Should Hillary be a nominee for President
Debate Rounds (3)
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.  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.
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. 
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.
The debate questionnaire is not questioning her eligibility to become president. Rather it is suggesting should she be a nominee. A nominee according to Freedictionary.com 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?
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. 
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by doctorcsss 1 year 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:||3||1|
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.
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.