The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 75464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State is now and has been running for President of the 2016 presidential term. The initial response was mixed, with democrats that enjoyed the Clintonian era to people questioning the integrity of the Clinton family. With the Benghazi scandal and now the email scandal emerging, is it right to choose her for president. As part of the Clinton family she has already raised eyebrows as a candidate, but with two scandals even before the election there is strong reason to believe it will only go downhill from there. Hillary is so far left and liberal that she cannot see the other side, and although she claims to be a "feminist" or stand for equality she is really not for equality but moreover a women dominated society. So Hillary 2016? I guarantee she will not have MY vote nor the vote of any rational adult.


Remember that this is not a debate about whether Hillary is electable as U.S. President in 2016. And it is not a debate about whether she would even secure the democratic primary nomination. This is a debate about whether she should even be a nominee in the first place.

My opponent refers to Hillary's scandals. What politician at that level of federal scrutiny for that many years does not have their share of scandals tarnishing their names? Very few, indeed.

Also, my opponent seems not to have gotten the "down-low" on Benghazi. This was a presidential (Obama-led), high-level deception that would not acknowledge that terrorism had occurred. I would recommend reading the book, Blood Feud, or you can check out the following New York Post which should adequately catch you up to speed. [1] In short, Hillary was attempting to deal with the situation as a terrorist attack but Obama wanted the Clintons to spin a different story to the media and make it look like some extremist Muslims were reacting to an Internet video mocking the prophet, Mohammed.

I agree with my opponent that Hillary is not a feminist. She has so many corporations backing and funding her that she probably would not bother even trying to level out the male-female wage gap or increase the minimum wage to a living wage.

While she may not be the world's best candidate, she does have way more experience as a statesman than most of the other Democratic candidates who are going to run in 2016.

She should definitely not be the candidate with the most integrity but due to her level of experience, she should be allowed to be a nominee.

Debate Round No. 1


My standing point on Benghazi is completely reliable. As the secretary of State she was not completely with no say on this tragedy. At three points were cables sent for more back up in Benghazi, which may I add she admitted to Rand Paul in a debate between the two.(1) She publicly admitted to have not done enough in the situation, so why has she not been removed of her post as SOS? Another point I may add is that my opponent has not touched yet on the email scandal that has evoked recent news. A presedential candidate with two scandals before the nominations? How can that lead to a good presidency and how willing are you to forgive her for betraying the trust of the United States citizens ? So Hillary '16?



Thanks again for the opportunity to engage one another's viewpoints on this topic.

My opponent is performing a clever distraction. He still has not responded to my point that this debate is not about whether Hillary is electable in 2016. He is focusing on scandals and not on whether she is eligible for election as a nominee in 2016. Of course, she is a United States citizen and there is still debate about whether Senator Ted Cruz can legitimately run for U.S. President given that he was born in Canada. [1]

Instead of focusing on the eligibility of someone like Ted Cruz, my opponent is fixated on someone like Hillary who is clearly a U.S. Citizen. His only argument against her is related to scandals.

But I already addressed that point. I asked him what politician who has Hillary's level of political experience did not have some scandals. He has yet to answer that question. I am still waiting for him.

He is clearly misguided about Benghazi. If Hillary was covering for Obama's mistake, as I pointed out previously, then she is not responsible for Benghazi. She and Bill didn't even find it believable that Obama would make up a story about a YouTube video depicting the prophet Mohammed as the cause of the Benghazi riots.

My opponent then points to Hillary's debate with Rand Paul where she admits that she could have done more. This just goes to show that Hillary has integrity. If she was willing to admit that she made a mistake and could have done more, then she is showing character, unlike Obama who refused to admit he invented the "YouTube video" story when he was debating with Mitt Romney!!

In summary, my opponent has obviously ill-defined the scope of this debate. If he wanted to debate whether Hillary would be electable as president, that would have been an entirely different debate. She can be a nominee to the U.S. Presidency simply because she is eligible for office. The sooner that my opponent realizes this fact, the better.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your quickness in responding! I appreciate your eagerness to continue.

The debate questionnaire is not questioning her eligibility to become president. Rather it is suggesting should she be a nominee. A nominee according to states a nominee is " one who has been nominated to an office" (1) So my question is regarding if Hillary given her standing scandals and awful past record should be the Democratic NOMINEE!

My opponent seems to be fixated on the side that Hillary had no fault and had no play in Benghazi, which he must be ill informed because based off my prior sources only when she was questioned did she assume responsibility, not at the time of the actual incident. That does not show integrity, rather it shows sheepishness.

Hillary 2016 is completely legit and no one has been arguing the integrity of the actual campaign, but rather the integrity of Hillary herself and if she should be who the democrats select as a nominee for the 2016 elections. Also I appreciate your talking of Ted Cruz, because he is eligible. His parents while in Canada at his birth were United States Citizens and therefore making him one and continuing his eligibility, and honestly do you really believe he would be spending all this time and money running if he wasn't eligible?



Well, here we are in the final round of a very interesting topic about Hillary Clinton being a nominee for the U.S. Presidency.

Thanks to DS for initiating this discussion!

Some of this debate may have been misunderstood. Neither DS nor myself would actually cast a vote for Hillary, except perhaps in some bizarre alternate universe.

But what we are discussing is whether Hillary should be a nominee. She is Constitutionally eligible to be nominated by the Democratic Party as a prospective future President and she certainly has the qualifications to fill that role.

My opponent, yet again, dodged my challenge. If he was going to "Hillary-bash" (and he has just cause to do so), he was supposed to provide another political candidate who has as much "statesman" experience as Hillary who was not also plagued by scandal. I'm actually a bit disappointed. I thought that he would have brought up someone like Paul Wellstone or Ronald Reagan, but never-mind. He did not take up the gauntlet and that is significant, indeed!

DS argues that Ted Cruz has as much Constitutional eligibility as Hillary, but not so! He wrongly assumes that both of Cruz's parents were natural U.S. Citizens but Cruz's father was not "naturalized" until 2005 and not a natural U.S. Citizen since he was born in Cuba and even pledged allegiance to Fidel Castro's socialistic-fascistic cause. [1]

DS continues to argue about Benghazi, but the evidence is clear: neither Bill nor Hillary thought that Obama's spin was believable. Of course, she didn't assume responsibility at the beginning. She was too busy trying to make Obama's story about Muslims being offended at a YouTube video of the Prophet Muhammed sound credible. Hey, that's a full-time job! Second, she should not take responsibility for having to "spin" the president's orders. Obama should take responsibility for that since he did not want to draw attention to any terrorism occurring while he was president. Honestly, DS should read Blood Feud for better information.

Tomorrow, if only DS and myself had to vote and our only options were between Cruz and Hillary, I'm sure that we would both choose Cruz. Still, I hope that my honorable opponent would allow Hillary to become a nominee in the first place!

If nothing else, I expect that DS recognizes the right of someone to run for the U.S. Presidency, even if he disagrees strongly with her campaign or her values.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by theisticscuffles 1 year ago
Thanks, Dillon, for this debate!

Perhaps in 2016, there will be quite a few debates of this sort.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by doctorcsss 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's first argument was a little incoherent, and didn't make a whole lot of sense, so I will give spelling and grammar to Pro. However, I feel that Pro got confused in the scope of the debate and focused on whether Hillary was legally eligible to be nominated for president, which she is, but the debate was supposed to b e centered around whether she should be the presidential nomination. Pro also danced around Hillary's role in the Benghazi scandal and failed to address the email scandal, so convincing arguments goes to Con.