The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheOncomingStorm
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,475 times Debate No: 41162
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

imabench

Pro

This is part of Bsh1's liberals DDO tourney.

I am debating that Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren, Con is debating that Elizabeth Warren would make a better US president then Hillary Clinton.

Most of you are quite familiar with Hillary Clinton, but since Elizabeth Warren is less well-known, feel free to gloss over her wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org...

First round is acceptance only since this is a 4 round debate.
TheOncomingStorm

Con

I accept the challenge, and I wish you luck in this debate!
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Ok then

One of the biggest indicators of how well a person will be as president is how much experience does the person have working in the government, either on the federal level, the state level, or the local level. Hillary Clinton's resume in experience in government is quiet extensive.


1 - Experience in the White House



Her first big role was serving as the First Lady in the White House under Bill Clinton's term from 1992-2000, where she played a very, VERY active role in central affairs of the United States. She had her own office where she was consulted about people being appointed to both high and low level positions (she played a role in dozens of nominations and choices). It has even been said that White House aids and advisers under Bill Clinton would try to appeal to Hillary Clinton to enact a law or take action on something when Bill Clinton initially rejected it, and then she would pitch it back to Bill who would then re-think his position on the issue. She was even included in high-level cabinet meetings

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.wnd.com...

In a sense, Hillary Clinton would make a great president since she kind of already has been president and already has experience in the roles and duties of being president.




2 - Experience as a Senator

Hillary Clinton, in addition to having a very visible role in the affairs of the Presidency under her Husband's term, also served 2 consecutive terms as the Senator of New York from 2002 to 2008, leaving her seat as Senator to run for President in the 2008 election. While Senator, Hillary Clinton voted on all kinds of things ranging from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bailouts, the Iraq surge, the Patriot Act, and many other acts that all added to her experience of what to expect as President.





3 - Experience as the Secretary of State

As we all know, Hillary Clinton lost her 2008 bid for President to Barack Obama. However, despite the vicious campaign between both candidates during the primaries, Obama ended up appointing Hillary as the Secretary of State, which is regarded by many as not just the highest ranking position in a Presidential Cabinet, but also as one of the most demanding and important position in the US government. The Secretary of State serves as the US ambassador to the rest of the world, and Hillary Clinton logged in 4 years at this position before deciding to leave in 2012, where she was succeeded by John Kerry. While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton visited 112 countries over 4 years, making her by far the most traveled Secretary of State in US history

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...



=====================================================================================

Experience in government is arguably one of the biggest and clearest indicators of how well someone will do if elected President.....

- Hillary Clinton has served as a US Senator who almost served 2 full terms, logging experience on domestic issues
- She served as the US Secretary of State from 2008-2012 where she visited more countries then any other Secretary of State in US history, logging experience on foreign affairs issues
- And she also kind of served as co-President with Bill Clinton during his presidency, where she gained quite a bit of experience on what its like to be President....

In terms of experience in government, Hillary Clinton is arguably the most experienced person for the job, holding many different high ranking positions almost continuously since 1992 that nobody else can match in terms of diversity, including Elizabeth Warren.
TheOncomingStorm

Con

Thank you imabench for your post, now without further adieu...

Elizabeth Warren has many credentials that qualify her as being a great president.

1) She is a senator from Massachusetts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given support by her people of Massachusetts to represent them in Senate. That means she has gotten widespread support from her state, as only two senators are allowed to be elected from each state.

She stands as the common woman who made herself into an upperclass lady [1]. This means she knows the struggles of those in the lower class and will do what she can to help them in the right way. Right now this is something we need in a President. We need someone who knows both the lower and upper class life. Senator Warren brings the prime example of both.

2) She has been a law professor for an extensive amount of time.

"During the late-1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance. Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law"Newark during 1977"1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978 to 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981 to 1987, in addition to teaching at the University of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987." [2]

This shows her intellectual capability. As a professor she wrote nine books (two of which became national best sellers) and more than a hundred articles. This obviously directs to the fact that she spends a lot of time thinking about law and especially bankruptcy law as that is her speciality [1].

It's important to know that she specializes in bankruptcy law considering America's economy. It is absolutely necessary that we fix the economy, and who better to spearhead that movement than Elizabeth Warren? As stated earlier she has an understanding of both the lower and upper class to be able to make things fair, and she is an excellent professor in the area of bankruptcy law.

3) She chair of the TARP

"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations won praise from both sides of the aisle. The Boston Globe named Elizabeth Bostonian of the Year in 2009 for her oversight efforts." [1]

She has shown to specialize in the exact area our country needs. Between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, Warren is certainly the best candidate for the Presidency.

Sources:

[1] http://elizabethwarren.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Warren is a Senator

Its true that Elizabeth Warren currently is a Senator of the state of Massachusetts, but she has only been a Senator since November 6th of 2012, meaning she has barely been a Senator for a year now ...... If she were to run for President in 2016, she would have to cut her term as Senator short which is a problem for two reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

- 1 - The last person to only serve 1 term as Senator and then leave to run for President was Obama, and that didnt exactly turn out well
- 2 - She will only have about 2-3 years as a Senator compared to 8 years that Hillary Clinton was a Senator



" This means she knows the struggles of those in the lower class and will do what she can to help them in the right way"

Clinton knows first hand what people of the lower class struggled with early on in her life.... After she graduated from college she worked in Alaska as a dishwasher and as a salmon slimer. I dont know what that is myself, but its safe to say its not glamorous work....

http://en.wikipedia.org...

she also went and saw a Martin luther King Jr speech in 1965, which means she knows both what its like to struggle with low paying jobs and what other people were going through

http://en.wikipedia.org...




"Right now this is something we need in a President. We need someone who knows both the lower and upper class life"

I dont really think that is something that we NEED in a President..... Its nice sure, but its a pretty arbitrary condition.





2) Elizabeth Warren has been a law professor for an extensive amount of time.

Warren has been a Law professor and is indeed smart but Hillary Clinton has more then proven her intellectual capacity in law:

- She went to Yale Law School, where she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.
- During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about early childhood brain development
- During her second year she also worked as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child
- She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor.
- In the summer of 1970, she researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education
- In summer of 1971, she interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a firm was well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Point is, Hillary Clinton has more then enough experience about Law to rival that of Elizabeth Warren's





3) Chairman of TARP

"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations.........."

Well clearly she didnt do a very good job since 1) Taxpayers still arent that protected.... 2) Wall Street has most certainly NOT been held accountable for their d*ckbaggery that caused the '08 financial crisis, and 3) The Bush and Obama administrations clearly show the LACK of oversight that exists in DC right now..... I mean theres been the Fast and Furious scandal, the reckless and excessive spying by the NSA, unrestrained drone warfare in the Middle East...... 'Tough oversight' does not exist in Washington DC, and thats a little problematic to Elizabeth Warren if installing tough oversight in DC is what she plans to run on.....

Warren certainly makes a great Law professor, but she still lacks a hell of a lot of experience needed to be a decent President that Hillary Clinton has plenty of experience for.

TheOncomingStorm

Con

Thank you for you're response. Now I want to go over some of the main points as to why I feel Elizabeth Warren would most likely be a better President.

I want to start off by stating that there is a somewhat overused saying that power corrupts. I think instead of simply stating this, I'll bring up an article as to why electing a career politician into presidency would be poor decision making.

For the sake of sanity and character limit, I won't write out the entire study here, but I will provide the link below. The summarization is found in this sentence however, and it should be strongly noted that: "These findings provide the first empirical support for the stress-buffering effects of power during lie telling and suggest that power may lead to corruption, in part, by lowering the emotional, cognitive, and physiological costs of engaging in corrupt behavior." [1]

This obviously relates to the entire idea of having a career politician for president as opposed to someone who has been more intellectually driven than politically driven as far as we can see.

Obviously I must concede that Hillary Clinton has more experience than Elizabeth Warren and is intelligent, both are only positive qualities if used for the right things. For example, Hitler was brilliant, but he was a very bad dude. In no way do I relate Hillary Clinton to Hitler, but it is a good example of where intelligence can go wrong.

My points concerning Warren's experience merely go to show that she is quite intelligible when it comes to politics.

Regarding the attack on Warren's job as the chair of the TARP, it is true that the goal was not accomplished, however, that does not rest solely on Warren's shoulders. The evidence I cited states that her "efforts"were praised on both sides of the aisle. She wasn't made the dictator of the economy so we cannot hold her personally responsible for the current state of oversight on the Bush and Obama administrations and Wall Street.

Something important to note, however, is that Warren's efforts were praised by both sides of the aisle. This means both Republicans and Democrats agreed with her work. What has become evident in recent months about our government? We are divided, and we have been for quite a long time. Obviously, it would be unreasonable to say that as soon as Warren comes along we're all going to sit in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but she has proven to be able to work with both sides in the short time she's been in government.

At this point we now know that Warren is not a career politician more susceptible to the numbness that brings about corrupt political acts or tactics, and she has been someone that both sides of the aisle can find agreeable. In fact, "she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate." [2] She is not stubborn or hard headed in a way that won't allow people to work together. She is very open minded, which is vital for a national representative.

To answer some of the qualities that she possesses to be a President I will lost a few:

-As a previous professor and author, she is used to speaking, building an argument, research, leading, and critical thinking.
-As a senator, she has had time to adjust to politics and learn things about the Democrats and Republicans more intimately, and it is apparent that she's used such knowledge.
-As a recent citizen, she is not one who is more prone to think she's entitled to things just because she is a politician, and she still has a much stronger sense of ordinary citizenship that Clinton has lost. The president should be able to represent the people and help in whatever way possible for the best of the people. The best way to see this through is to have a strong memory of being a common citizen.
-She is open minded.

Elizabeth Warren is a great choice for the Presidency, and while Hillary Clinton has experience, Warren has the proper mind for it.

Sources:

[1] http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

1) Power corrupts people

"For the sake of sanity and character limit, I won't write out the entire study here, but I will provide the link below. The summarization is found in this sentence however, and it should be strongly noted that: "These findings provide the first empirical support for the stress-buffering effects of power during lie telling and suggest that power may lead to corruption, in part, by lowering the emotional, cognitive, and physiological costs of engaging in corrupt behavior."

Your own study at the end openly states that they stepped beyond the data they gathered to advance their own theory:

"While the current research certainly supports this claim, and a good deal of previous work also suggests this may be the case, we may have stepped beyond our data slightly in our interpretation" - Top of Page 27 http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu...

If you want to prove that being President might corrupt Hillary Clinton, then cite examples of how she has been corrupt in the past, I havent seen any though, and if she hasnt been corrupt in the 20 years she has worked in high level positions of the government, then I dont see why that would suddenly change should she become President.





2) Bipartisianship

"it would be unreasonable to say that as soon as Warren comes along we're all going to sit in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but she has proven to be able to work with both sides in the short time she's been in government."

Elizabeth Warren hasnt exactly been known to work well with the GOP though, in fact she criticizes the living sh** out of them on a regular basis now that she's in Congress

http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu...
http://jezebel.com...
http://www.rawstory.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Elizabeth Warren is not a legislator with strong bipartisian tendencies, shes as liberal as you can get..... Hillary is pretty liberal too, but she doesnt accuse the GOP of being hostage taking loons who are hell bent on doing everything they can to oppose Obama like Warren does.


==========================================================================================


The truth is, Clinton and Warren are both eerily similar in terms of accomplishments, educational prowess, and where they lean politically.... But Clinton simply beats the hell out of Warren when it comes to experience in all kinds of top level government positions to the point that Warren cant come even close to matching it....... Which is why Hillary Clinton would make a better US president then Elizabeth Warren.
TheOncomingStorm

Con

Here we come to the conclusion of our debate. I thank imabench for engaging in this debate with me, and whether I win or lose, it has been fun nevertheless.

I suppose the debate really has boiled down to two points, and I'll address both of them in this rebuttal and make some concluding statements.

1) The argument that power corrupts.

Now my opponent attacked this point saying that the writers of the study admit to jumping beyond the study. If you read the next couple of sentences they clearly state that they only jump beyond the boundaries to say that the numbness they researched may be applicable to other fields. However, to apply it to another field would be inductive reasoning, which is faulty and the reason they stated that their claims about other fields should not be taken as fact. The fields they speak of are buffers to divorce and physical pain, which they want to study more.

In terms of their research on power leading to corrupt behavior, however, they do not shake from their foundation.

I would bring up examples of times where I feel Hillary Clinton slipped up and why we may believe that she's reaching the state of numbness the study refers to, but it may be unfair seeing as my opponent will not be able to defend from those examples. I will leave it up to the judges to determine the validity of the study and its applicability to Hillary Clinton.

2) Bipartisanship.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren attacked the specific Republicans that shut down the government. Most other Republicans did as well. They did not attack in the same manner she did, but it was not uncommon for a Republican to complain that the "faction" as some like to call it did what they did.

I have give a solid example of where she has shown some bipartisanship, or at least willing to work in a bipartisan environment, and my opponent has brought up a shaky example of where she chewed out a few Republicans for shutting down the government.

To conclude, yes Hillary has more experience than Warren, however, Warren is still a highly intelligent woman, and Hillary Clinton, as a study suggests, is more susceptible to corruption than Warren. While the two are "eerily similar" as my opponent puts it, Warren is definitely the better choice for President. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
I was a little nervous that you might have brought up the Bengazi debacle in Libya as something that shows how Hillary would slip up as Prez, cause I dont know how I would have been able to counter that other then saying 'well sh** happens' :P
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
Haha, probably. It's hard to argue against Hillary Clinton's experience. That psychological study was the last thread of hope I had when I realized the mistake I'd made :P
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
arguing *for*
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
If we switched who we were arguing then you probably wouldve won it :P
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
@ClassicRobert: fair examination. Thanks for reading!
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Pro began the debate by examining Hillary Clinton's experience as a politician. He showed that she has been a vital part of President Clinton's decision making process, that she has been an effective senator, and that she has been a Secretary of State. Con's refutation, that Elizabeth Warren is a senator, used to be a professor, and was the chair of TARP ultimately fell short because Hillary Clinton does have far more experience in politics, which is what is relevant here, and Con even conceded that point.

Con then attempted to say that though Warren is inexperienced, she has her head in the right place. However, he did not properly show that Hillary Clinton did not have her head in the right place, which made this argument fall flat.

After that, Con argued that Warren is a bipartisan figure. However, Pro showed this to not be true (based on the way that Warren openly degrades the GOP), and that Clinton is at least a little better in this regard.

The burden of proof was shared in this debate. That is, both debaters needed to show that their candidate is the better option for the presidency. Pro was able to do this, and Con was not, so the debate goes to Pro.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Sorry, it deleted my RFD. Will repost in about an hour
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
Well that was fun. Thanks for giving me a good debate, imabench.
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
I actually got to see Hillary Clinton at a rally here a few years ago when she was running for president. I didn't get to shake hands with her or anything, but she smiled at me. I might have voted for her if I had been old enough, I don't know for sure. I have never met Elizabeth Warren or seen her in person, but I love her SOOO much! If they run against each other, it will be like watching two best friends fight, lol.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Well we wanted a topic that hasnt really been debated before, and I sure as hell havent seen one of these so me and oncoming agreed and picked sides :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
imabenchTheOncomingStormTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Bench makes a compelling case for Clinton. Storm's talks about power corrupting people (which was nonsense in the context of this debate because it hurt his argument to the same extent that it hurt his opponent's argument) and talks incoherently about notions of bipartisanship. Obviously, different standards are in play for how Bench and Storm are measuring who is a better president -but Storm's case wasn't compelling whereas Bench's were to a greater extent, given that Bench took the time to lay out why Clinton's resume makes her the best possible choice (or at least, a better choice than Warren) for the presidency. This was a pretty overwhelming victory for PRO, here.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
imabenchTheOncomingStormTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by LtCmdrData 3 years ago
LtCmdrData
imabenchTheOncomingStormTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Pro: Hils got experience, Con's study faulty, Liz isn't bipartisan. Sources to Pro: Con's study not "reliable." Stepped beyond bounds. S/g to Pro: it's "ado," not "adieu." Adieu means goodbye...Conduct to Con for no swearing. Breakdown: Pro - 6; Con - 1. Pro wins.