The Instigator
MWonderWolf
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Hillary Would be the Worst President Ever

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,388 times Debate No: 92057
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (2)

 

MWonderWolf

Pro

Thank you for debating. Here's the way the debate will go:

1st Round = Acceptance
2nd Round = Arguments Pro/Con, NO rebuttals
3rd Round = Rebuttals
4th Round = Rebuttals to Rebuttals, Final Remarks

Good luck! Feel free to say anything you want about the topic!
I'm pro, which means I think Hillary would be the worst prez ever.
Ragnar

Con

I accept. Within the limited character limit, I shall prove there have been worse presidents than Clinton could hope to compete with in sheer awefulness.

Planned setup: Times New Roman font, 12pt. Opponent quotes bolded, source quotes italicised, contentions numbered continiiously between rounds (meaning if I pull 4 in R2, the first in R3 will be 5, etc).
Debate Round No. 1
MWonderWolf

Pro

Ok, there's a problem with that. My iPad, which I use for DDO, can't do bold or italics on the keyboard. Bold for me = " ". Italic = ()
So, if you don't think that Hillary is an atrocious president, check this website out: http://www.breitbart.com...
How could you call that good? Look at one, three, 24, and 27. Yep. That's BAD. The majority (and that's how people vote: majority!) are horrendous.
Ragnar

Con

James Buchanan lead us into the civil war. Andrew Johnson (only president due to Lincoln's assassination) crimes such as mishandling military secrets got him impeached by congress. Herbert Hoover lead us into the great depression [1].

Civil War killed two-percent of the US population, today that would be six-million lives [2].

[1] http://www.rantpolitical.com...
[2] http://blogs.ancestry.com...

Debate Round No. 2
MWonderWolf

Pro

How about ISIS, huh? All politicians say that they'll do something to fight, but that's because they want to get into presidency. And, if unleashed, ISIS or another terrorist group could decimate 10% of our population if they wanted to, and they do.
Have you ever heard of the role HC (Hillary Clinton) played in Bengahzi? If that's not horrendous, then horrendous has no existence. And then, AND THEN, lying to the world be saying it was a stupid video that viciously killed three American citizens!
Ragnar

Con

Rebuttal:
The positive case against her is meritless word association. It implies some people don't like her, not anything about how bad she'd be as president.

Defense:
8 years as First Lady, 4 more as Secretary of State. This means 12 years in the White House, and she's only managed to kill 3 Americans. If she did a Benghazi every day for 8 years as president (assuming reelection for more time to mess things up), she'd have only killed 2190 Americans.

Further Clinton is not a member of ISIS.

Debate Round No. 3
MWonderWolf

Pro

MWonderWolf forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend arguments.

The Great Depression saw millions die of malnutrition, a far worse death toll than even the Civil War, an event Clinton could not hope to compete with. She likely could not even compete in scandalous leaking of secrets against the benefactor of Lincoln's assassination.

I'd like to thank my opponent for launching this 500 character debate, it proved a fun challenge to selectively pick content to fit within the constraint.
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MWonderWolf 11 months ago
MWonderWolf
DEFINITELY! Here's another: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
We get some crazies on here, that's for sure.
Posted by MWonderWolf 11 months ago
MWonderWolf
For the whole 'me being an admin' thing, the guy sent me a friend request, and here's what he wrote:
Donnie121's Message:
Yes I would like to talk with you very much, since you are an admin you help could be very benifical to the both of us ... and the world. This website seems rather positive and does not shy away from important topics, free speech is very important an
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
Thanks tejretics, Diqiucun_Cunmin, and ThinkBig for the quality votes (even if one fell slightly substandard, it's not something to worry about, it's a mistake easier to make on debates this short). Also thank you MWonderWolf for issuing this debate challenge, and Whiteflame for taking the time to walk people through your mod processes, and review each and every vote.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
Thanks, whiteflame :)

To add to my RFD:

Pro also says Hillary Clinton (1) played a role in Benghazi and (2) will be unable to combat ISIS. Con proves that three people dying doesn't match the impact from 6 million lives lost. Pro doesn't show that Clinton would be unable to combat ISIS -lacking a warrant, Con wins anyway.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro just offers me a bunch of random words used by people to describe Hillary Clinton, which does nothing to advance the burden that she would be the "worst President ever," which requires (1) justification that she would be a bad President, and (2) comparison with other Presidents. In contrast, Con offers a comparison with James Buchanan and Andrew Jackson, who caused the deaths of thousands of lives -an assertion that is dropped. With that, obviously Con's impacts outweigh Pro's impacts, or lack thereof.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter examines Pro's burden of proof, explains why Pro failed to meet it, and examines why Con's arguments reinforced that failure.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and thus con gets the conduct point. Con claims that Hillary will not be the worst President ever by pointing out several Presidents that were arguably much worse. Pro never responds to those arguments and never rebuts why Hillary would be worse than Jackson and Buchanan.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter sufficiently addresses Con's points, the voter fails to analyze Pro's, instead just pointing out that Pro dropped something in the debate. The voter is required to assess arguments made by both sides in order for the vote to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Diqiucun_Cunmin/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter more than sufficiently examines the arguments given in the debate by both sides and comes to a decision on that basis.
***********************************************************************
Posted by MWonderWolf 11 months ago
MWonderWolf
Anyone could see that I haven't even been on here for even a year.
Posted by MWonderWolf 11 months ago
MWonderWolf
Huh.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
MWonderWolfRagnarTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just offers me a bunch of random words used by people to describe Hillary Clinton, which does nothing to advance the burden that she would be the "worst President ever," which requires (1) justification that she would be a bad President, and (2) comparison with other Presidents. In contrast, Con offers a comparison with James Buchanan and Andrew Jackson, who caused the deaths of thousands of lives -an assertion that is dropped. With that, obviously Con's impacts outweigh Pro's impacts, or lack thereof.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 11 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
MWonderWolfRagnarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments