun control was implemented, or at least successful gun control. But the problem is, those countries used methods that would violate more than just the second amendment.
Second, Con says, "While personally, I find any honest reading of the second amendment doesn’t imply that citizens get guns, merely the militia, this is to miss the point," I think this is very important in the gun control argument so I will rebut this. The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First of it sates that a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I think that is very self explanatory. It then goes onto say the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not a right of the militia, it says the right of the people. Even if it is referring to the militia only, militias are made up of people. If you were trying to legally buy a gun, but only militias could get guns, then that person would have to openly be a part of a militia. Which would then get that person arrested, in case you didn't know, it is illegal to plot against the government. If a militia was necessary, that would mean the government is most likely tyrannical which would make it even more difficult for a militia to obtain weapons. Saying that, it is important for people to own weapons so they can form a militia at anytime if need be without the most likely tyrannical government's permission which they most certainly would not get.
Con ends his point by saying I have not provided a reason why the gun control measures that were effective in other countries wouldn't work in America. Once again, I never claimed it wouldn't, but those gun control measures would violate the second and multiple other amendments.
Clinton recent Wikileaks:
Recently many emails from Hillary and her associates have gotten released to the public. One of them includes Hillary's campaign manager say, "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans." This is a real email from Hillary's current campaign manager. Because of the limited characters I will elaborate on this more next round.
His arguments concerning Benghazi and Terrorism may be interpreted and reformulated in the following syllogism:
P1) Hillary failed to assume a position that she was not elected to
P2) This failure entails that she was poor at her elected position
P3) If she was poor at her elected position, she will be a poor president
C1) She was poor at her elected position
C2) She will be a poor president
So when pro states:”. For someone running for president I would expect her to make those strides to try and better America and the world to the best of her ability, even if that is not what she is specifically assigned to do. “ Pro is essentially saying that Hillary failed to do the Defense Secretary’s job for him, so that means she was a poor secretary of state, and by virtue this would make her a poor president, or at least that is how it comes across. And if this is pro’s position, how is this not a blatant non-sequitur? This is like assessing a violinist's capacity to play viola, by how well they play cello.
2. As aforementioned, we judge president’s by policies not scandals. If you ask any political scholar they will assess the effectiveness of Nixon, or Bill Clinton independent of their scandals. So why is it the case that we are going to judge her effectiveness as president on scandals, not policy? Of course this isn’t my argument, but this just seems like pro is unfairly stacking the deck against Clinton.
3. Please refrain from adding new arguments in the fifth round of a five round debate.
Whitewater: Ok let’s try this again. Pro’s claim is that the Clinton’s engaged in illegal actions. Within the legal discourse, if there is not sufficient evidence to indict someone, for all intent and purposes, they did not do it. If you are not convicted of something, then the law cannot hold it against you. It may be the case that the trial was speculative or open to doubts, and it may be tried again, after a second unsuccessful prosecution then something has got to give. However, after a third unsuccessful prosecution, then I believe we have grounds to say that is the case that they didn’t commit the act. So when pro asks “ why was she ruled innocent three times? “ It’s because she really really really didn’t do it.
Pro states that this event displays incompetence on Clinton’s part. Once again, how can one be held accountable for someone else's role? More importantly, this is not how the experts interpreted the event. The experts believe the event was responded to quite well, as evidenced by the testimony of the accountability board and House Armed services committee. Also, Clinton certainly can’t be held accountable for this, because the SoS does not have the power to command military action in any capacity. The SoS is not part of the NCA. “Constitutionally, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the national defense rests with the President. Since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the President has used the Secretary of Defense as his principal assistant in all matters relating to the National Military Establishment (NME) -- later the Department of Defense. The Secretary has statutory authority, direction, and control over the Military Departments and is responsible for the effective, efficient, and economical operation of the department.” How can Clinton be implicated for not assuming a task that she can’t constitutionally nor legally undertake?
Pro states:”Once again Hillary Clinton was obviously not the only person involved in this argument. But nevertheless she was involved, not only directly, but in many speeches she supported taking boots off the ground. When they succeeded and this happened, it left a hole from where the Taliban used to be that was replaced by ISIS.” Ok, once again my opponent puts forth an extremely insufficient account of the formation of ISIS. ISIS was founded in 1999, while Hillary was the first lady. Please tell me how the first lady is held accountable for foreign policy. However, let’s jump to what’s happening with ISIS in 2009 when Clinton becomes SoS. As of 2009 when Clinton assumed SoS, ISIS was in a desperate state, as many of its leaders had been killed, and the group was dropped by Al-Qaeda. In 2010, Baghdadi assumed power. This was what catalyzed ISIS’s resurgence. Unless the Obama Administration directly put him in power, I don’t see how they can be blamed. ISIS continued to grow by virtue of the Syrian civil war which was in protest to Assad. America did not put Assad in power. In 2014 ISIS more or less reached their current state. However, Clinton ceased to be SoS in 2013. So given this account of the history of ISIS, and given that ISIS reached their current extremely militarized state that severely serves as a global threat in 2014, how can she be held accountable? I would like pro to cite his source stating that 66 terrorisms had taken place in the US. Now remember, we are speaking in the context of ISIS or radical islamist organizations. There have been 8 terrorist attacks on US soil committed by radical islamist organizations since 2009. Once again, as I have said before, this is NOT her job. I don’t find it to be the case 8 attacks since 2009 is too bad, and even if it was possible to blame Clinton for this, it is still the case that this is an oversimplification. The etiology of radicalism is multifaceted, and it is intellectually dishonest to assign any meaningful blame to Clinton.
On a philosophical distinction, person X can display a set of undesirable traits Y without X necessarily entailing Y. So Clinton, in a particular instance can make a mistake displaying recklessness, but this doesn’t mean that her presidency would be characterized by recklessness. However, she cites convenience as her cause, is it reckless to seek convenience? It is reckless to jeopardize national security, however as aforementioned there has been no evidence of a security breach. It is also reckless to break the law, however she hasn’t broken any laws.Pro once again states that this is illegal, but in a different manner, stating that one has to seek approval. While this may be a convention, it is nowhere to be found in the legal code. There have been amendments enacted since, however these are irrelevant because one can’t retroactively establish something as illegal. A link to the relevant legal code is below, if pro is going to make the claim that the act was illegal, even though she wasn’t indicted, at the very least he should have to cite the text and provide a reasonable interpretation that could establish the act as illegal.
I believe pro is missing the point. He states:”Con ends his point by saying I have not provided a reason why the gun control measures that were effective in other countries wouldn't work in America. Once again, I never claimed it wouldn't, but those gun control measures would violate the second and multiple other amendments.” That is precisely my point, if a policy is good then it should be enacted. However, since I have provided reasons for its effectiveness, and he has not provided reasons against, it follows that within context this is a good policy, and it necessarily follows that it should be enacted.Gun control in other countries has greatly reduced gun-related crimes. I would argue that less gun crime increases well being, and by virtue of our criteria for good policy, it is necessarily the case that a mechanism through which reduced gun crime is reduced is good. Also, I am not arguing for a gun ban. Control and ban are completely different things. However, shortly on the 2nd amendment “"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." EVERY citizen does not constitute a well regulated militia. This is to effectively equivocate the word “citizenry” and “militia”. It’s not “even if”, it’s obviously the case that people refers to the members of the militia. Pro then proceeds to advance an argumentum ad consequentiam. Just stating that argument X entails unfortunate consequence Y, doesn’t do anything anything to establish the truth of Not X. Which is precisely what pro’s doing.
TAX AD NAUSEUM:
I believe pro once again misses the point. Although I don’t believe this was the case, however even if it was effective in the 80’s it doesn’t follow that it will be effective now. I don’t have space to argue Reagan, but we have good reason to believe it would be ineffective now. As you recall, I cited an IMF study stating the following:”If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.” The study examined data from 1990-2012. The claim is that Reaganomics does not benefit the middle class like it aims to. This is made clear in the study. GDP growth can be explained by increased disparity, as the rich get really rich. Once again, it is not the case that they will necessarily generate less money, it is the case that they will be required to pay a larger share of their income. Pro’s argument also presumes that the rich actively reinvest in the US, which he has not substantiated. He has provided no reasons to believe this.
I ask pro if it all possible to merely offer a closing statement in the final round, and I will as well. It's just proper decorum.
Before I give my closing statement I would first like to say thank you to Con. Con has been a very good debater, also I apologize for my horrible structure in the beginning. This is my first formal debate, Con gave me a good opportunity to learn the ropes. Saying that, I will now give my closing statement.
Whitewater: Con is correct in his statement. My final point in this is: Whether she is guilty or not, this proves my point above, Hillary has a habit of associating herself with people she shouldn't be. Although there was not enough evidence to convict her, there was enough evidence to try her three times. That makes me even that is suspicious. To me this is different than if someone is tried for murder is ruled innocent. Hillary was tried three times, keep in mind, being ruled innocent doesn't mean that she didn't do it, only that there was some doubt that she didn't.
Benghazi: In defense of Hillary in the case of Benghazi, Con said, "how can one be held accountable for someone else's role?" The thing is that it is her role. There is the reason the Secretary of Defense wasn't held accountable. Hillary Clinton was the one who received the emails and warning from the ambassador. She is the one who is supposed to keep in contact with him and report issues that have to do with security to the Secretary of Defense. She did not do that, therefore she did not do her job. Do you really think that the entire government would try Hillary Clinton but not the Secretary of Defense if it wasn't her job? It may be the Secretary of Defense's job to command military action when the matter is discovered, but it was Hillary Clinton's job to discover that information when communicating with the embassy's.
Terrorism: I'm sorry for the miscommunication, I misspoke. Hillary Clinton's action did not create ISIS, but it allowed for the rise of ISIS. If we didn't pull out, like Hillary was advocating, we would have been able to keep powers like ISIS at bay. Con then mentioned again that it is not her job. But she was advocating and giving advice to who's job it was, which the advice she gave led to the growth of ISIS. Whether she was SoS at the time or not, she has political power. She used her power and encouraged people to make a poor choice. Con then asks for my source that claims there have been 66 terrorist attacks from 2009-2013.
It provides the number of terror attack in United States per year. The number of fatalities and separate from that, the number of worldwide fatalities do to terrorism. But the number giving the amount of terror attacks is strictly ones that took place in the United States.
Email: It is true that this single instance may not prove she will be reckless during her presidential term, but take this for example. If you are hiring someone to babysit your child, are you going to hire the person who fell asleep last time he babysat? Con's argument that nothing bad happened is irrelevant. The fact is, in the example, you left a child unsupervised. Although in this case, Hillary left about 30 classified and 9 top secret emails unsecured.
Gun Control: Con once again says that I did not rebut his point that gun control would be effective. The only form of gun control that has worked up unto this point, is a blanket gun ban. This is what England has, this is what China has, although Australia technically did not ban all guns, they arguably forced people to partake in the "Buy Back Program." As I argued in round 3, the gun control plan Con provided, "It is necessary to impose background checks to prevent the mentally ill and criminals from obtaining guns." As I already said, that has not worked in other countries and in the American states it has been enacted. Only 10-15% of criminals obtain gun legally. Therefore, only 10-15% of criminals will be stopped, even then they are criminals. By definition criminals do not follow the law, therefore they would just find an illegal way to obtain a gun.
Taxes: It's obvious that getting the poor richer will increase GDP growth, but the problem is how to get them richer. Hillary Clinton's plan would make this virtually impossible for anyone to get out of poverty. One reason being, the most efficient way to get out of poverty is to start a business. Hillary's tax plan greatly favors large businesses. The reason being that only big business can survive the harsh taxes, small ones would be smothered in taxes, then in the wake of their destroyed business, drown in debt. It is only logical that people will continue to reinvest into America. Look at any rich person, not only are most of them philanthropists. But they also own businesses or are great investors. Most people don't reach a point were they are content and will no longer continue to strive to make more money, they will always want more, it is only human nature. So they will continue to reinvest to make more money. I would also like to point our Con did not argue that taxing the rich would continue to yield large amounts of money, like I claimed it wouldn't.
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton like most any person has many faults. The only problem is, she is like most every person. In her political positions she has shown a lack of motivation. She has shown no effort to go the extra mile, which can be a defining trait of any successful person. She even has trouble meeting her normal expectations, like demonstrated in her time as Secretary of State. Hillary has been documented, this is not rebutted even by the strongest of Hillary supporters, lying constantly. This is a horrible trait for a president to have. Not only that, but Hillary has been involved in many scandals, significantly more than the average politician. Guilty or not, this shows she commonly associates herself with bad people.
Before I offer my closing statement I would like to offer a few short rebuttals.
Remember the resolution: Hillary Clinton Would Make a Bad President
I believe I have provided valid argumentation for why she would be a good president, predicated on policy, and why she wouldn’t be a bad president by refuting pro’s arguments. Is Hillary Clinton perfect? No. However, she has good policies, as I have vigorously defended, and most arguments against her try to hold her accountable for things she shouldn’t be, which I have blatantly pointed out, furthermore it appears that Hillary opposers hold her to an unrealistic standard as I displayed through the fallacious syllogism in R4.
I am greatly appreciative of pro for an intellectually challenging debate, and I have learned a lot from it. However, pro has failed to uphold the BoP, and failed to affirm the resolution.