The Instigator
BobTheRocket2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Should Hillary Clinton go to jail?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 96931
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

BobTheRocket2

Con

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I don't think she did anything wrong here. She just couldn't wake up in time, and subconttiously deleted her emails. She then forgot about it. I dont see anything rong 'here
Mharman

Pro

No. She woke up in time. In fact, she tweeted about it. Before she deleted her emails, the FBI had placed them under investigation. She deleted them on purpose to hide the evidence that she was negligent of an upcoming terrorist attack that she knew about. She then lied for a whole entire 11 hours in a testimony, and still denies everything to this day. Her amnesia, is not real, it's just an excuse, as she has proven multiple times she can remember things perfectly well.
Debate Round No. 1
BobTheRocket2

Con

That's all lies, FBI bias.
Mharman

Pro

Not it's not, she even talked more about it in more emails.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTheRocket2

Con

Great! Even more FBI bullcrap!
Mharman

Pro

No, its not. It's been proven facts, look it up. Do not try to belittle her scandals.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
@Danbury First, due to the political position she holds, she is not allowed to have a private server. It's part of the contract for her job position regardless of whether it can be hacked or not. The crime she committed is deleting evidence that she was ordered by the government to turn over to them. THAT is a crime whether she did it by accident or not. And for goodness sake, correct the way you type. It looks like you typed all of that while drunk.
Posted by Mharman 3 weeks ago
Mharman
They are all facts, go look it up.
Posted by Danbury 3 weeks ago
Danbury
we cannot belittle scandals that never existed but in the minds of immoral people who believe what they want, not what the facts say.
But in fact, it is the right wing which belittled its own email server argument. for one thing, to suggest throwing someone in jail for something which is not even a crime goes to show the irrational hatred and authoritarian, dictatorial mindset of the right wing now (hence their nominee).
Second, the argument from the right about her use of a private server, their outrage about it, according to them, was that, although it wasn't, "It could have been hacked!"
However, they shot their own argument there down, aka "belittled it" when they decided that their heroes are Putin/Russia and Julian Assange FOR hacking US email servers.
Therefore, their concern about her server possibly being hacked was demonstrably phony and political. and considering she was the target here, that her server was NOT hacked would indicate that she actually had the safest server in all of D.C.
Finally, I have concluded, because of the above, that what the right wing was angry about isn't that her server "could have been hacked" but rather that it wasn't.
No illegally gotten gains for them to use in the election, like they joyfully used from Putin and Assange.

No credibility.
Posted by Mharman 4 weeks ago
Mharman
You just admitted to the strength of her server, it couldn't have been hackers. Do you believe all the red meat her campaign says?
Posted by Danbury 4 weeks ago
Danbury
Of course not. that was just vile red meat thrown at rabid, uncivilized people by a criminal himself, Donald Trump, to win an election. The argument those same people made for throwing someone in jail who has not committed a crime (having a private email server is a crime? Since when?) is that her server "could have been hacked." Well, not only was it not hacked, those same people thrilled in Russia and Julian Assange illegally hacking the DNC's email server to help Trump win an election. So talk about CORRUPT! A bunch of Trump supporters LOVED hostile foreign actors illegally hacking into email servers to influence a US election. So their phony concern that her email server "could have been hacked!" falls on these deaf ears, since they would have LOVED it had her server been hacked.

Indeed, considering that SHE was the target and her server was not intact hacked, it seems to me that her server turns out to have been the most secure in all of Washington, DC! My Mac guy said, when I mentioned that to him, "Of course. No one knew it existed."

So a really banana republic type of thread - throwing a political opponent in jail when no crime was committed, got a fool into the presidency, by a bunch of foolish people, who are so unprincipled as to have run round screaming the election was rigged, with NO evidence of it, and then actually thrilling in an election being rigged, by hacked emails and a corrupted FBI.

No credibility.
And no, Trump is not going to have a special prosecutor go after Clinton. That was as much a con as the rest of his campaign.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
BobTheRocket2MharmanTied
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: Con basically threw a fit the entire time while Pro actually made points based on logical evidence.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 3 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
BobTheRocket2MharmanTied
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: Pro had better conduct, as con just started using terms like bullcrap and such. Neither had bad spelling or grammar. Pro made a more convincing argument, and neither use sources.
Vote Placed by Philosophy123 3 weeks ago
Philosophy123
BobTheRocket2MharmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Mharman tried to prove his claim using evidence and logic and even if the argument perhaps failed it is superior to what BobTheRocket2 did which was disagree with his opponent using simple one sentence answers.
Vote Placed by BlargArgNarg 3 weeks ago
BlargArgNarg
BobTheRocket2MharmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Gave legitimate proof.