I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead
Debate Rounds (5)
So before I begin, I would like to talk about the Burden of Proof, defined as, "The obligation to prove one's assertion." .
Since it is Pro making an assertion, it is his job to prove it. This means I don't need to provide any arguments, only rebuttals.
"I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead, She lies, People abhor her and she's a Criminal."
- First, about her being hated, that doesn't mean she will be assassinated. You can think of tons of people who were hated, yet they were not physically harmed. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, none of them got assassinated, yet they definitely were hated. What about George W. Bush, Justin Beiber, or the Koch brothers? They are all hated by many, but none have been assassinated. People don't just think, "Oh, I hate this person, let me to kill them." Hate is nowhere near strong enough to make someone kill a fellow human being.
Now onto you point about her lieing and being a criminal. I won't disbute either, but I will say that those traits are not enough to make someone commit murder. Her criminality was about an email server. No one is going to kill her over that. As for lieing, everyone lies, yet you don't see people killing every politician. People won't kill her over these things.
Plus, presidents are so well defended. It would be very hard for anyone to kill her.
In the next round, Pro will need to provide more evidence to prove his assertion, otherwise, I will win.
"Well explain John F. Kennedy, James A Garfield or Abraham Lincolns Death???? They were simply the same as Hilary."
- This is it? My opponents only point is how other presidents in the past have been assassinated. He fails to show how this proves Hillary Clinton will be assassinated, or proves how, "They were simply the same as Hilary." He drops my argument about the Secret Service, and he doesn't respond to my counter-argument to the, "She is hated, so she will be assassinated", argument.
Unless you can provide more evidence, I win this debate.
Pro failed to back up his assertion with evidence, and what he did put out, I rebutted. If you want to have a debate, you need to fulfill your BoP. In this case, you had to prove that Hillary Clinton would be assassinated should she become POTUS. You also needed to respond to my counter points. You did neither. I pointed out that we have the Secret Service, and security for presidents is much better now. You dropped those contentions. I rebutted your point that, "She is hated, so she will be assassinated." You never responded to those clsims. Instead, you said that other presidents were assassinated, and Clinton is like them, but you failed to prove how Clinton is like them or how this proves she will be assassinated.
Unless you actually post an argument, I win. Good luck!
1. She Covered up Benghazi Murder
2. She lies Constantly at leaast Trump does the opposite Still don't understand why people don't like him so what he Mocks people when they say stupid crap and cheats people???
3. She is a Feminist
4. Donald Trump says she "should be in jail," and he"s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know.
5. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks.
6. She"s in the pay of the Wall Street banks
Man there is so much Idiocy i could go on for Days, Trump will destroy her Soon You'll see.
"She Covered up Benghazi Murder."
- Source Please.
"2. She lies Constantly at leaast Trump does the opposite Still don't understand why people don't like him so what he Mocks people when they say stupid crap and cheats people."
- Source Please. Also, Trump is a lier as well. He is also a scammer and a con artist. Remember Trump University? 
"3. She is a Feminist"
-Source please. And this is a reason to assassinate her? She supposedly has an opposing ideology then you?
"5. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks."
- Source please.
"She"s in the pay of the Wall Street banks"
- Source please.
So my opponent posted a bunch of assertions, but provided no sources for any of them. Unless you have sources, none of those points matter. Plus, you fail to connect the dots, assuming these things are true. You need to show how these things will make her be assassinated.
Plus, apparently one of your reasons on why she would be assassinated is because she is a feminist. How? I dislike much of modern feminism, but to assassinate them? Absolutely not. People won't kill another for an opposing ideology.
You still have yet to respond to my counter-arguments.
Please provide some shred of evidence to back up your assertion. Good luck.
You had to prove your assertion. You didn't do that. You had to respond to my counter-arguments. You didn't. Because of this, you did not fulfil your BoP. And because of that, I win.
"Hillary would be the one who gets Assassinated and i provided reasons, i actually don't care what happens to her."
- But you didn't provide any reasons. And the ones you did provide, I rebutted, or you didn't have a source.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 6 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Note: S&G was poor on both sides Con wins this debate because Pro's entire idea rests on hatred for "Hilary" being strong enough to warrant assassination. Con disproved this in R1 with his claim that hate=/=assassination in most instances and again in R2 with the claim that in all likelihood Secret Service would do its job. Pro simply stated that presidents have been assassinated. Not enough to fulfill BoP.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.