The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 181 times Debate No: 97031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians. In my previous debate I found we had trouble agreeing on what would be the criteria on which to grade Hillary Clinton's honesty. It is easy to make blanket statements all politicians lie so therefore are dishonest.

Even if the above is true, this seems like buying out. Hillary is way above average for a politician for honesty. Therefore, to state Hillary is dishonest paints her with the same stroke as other much more dishonest candidates. This is the essence of unfair. If as average person turned into a politician they would probably be less honest than Hillary Clinton.

As you can see from the chart Hillary is one of the most honest politicians since 2007. [0]

Stupidape

The emails are frequently used to bash Hillary, but none of them were properly marked as classified when sent or received. Only three of 55,000 had any markings showing the email to be classified. 110 out 55,000 contained classified information when sent or recieved according to Comey. [1]


"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked.

He further testified that it would be a “reasonable inference” for Hillary to assume that those three emails were not classified."



Sources.
0. http://www.motherjones.com...
1. http://bluenationreview.com...
RonPaulConservative

Con

The Email Scandal is only a tiny slice of Hillary's scandals, take for example the Chinagate Scandal, when Hillary Clinton sold US military technology to China to fund Bill's reelection campaign in 1996. {1} Or whitewater when she stole elderly peoples homes in a real estate scandal, {2} or the Uranium One Scandal, when she sold Uranium to Russia. {3}

She also accepted 10-25 million dollars from Saudi Arabia {4}, which violates Article 1 Section 9 of the UStitution:
"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

In fact, she has committed treason against the United States, because Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
She sold our military technology to China, and sold arms to ISIS, {5} that's 2 instances of treason right there.

{1}. The year of the Rat (1996)
{2}. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
{3}. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
{4}. https://www.clintonfoundation.org...
{5}. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Rebuttals

This took quite a bit of effort to track down and I couldn't disprove every claim. There are so many claims against Hillary Clinton that it is difficult to track them all down.


" No WikiLeaks e-mails confirm that Hillary Clinton directly and knowingly "sold weapons to ISIS." " [2]

There is insufficent proof to blame Hillary for weapons sold to ISIS.


"While some take issue with the word "exoneration," Bill Clinton’s broader point that his wife wasn’t found guilty is accurate. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True." [3]

Hillary was not found guilty in waterwater.


"Claim: Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation." [4]

The uranium claim is unproven either way.


As for selling arms to China, it is difficult to take such claims seriously when such sites as infowars.com proliferate the claim.

"Alex Jones
Alex Jones Infowars

The host of the nationally syndicated daily radio program “The Alex Jones Show,” Alex Jones helped build the media outlet InfoWars, which is a clearinghouse of conspiracy theory articles and videos, survivalist and prepper materials and health products. InfoWars serves as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and other false reports that sometimes work their way up through the right-wing media. Jones has developed a relationship with 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has appeared on his show and hailed his “amazing” reputation." [6]


Let's face it relying heavily upon conspiracy theories is a poor method of debating. Finally, as for your Saudi Arabia money claim, the foundation recieved the money not Hillary.

"riebus said Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen."

The monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Oman have contributed to the Clinton Foundation, but Yemen, which does not have a king, has not.

And although Priebus’ claim was made during a discussion of the foundation as well as contributions to political candidates, his phrasing could have left the impression that Clinton herself, rather than the foundation, received the money.

For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True." [7]


The Clinton foundation received the money, not Hillary herself. To summarize, my opponent relies heavily upon conspiracy theories which I have proven to be outright wrong, or not proven either way. The Saudi Arabia money was not send to Hillary Clinton, but the Clinton foundation instead.

Hillary Clinton has been attacked for the political residue damage. If you study psychology people often only remember the claim, and not whether it was true or not. Therefore, Hillary's political opponent's have made bogus claim after claim hoping to damage her with the residue effect.

""Read behavioral science, read psychology," Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow this week. "Even when all the attacks prove to be unfounded, untrue, it leaves a residue." She added: "There is a concerted effort to try to make partisan advantage by really trying to throw so much at me that even if little splotches of it stick, it will cloud peoples's judgment of me. That is a burden I carry.""[8]


Thank you for debating.

Sources
2. http://www.snopes.com...
3. http://www.politifact.com...
4. http://www.snopes.com...
5. http://www.infowars.com...
6. http://www.rightwingwatch.org...
7. http://www.politifact.com...
8. https://www.washingtonpost.com...


RonPaulConservative

Con

My opponents argument is filled with nonsense fallicies and claims thatare just flat out innacurate.
Let's start with the Chinagate scandal, my opponent claims that this is a conspiracy theory from infowars, but that's just- wrong. Firstly because infowars was founded in 1997, whilst the book "the year of the Rat (1996)," which I used as a source, was written in 1996. Secondly, claiming that if nfowars said it it must be false is just about as logical as saying that if it came from infowars it must be true- my opponent is trying to discredit this fact by stating that infowars reported on it, so this is pretty much an ad-hominem attack.

Finally, the people who wrote "the year of the rat (1996)" are actually pretty credible people, William C. Triplett II, for example, served in the intelligence community during the Reagan Administration. {1} Edward Timperlake served during the Bush Administration, {2} these guys are jst about as credible as you can get. If Alex Jones came out and said that Barrack Obama is a President, it doesn't diminish Obamas credibility as a President.

In regard to Whitewater, my opponent doesn't have a rebuttal, other than that Hillry Clinton wasn't charged. John D Rockefeller wasn't charged for the Ludlow Massacre, but he still did it. It's still just as bad, and just as dishonest. How many politicians do you know of that stole houses from elderly people?

And just because Russia paid Hillary through her sush fund "Clinton Foundation" rather than to her directly doesn't mean anything either. Most money launderers funnel their cash through a fone buisness or slush fund. It' still illegal, she still accepted the money, she still violated the constitution.

{1}. https://docs.google.com...
{2}. http://www.sldinfo.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round 3


"My opponents argument is filled with nonsense fallicies and claims thatare just flat out innacurate.
Let's start with the Chinagate scandal, my opponent claims that this is a conspiracy theory from infowars, but that's just- wrong. Firstly because infowars was founded in 1997, whilst the book "the year of the Rat (1996)," which I used as a source, was written in 1996. Secondly, claiming that if nfowars said it it must be false is just about as logical as saying that if it came from infowars it must be true- my opponent is trying to discredit this fact by stating that infowars reported on it, so this is pretty much an ad-hominem attack. "RonPaulConservative


My opponent is responding to this sentence. "As for selling arms to China, it is difficult to take such claims seriously when such sites as infowars.com proliferate the claim. " stupidape


My opponent doesn't seem to understand the definition of proliferate and guessed incorrectly.

"1. To grow or multiply by rapidly producing new tissue, parts, cells, or offspring.2. To increase or spread at a rapid rate: fears that nuclear weapons might proliferate.v.tr.To cause to grow or increase rapidly." [9]


I choose my words carefully. Infowar spreads this claim, also known as proliferating, as opposed to being the orginal source. My opponent then proceds to misuse the ad hominem fallacy. "Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird." [10]

If I was to attack my opponnet, RonPaulConservative, this would be an ad hominem attack. In lieu of attacking my opponent I am attacking the crediblity of his claim based upon the unreliable sources that spread the claim.

Next, my opponent uses an analogy about if it came from infowars it must be true. The problem is that the crediblity of the source matters. If a statement came from one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals. Then, yes I would say the statement would be almost certanitly true. The reverse is true, if a bold claim came from a notriously inaccurate source, then the statement would proabbly be false.


"If Alex Jones came out and said that Barrack Obama is a President, it doesn't diminish Obamas credibility as a President. " RonPaulConservative

This is a faulty analogy since stating Barrack Obama is president is a mundane claim. Stating Hillary commited treason is a bold claim. "When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument."[11]

Then, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy by naming William C. Triplett II and Edward Timperlake. [12] Just for starters both of them served under conservative administrations, meaning there could be a political agenda behind their accusations.

As for Hillary Clinton not being charged, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove the claim is credible. The fact that Clinton has not been charged nor exonerated indicates I will not be able to prove her innocent nor my opponent prove guilty. Since a person is innocent until proven guilty, we must presume her innocence.

As for the Clinton Foundation it is a charity that helps people receive AIDS/HIV medication.

"What kind of work?
Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost -- more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today. " [13]

Somehow in my opponent's view this is violating the Constitution. Thanks for debating.


Sources
9. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
10. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
11. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
12. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
13. http://www.cnn.com...
RonPaulConservative

Con

Let me first point out that this debate has gotten pretty absurd; my opponent is trying to discredit two very credible sources who workd in the Intelligence Department by claiming that they maybe made it up for political purposes, then tries to discredit it by calling CHINAGATE a conspiracy theory.
My opponent not only provides no evidence that these men made chinagate up for political purposes, but also continues to try and discredit it by saying it was publicised by infowars, which he claims is not a credible source.
Again, he provides no proof that infowars is not a credible source, though I wouldn't cite it to avoid stigma, but let's assume it is; it doesn't matter, chinagate still happened, it was all over the news in 1996, but if that isn't enough, I can cite 3 very credble news sites that confirm what I am saying right now:
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.cnsnews.com...
http://www.independentsentinel.com...

Now let's move on to the Clinton foundation; the Clinton Foundation is not a charity, it is a slush fund used by Clinton to funnel money to her wallet under the guise of a charity organization. As a matter of fact, only 6% of the Clinton Foundations funds go to charity:
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.breitbart.com...
http://www.wnd.com...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stupidape 2 weeks ago
Stupidape
I plan on responding in about 48 hours as a friendly heads up.
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
I'm done reading your post. Although short in length your post is dense. I never heard of whitewater before, so it took a while to process.

I will now begin formulating a response.
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
RonPaulConservative

Give me about 48 hours to respond. You brought up a bunch of issues I've never heard of. Thank you for accepting the debate. You are entrenched in your position, so I look forward to a good debate.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
I'll give you a chance to debate with someone else on this topic, but I'll be following it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.