The Instigator
Mags2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 949 times Debate No: 66726
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Mags2

Pro

I will be taking the pro side. Meaning, that Hilary Clinton will be a successful/good president.
Ragnar

Con

Preamble:
In this debate I shall primarily seek to prove it is doubtful she will become a good president of the United Stated of America (or any any nation, if pro puts forward such an argument). In doing this I shall refrain from Ad Hominem attacks against her, like those she suffered during the 2008 election.

Argument
:
In short, she is unlikely to be elected president. Being elected president, is a noteworthy requirement to become a good president. Should it be proven she will be elected, I shall then address why she would not be a good president.

She Might Not Run
As reported by CNN, she has not confirmed if she is running, nor will she this year [1].
If she does not run, the odds of her being popular enough of a write-in candidate to be elected into office are abysmal.

If She Runs Party Primaries
There is no guarantee she would win the democratic party primaries.
Good candidates wash out all the time, for a host of reasons.
In 2008 she was the clear choice according to pulling, yet it was some inexperienced senator who had not even shown up on the original polls who took the democratic nomination [2]. Which also demostarted how useless current polling is about her chances (again, if she runs).

If She Wins Party Primaries
She would still have the main election to contend with. The last time there were two democratic presidents in a row, was when Kennedy was assassinated.
To be fair, at this point she would have about a 50/50 chance of being elected (the precise political climate we'll have in two years can hardly be guessed at).

Conclusion
It is highly unlikely she will even become president, let alone a good one.

Sources:
[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mags2

Pro

Quick question, in your arguments, you referred to her as a "good candidate." Then, you went along to say that she wouldn't be a good president in your closing.

Rebuttals:
She Might Not Run
According to CNN news, they said and I quote, " Clinton will announce her presidential campaign, a move that is all but certain now that Clinton's timeline for an announcement appears slipping toward the spring." [1]

If She Runs/Wins Party Primaries
Yes, there is no guarantee she would win democratic party primaries. Really, there are no guarantees for any president running. For her, the chances are high. She has multiple assets that she can use to her will. Plus, there are roughly 158.6 million females in the US. Us women of the US deserve a voice, and she is our way. This would be a punch of media bias that the Republican presidential candidate will not be able to handle. Because with the media on your side, everything is possible!

Arguments:

Barrels of Money:
Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.[2] You may ask, how would this help her? Well it just goes to show how many people would go and support her.

The Republicans Have a Weak Bench:
If the Democrats did not have Hillary, or she declines to run, then both parties would have weak benches.But the Democrats do have Hillary, and all signs point to her running, so that leaves only a weak GOP bench and the question," How can any GOP candidates possibly win 270 electoral votes?"

Calling Hillary "Old" Insults the Old Republican Base
If elected president, she will turn 70 in her first year in office. In the 2012 election, voters over the age of 65 composed 16 percent of the electorate and voted for Romney over Obama by 56 percent to 44 percent"making this age group Romney"s most loyal voting block.Now it is Hillary who will wear the competent and accomplished label more often than black pantsuits.[3]

Cites
[1]-http://www.cnn.com...
[2]-http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[3]-http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Ragnar

Con

Conduct:
Plagiarism is unacceptable. Please put quotation marks around anything you copy/paste, always give credit (even if paraphrasing), and in general make your own arguments (which can of course then be supported by any number of sources that say the same thing).

All three of pro's contentions were in fact merely copied from the same article. Of which only two were cited, and none were given as proper quotes. Sources were then inflated by listing the same source as if it were multiple articles instead of just one (2 and 3 are the exact same link… this I do consider an honest mistake, however best to point it out to help people avoid it in future).

Cross Examination Response:
"you referred to her as a 'good candidate.' Then, you went along to say that she wouldn't be a good president in your closing."
1. I am unclear on what your question is. Someone could be good at running for office (a "good candidate"), and be a terrible president. Just consider the case of President Warren Harding who admitted "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here" [3].
2. I have not actually referred to her as a good candidate or a bad. I stated the fact that "Good candidates wash out all the time, for a host of reasons." Easy evidenced by John Kerry being sent against Bush in 2004 instead of Howard Dean, who being on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine might have stood a chance [4, 5].

Defenses:
Why each piece of my argument still stands.

She Might Not Run
"According to CNN news, they said and I quote, 'Clinton will announce her presidential campaign'."
False attribution. Yes in the CNN article "Hillary Clinton wins award from gay hookup app" the words did appear, but not from CNN, rather from anonymous users of a "gay hookup app." That anonymous users of a certain app hope for something, is no reason to believe it.
Whereas respectable source The Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake states: "There’s a real chance Hillary Clinton won’t run for president," citing such reasons as her diminishing favorability ratings, Benghazi, and more [6].

Party Primaries
"Yes, there is no guarantee she would win democratic party primaries."
Unless an argument is to be put forward that she will jump ship to the Republican Party, this seems to be a near concession.

"There are roughly 158.6 million females in the US. Us women of the US deserve a voice, and she is our way."
Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is gaining ground while Clinton is losing it. Your own preferred source The Daily Beast now calls Warren "The Most Powerful Democrat in America," and notes "it's time Hillary started getting worried" [6]. Whereas if Clinton runs she will likely be compared to Todd Akin (the "legitimate rape" guy) due to interesting views against underage rape victims as reported by The Daily Beast [7].
Meanwhile Politico reports that "Elizabeth Warren is catching fire" [8].

Rebuttals:
All three contentions offered, were in fact copied from an August 2013 article. Which ironically (considering my previous contention) states in the opening paragraph "in one day a candidate can go from frontrunner to underdog" [9].

Barrels of Money
"Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early."
Could.
This debate seems to center on the difference between the words "could" and "will." Could do something is hopeful thinking, and no assurance she will do anything.
"just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013"
More like a week well over a year ago, news from two weeks ago pegs the group as already heavily in debt [10].

The Republicans Have a Weak Bench
"and all signs point to her running"

Over a year ago, and no sign of her actually deciding to run as come about.
Also if the Democrats have a better choice than Hillary (as I've argued above), the Republican bench is meaningless.

Calling Hillary "Old" Insults the Old Republican Base
"voters over the age of 65 composed 16 percent of the electorate and voted for Romney over Obama"

Hoping she will fight Romney… I suppose anything is possible. However this would help serve to separate her from the youth vote which was so deceive to President Obama's victories [11], therefore if the Republicans send in a younger contender she would be less electable.

Sources:
[3] http://www.usnews.com...
[4] http://www.rollingstone.com...
[5] http://www.rollingstone.com...
[6] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[7] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[8] http://www.politico.com...
[9] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[10] http://www.nytimes.com...
[11] http://www.politico.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Mags2

Pro

Mags2 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

In short, Clinton is unelectable.

Were she elected, she would be a bad president to the "roughly 158.6 million females in the US," of who approximately one-in-five will be victims of sexual assault in their lifetime [12], to which Hillary believes in applying a policy of victim blaming against (or at least when they are twelve-years-old and attacked by men in their forties) [7].

Sources:
[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Mags2

Pro

Rebuttals:
Your rape quote, has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton.
Honestly, this debate is just the hypothetical question, what if? There is honestly no clue if she is to run or not. It's just that if she was to run, and what power she would bring to the White House. To add onto that, if you do not understand where I quoted or which to read.. It's not very hard to figure out. Just use your mind, and I bet you could figure it out n your own!

" therefore if the Republicans send in a younger contender she would be less electable."That's your quote if you didn't know
As you know, older people like to claim that they are wise and more experienced. Well, how old is Hilary Clinton? She is like what, 67? Well, knowing this and the fact that she has had experience as the First Lady and being Secretary of State. Knowing this, the Republican would not be able to send someone with such high credentials and experience that she has.

Arguments:

The Pluses:
Who is HIllary Clinton? Just a woman who was shamelessly cheated on? No, she was not only First Lady for 8 years, but was the senator of New York, Secretary of State. Wow! Now, what American would not vote for a humiliated women(by her husband,) and not to mention that she is female, would not vote for her?

The Long GOP Primary System Plays to Hillary"s Advantage:
This is only one example of how the Republican primary traveling circus went on far too long, hurting the eventual winner, and was extremely debilitating to the image of the party in the eyes of the general electorate.
Now in 2016 (unless order suddenly comes from chaos), it looks like we are in for another long, heated, Republican primary season while Hillary assumes the Obama-like incumbent position, ready to pounce on whoever starts to emerge victorious.[1]

Cites:
[1]http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Ragnar

Con

"Your rape quote, has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton."
Apparently Hillary Clinton's ethically questionable past actions "has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton." Yet no reason to turn this vague assertion into an argument has been presented.
Her moral beliefs are that rape victims should be put on trial, and slandered with lies [7]. In her own words, she had an "ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent" [13], meaning according to her, that is what every defense attorney should do to victims of rape. That is what she offers the white house, the further victimization of women.

"if you do not understand where I quoted or which to read.. It's not very hard to figure out. Just use your mind, and I bet you could figure it out n your own!"
Not making your own case, instead copy/pasting someone else's, then telling people to use their minds. Please use your own advice during future debates.

"she has had experience as the First Lady and being Secretary of State. Knowing this, the Republican would not be able to send someone with such high credentials and experience that she has."
If voters cared that much about experience, Obama would have lost to McCain, and Bush would have lost to Gore. Clearly current voting trends do not favor such.

"Now, what American would not vote for a humiliated women?"
Anyone who prefers strength? Also sympathy votes are not indicative of a good president.

"The Long GOP Primary System..."
1. Further plagiarism. Please write your own arguments next time.
2. No reason to suppose Hillary Clinton would even hold a candle to Elizabeth Warren has been presented.

Conclusion:
Pro's case that Hillary Clinton would make a good present, seems to center around her being very old, a little experience, and having a vagina. Honestly that seems closer to an Ad Hominem attack against her, than an argument in her favor.

Sources:
[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Thank you for the debate, if you need any help refining future arguments let me know.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@LeeRoy: You're welcome to challenge me to a debate.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Why don't you turn your brains on?

It's a Debate, not a resolution.

Official figures from Washington, DC:
Federal Budget Spending planned for FY 2015 is $3.9 Trillion., (& probably won't go any higher).
"National debt" as of today is over $18.017 Trillion, & Going Up.
Prof Kotlikoff' s projected Fiscal Gap as of today is over $210 Trillion, & Going Up.
As I stated in my Comment 6 days ago:
They're not only BANKRUPT, but Way in the Red.
They have virtually ZERO $ for anything whatsoever.
Nobody in their right mind would want to run for office, let alone for the presidency.
Who'll vote for Hillary Clinton?
Posted by Mags2 2 years ago
Mags2
I know" That's what I was thinking
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@LeeRoy: I am unsure what your comments have to do with the arguments put forward for and against the resolution.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
According to Economic Experts, such as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University,
because of their Off-Budget & Unfunded Liabilities & Obligations,
their Actual Debt, which he apparently refers to as the Fiscal Gap,
is over $210 TRILLION, & Going Up.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
The so-called "National Debt" alone is over $18 TRILLION, & Going Up.
They're not only BANKRUPT, they're Way In the Red.
They have Virtually ZERO $ for anything whatsoever.
Politicians all over the world are having Very Severe Budget Problems.
Nobody in their right mind would want to run for office, let alone for the Presidency.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Mags2RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism by Pro.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Mags2RagnarTied
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: Arguments: Pro had BOP... Pro did nothing to prove his case. Pro lost without even trying. This debate was not about if Clinton would win, or how good her odds of winning was. It's about if she'd be good at the job. Pro only tried once to prove she'd be good, by posting experience and her gender, neither of which proves she's great at being President. Bring up her being a woman lost Pro a lot of points here. Conduct: Pro ff'd, and plagiarized. Unlike what the last voter said, plagiarism isn't about profit, and here, plagiarism is still against the rules.
Vote Placed by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Mags2RagnarTied
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: First, Pro did not make a very convincing case over all. Second, what little case he did make for Hillary Clinton was devalued by Con. Third, pro plagiarized and I don't care. That is acceptable in my book in this case because Pro is not publishing anything nor making a profit off of anything. My final judgement, Pro lost severely due to his weak arguments for Hillary Clinton. Con, you didn't win as much as Pro lost.