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

Hillary Clinton's honesty.

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: 11/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 251 times Debate No: 96967
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will argue that Hillary is honest my opponent will argue the opposite.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest in my opinion. A person should be considered honest until proven otherwise. Therefore, I am winning the debate at this juncture and pass the round to my opponent.
Capitalistslave

Con

I will bring up several examples of Hillary lying, which should be sufficient to prove she is dishonest.

1) First, on three occasions she claimed that her emails had no classified materials on them. Below are the quotes and the day they were said:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials" (March 10, 2015)
"I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (July 25, 2015)
"I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified" (Aug. 18, 2015).

At the congressional hearing with James Comey, representative Trey Gowdy asked FBI director James Comey, "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?"

To which Comey replied "That"s not true." and "There was classified material emailed."
Sources used for the above quotes: ( http://www.factcheck.org... http://www.politifact.com... )

2. Then on Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 in comments on Meet the Press, Hillary claimed "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against." when in fact, Donald Trump was the largest recipient of attack ads from companies associated with Wall Street, and many other republican candidates, and Bernie Sanders, have had ads against them as well. (source: http://www.politifact.com... )

3. On Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 in a debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said that Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take."

The statement of Obama's this refers to is "I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

As you can see, Obama made no such claim to bomb Pakistan, merely that the US would act. ( source: http://www.politifact.com... )

4. On Sunday, May 22nd, 2016 in an interview on "Meet the Press", Hillary Clinton stated "Let me say that I don't think (Bernie Sanders has) had a single negative ad ever run against him." (source: http://www.politifact.com... ) when in fact she released an attack ad herself in January of that year against Bernie; http://www.cnn.com... and Generation Forward, a pro-O'malley group also released an attack ad against Bernie Sanders portraying fun moments that were not serious about Bernie, trying to portray him as not a serious candidate. Another ad by the same group attacked his record on guns. ( source: http://www.politifact.com... )

You can see quite a few more false statements made by Hillary here: http://www.politifact.com...

And there are many others that I know of besides these I could show if you need me to, such as denying her support for TPP, when she did clearly support it at one point, and many other positions on which she flip-flops on that she then later denies having ever supported them.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

First, I want to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and making a strong case. I didn't want to waste my time against a weak argument. Opponent's arguments are below.


"I will bring up several examples of Hillary lying, which should be sufficient to prove she is dishonest.

1) First, on three occasions she claimed that her emails had no classified materials on them. Below are the quotes and the day they were said:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials" (March 10, 2015)
"I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (July 25, 2015)
"I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified" (Aug. 18, 2015).

At the congressional hearing with James Comey, representative Trey Gowdy asked FBI director James Comey, "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?"

To which Comey replied "That"s not true." and "There was classified material emailed."
Sources used for the above quotes: ( http://www.factcheck.org...... http://www.politifact.com...... )

2. Then on Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 in comments on Meet the Press, Hillary claimed "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against." when in fact, Donald Trump was the largest recipient of attack ads from companies associated with Wall Street, and many other republican candidates, and Bernie Sanders, have had ads against them as well. (source: http://www.politifact.com...... )

3. On Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 in a debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said that Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take."

The statement of Obama's this refers to is "I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

As you can see, Obama made no such claim to bomb Pakistan, merely that the US would act. ( source: http://www.politifact.com...... )

4. On Sunday, May 22nd, 2016 in an interview on "Meet the Press", Hillary Clinton stated "Let me say that I don't think (Bernie Sanders has) had a single negative ad ever run against him." (source: http://www.politifact.com...... ) when in fact she released an attack ad herself in January of that year against Bernie; http://www.cnn.com...... and Generation Forward, a pro-O'malley group also released an attack ad against Bernie Sanders portraying fun moments that were not serious about Bernie, trying to portray him as not a serious candidate. Another ad by the same group attacked his record on guns. ( source: http://www.politifact.com...... )

You can see quite a few more false statements made by Hillary here: http://www.politifact.com......

And there are many others that I know of besides these I could show if you need me to, such as denying her support for TPP, when she did clearly support it at one point, and many other positions on which she flip-flops on that she then later denies having ever supported them." Capitalistslave

R2 Rebuttal

First, I want to contend that if a person occasionally slips up and jay walks that person is still a law abiding citizen. Nobody is perfect. If you live long enough you will eventually breach the smallest of laws, even if you take great care to follow the laws.

The same goes for statements of truth. If you are given 10,000 questions on an exam, even a very intelligent person is likely to answer some of them wrong. I wouldn't call this person dishonest though for scoring a 9,990 out of 10,000. I would call them human and thus subject to human fallibility.

The above being established my opponent's entire argument is based upon a cherry picking fallacy. [0] Instead of focusing on the 9,990 times Hillary Clinton was law abiding and didn't jay walk or the 9,990 questions she answered correctly on an exam, my opponent focuses on the ten times Hillary Clinton messed up slightly.

"Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

Logical Form:

Evidence A and evidence B is available.

Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.

Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2.

Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [0]

As for the emails, "'ll give Carrk credit: he's pretty creative at coming up with negative spin. Needless to say, though, there's nothing here—or in any of the other excerpts—that would even remotely reflect badly on Clinton." [1]


My opponent also withholds how many emails there was and none of them were properly marked as classified. Yes, Hillary did tell a falsehood that there was no classified information, but this can easily be chalked up to human fallibility. That she thought she was telling the truth and didn't realize that there was classified information due to the sheer volume of emails and to the improper marking and some with no markings.

As seen here Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails. "Clinton has said she wanted the emails to be public, and turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department for release. "[2]


"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." [3]


Out of 55,000 emails 110 emails had classified emails, of those 110, three had markings. Out of those three all three were improperly marked. [4]

This is a .2% margin of error for Hillary, none of which can be proved that she deliberately told a falsehood. I say we must give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. As for about the thirty or so non-email related falsehoods told by Hillary, this really isn't that much. All of them could have been honest mistakes. Considering the sheer amount of public speaking involved in her long political career. At least since 2000. [5]

Now compare this to Donald Trump. [6] There are six pages of Trump's falsehoods as opposed to Hillary's two pages. Thank you for the debate, you are a worthy opponent.



Sources
0. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
1. http://www.motherjones.com...
2. http://www.nbcnews.com...
3. http://bluenationreview.com...
4. https://verdict.justia.com...
5. http://history.howstuffworks.com...
6. http://www.politifact.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

This is proving to be a more difficult debate, so I am glad my opponent is a good debater.

I wish to first discuss the following statement made by my opponent: "First, I want to contend that if a person occasionally slips up and jay walks that person is still a law abiding citizen."
This appears to actually be a weak analogy. A weak analogy is of course, "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." ( https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... )
The reason this is a weak analogy is because jay walking is not a serious offense, where as lying to the FBI and American people is much more serious as Hillary was doing so in order to gain a powerful position. Jay walking doesn't have a serious effect on so many people, but a lie that is used to gain power will effect everyone in a nation. The second analogy my opponent makes about an intelligent person getting some questions on a test wrong is also a weak analogy. For one, the most likely reason such a person got those questions wrong was because they honestly didn't know the answer. In the case of Hillary Clinton, it's not that she didn't know the answer(and actually, the honest thing to do if she didn't know the answer would be to admit it, and not give an answer) she blatantly stated things contrary to knowledge she had. The example I provided where she stated Bernie has had no ads against him is one such example. She herself, made ads against Bernie, yet claimed Bernie has had no ads against him. That's not simply a mistake, that is a lie because she would know that she herself made ads against him, unless Hillary's mental health is not sound. However, I see no reason to believe Hillary has memory problems, and that would be something my opponent would need to prove.

Another lie Hillary made that she would have had clear knowledge of the contrary, is when she said, in regards to TPP, "I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration,... Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it." However, during the process of TPP being negotiated, she said the deal was "setting the gold standard." and not only that it "sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field...when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment." ( http://www.politifact.com... )
Again, she would have firsthand knowledge of whether she supported the TPP to begin with, but lied about doing so in debate with Bernie Sanders.

I wouldn't call these slight mess-ups. Lying to the American people to gain power is not a slight mess up. I suppose I mistakenly used the cherry-picking fallacy, but given that we are in a debate arguing opposing sides, I figured you would bring up instances where Hillary has told the truth, then I would address those. Keep in mind that there is also a logical fallacy known as the fallacy fallacy, which is where someone presumes that an argument is wrong because of the use of a logical fallacy. ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... ) So I would remind people that my argument is not necessarily wrong just because of the use of a logical fallacy. In fact, if I can sufficiently prove that there is a pattern of her telling lies, this would prove she is dishonest. I would consider an honest person to always tell the truth in important matters, when it involves something as major as a powerful position such as president. I concede that a person can become honest after having told lies, so just because they told lies in the past that doesn't mean they are dishonest now, but there is a pattern of Hillary lying all the way through even to this year as I provided.

So the reason I didn't discuss the times Hillary was honest is because even if she lies now and then, as long as she still does so, she cannot be called 100% honest.

Now, perhaps Hillary could have made mistakes with the emails since not all of them were properly marked classified, however, "Throughout this saga, Clinton has said she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department. But Comey said FBI investigators uncovered "several thousand" work-related emails that she had not handed over, and three of those were classified at the time they were sent, though they were not marked as such."
This is again, something she should have known that she didn't hand over all emails.

My opponent brought up Donald Trump, but that is irrelevant. I agree Trump is also dishonest, and is probably more so than Hillary, but we're discussing Hillary here. As long as there are dishonest statements made by Hillary, she cannot be called 100% honest.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Let's take a look at some people in similar positions to Hillary Clinton. Using politifact.com we can see that:

26% of the time statements checked by poltifact.com Hilliary is more than half false. That's a 74% truth rate. [7]

Obama gets a 76% truth rate. [8] Donald Trump gets a 30% truth rating [9]. Bernie Sanders a 72% rating. [10]

Mike Pence gets a 53% truth rating. [11] Tim Kaine gets an 78% truth rating. [12] Finally, Joe Biden gets a 67% truth rating.


These are all people in similar circumstances to Hillary Clinton. This is important because many honest people given the right set of circumstances will deliberately tell a false statement. Most likely me nor my opponent have to live with public scrutiny at the level that Clinton and the others do.

Let's make a list from most honest to least honest and see where Hillary fits in.

Tim Kaine 78% truthful
Obama 76% truthful
Hillary 74% truthful
Bernie Sanders 72%
Joe Biden 67%
Mike Pence 53%
Donald Trump 30%

Out of seven politicians Hillary leans towards honest. Furthermore, it is impossible for my opponent to prove Hillary deliberately made any false statements. The best my opponent can prove is that Hillary made a false statement and had the knowledge before making the statement. Thanks for debating.

Sources:
7. http://www.politifact.com...
8. http://www.politifact.com...
9. http://www.politifact.com...
10. http://www.politifact.com...
11. http://www.politifact.com...
12. http://www.politifact.com...
13. http://www.politifact.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

Politifact doesn't necessarily have every single case Hillary has said something false. While I would use politifact for specific cases where they said something false, it can't be used for every single instance they've said something false since it doesn't seem possible anyone can possibly record every single time someone made a false statement.

I would like to point out that in a court of law, all that is needed for reason to convict is: motive, evidence that the person did something illegal, and as a bonus, witnesses. In each case there is a motive for her lying: to get elected. There is evidence she said false things, which I showed above, and there are witnesses(all of the American people who pay attention to news).

The most probable explanation for these occurrences, is that she purposely lied in these instances. Unless there is evidence for some other reason, what explanation do you have? I asked before and you offered none. My opponent offered no valuable explanation for why Hillary's statements do not match up with what she should know. Also, in a court of law, if you're caught saying something when you had previous knowledge to the contrary, that is called perjury. If we all thought like my opponent here, no one would ever be convicted of perjury because there "might" be some other reason for the statements not lining up. Unless there is a reasonable explanation for it, such as Hillary Clinton has some illness that is known to cause memory problems(which I know of no such evidence that she has such an illness), or something of that sort, the only logical conclusion is that she lied deliberately.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheBenC 2 weeks ago
TheBenC
If anyone thinks Clinton only had 33,000 emails over years and years they are lying to themselves. They got hundreds of thousands from a freaking laptop of her lover, I mean assistant. If Clinton only had 33,000 emails on that server then it was a huge waste of money and she emails less often than any state official ever since email became a big thing.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 weeks ago
ILikePie5
If that did happen, who did it? Why didn't she tell everyone that someone did this? Why wasn't here an investigation by the Justice Department. You can create what ifs all day bro. They don't work.
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
Three out of 55,000 emails she missed. Also, this could have been a set up. Deliberately sending Hillary classified emails not marked as classified in the hopes of damaging her politically.

https://www.dailynewsbin.com...
http://www.dailykos.com...#
Posted by ILikePie5 3 weeks ago
ILikePie5
Even if they weren't marked properly, she's been in Governemnt for 30 years! She was also Sec. of State! She should know the difference between classified and not classified. What was her excuse? She thought they were paragraph indicators. How the hell is there a C when there isn't an A or a B before it?
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
A key concept in this debate is the wording. Note many of the emails were sent or received and then upgraded later to classified. So if Hillary says I didn't send nor receive any classified emails, she is telling the truth with the exception of three that were classified at the time, but not properly marked.

"Regarding Clinton"s role in writing 104 of the emails, Fallon said the classification determinations "were after-the-fact .R01;.R01;. for the purposes of preparing these emails for release publicly."

"It does not mean the material was classified when it was sent or received," he said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
Then, you do not know the definition of lie. You must prove the deliberately part of the definition. Otherwise it is simply a false statement. For example, if you ate two pieces of toast and someone asks you what you ate for breakfast and you state "three pieces of toast" thinking and believing that you ate three pieces of toast this is a false statement. In contrast, if you knowingly tell the same false tale, you are lying.

"lie 2 (lī)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Posted by ILikePie5 3 weeks ago
ILikePie5
There's no reason to prove intent. A lie is a lie, simple.
Posted by Stupidape 3 weeks ago
Stupidape
"Dude, this debate is about Hillary, not Trump. I agree with your example, but saying I was under sniper fire in Bosnia is totally a lie! She had a little girl give her flowers when she got off. You cannot defend Hillary'S honesty problem. Plain and simple"

This is a false statement, she just got confused. You can't prove intent.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 weeks ago
ILikePie5
And I never said I didn't lie. Everyone has lied before. The subject of this debate isn't morality once again. If I don't give my info, I'm lying, but I still do it. There is no one in this world who hasn't lied before...
Posted by ILikePie5 3 weeks ago
ILikePie5
Dude, this debate is about Hillary, not Trump. I agree with your example, but saying I was under sniper fire in Bosnia is totally a lie! She had a little girl give her flowers when she got off. You cannot defend Hillary'S honesty problem. Plain and simple
No votes have been placed for this debate.