The Instigator
ILikePie5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ForeseenParadox
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Who should be the next POTUS???Donald Trump(PRO).......Hillary Clinton(CON)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 94459
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

ILikePie5

Pro

Hello all! I am I favor of Mr. Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a lying corrupt criminal. I will argue for Mr. Trump and Con will argue for Clinton. Thank You, and I hope this will be good debate. Please no trolling or rude behavior. Citations should be used if can. Good Luck to Con!

Note: This debate is for Pro's and Con's of your candidate

The format of this debate is as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS
Round 3: Rebuttals and Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion
ForeseenParadox

Con

I'll accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ILikePie5

Pro

Thank You Con for accepting and good luck! My first 2 contentions are Pro Trump, and the 3rd and the 4th are Anti-Clinton.

Pro-Trump-Contention 1:(Immigration)
Trump has called for a wall to be built to keep illegal immigrants out. Trump proposes to make Mexico pay for the wall because they export their crime and poverty to the United States via illegal immigration. Many Americans have been killed by these illegal aliens and the lives of their families have been destroyed. [1]Mexico also publishes pamphlets of how to illegaly immigrate to the United States, and this is the reason why they must pay for the wall.[2] The wall is estimated to cost about 17 billion dollars[3]. I am sure that Con is going to argue how Trump is going to make Mexico pay, and my answer comes directly from Trump's website- "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards " of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."[4]Along with the proposal of the wall Trump has proposed to deport the illegal immigrants. Coming to the U.S. Illegally is in violation of the law, and the law cannot be bended for anyone. I simple way to make the illegals leave to to triple the number Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Currently we only have about 5000 ICE officers that do the lion's share of the work compared to the Los Angeles Police Department which consists of 10,000 officers. Also ICE officers should accompany local gang task forces to apprehend and deport illegals participating in street gangs.[5]This not only reduces the number of crime but also gets rid of the illegals. Another way to get rid of illegals is to defund federal grants from sanctuary cities which number 300 over the entire nation.[6]These cities harbor illegal immigrants, meaning they have laws enforced where the ICE cannot arrest illegals even if there is evidence. These are only some of the ways listed on Trump's website.

Pro-Trump-Contention 2:(Veterans Administration Reform)
Mr. Trump is completely pro-veteran. He wants to fire the corrupt and incompetent VA executives that let 300,000 veterans die waiting for care.[7]The Trump Plan Will:

"Increase funding for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury and suicide prevention services to address our veterans" invisible wounds. Service members are five times more likely to develop depression than civilians. They are almost fifteen times more likely to develop PTSD than civilians. This funding will help provide more and better counseling and care. More funding will also support research on best practices and state of the art treatments to keep our veterans alive, healthy and whole. With these steps, the Trump plan will help the veteran community put the unnecessary stigma surrounding mental health behind them and instead encourage acceptance and treatment in our greater society.
Increase funding for job training and placement services (including incentives for companies hiring veterans), educational support and business loans. All Americans agree that we must do everything we can to help put our service men and women on a path to success as they leave active duty by collaborating with the many successful non-profit organizations that are already helping. Service members have learned valuable skills in the military but many need help understanding how to apply those skills in civilian life. Others know how to apply those skills but need help connecting with good jobs to support their families. Still others have an entrepreneurial spirit and are ready to start creating jobs and growing the economy. The Trump plan will strengthen existing programs or replace them with more effective ones to address these needs and to get our veterans working.
Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members. Today"s veterans have very different needs than those of the generations that came before them. The VA must adapt to meet the needs of this generation of younger, more diverse veterans. The Trump plan will expand VA services for female veterans and ensure the VA is providing the right support for this new generation of veterans.
Better support our women veterans. The fact that many VA hospitals don"t permanently staff OBGYN doctors shows an utter lack of respect for the growing number female veterans. Under the Trump plan, every VA hospital in the country will be fully equipped with OBGYN and other women"s health services. In addition, women veterans can always choose a different OBGYN in their community using their veteran"s ID card."

Anti-Clinton-Contention 3:
Hillary Clinton lied to Americans about her email server and put America in danger. According to FBI Director James Comey, Hillary's email server contained 110 emails in 52 chains which contained classified information at the time they were being sent.[8]There were also people without the necessary security clearance that had access to Clinton's email server which contained classified information.[9] In an essence she cannot be trusted in handling top secret information or with the protection of the nation because she lied. Most Americans agree that Hillary Clinton should have been charged[10] Hillary has called for a 550% increase in Syrian Refugees[11] even though ISIS has said they are going to send operatives disguised as Syrian Refugees.[12] So Hillary believes that the lives of Syrians are greater than the lives of Americans? This shows that she has poor judgement.

Anti-Clinton-Contention 4:
Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite on the positions of LGBT and Women's Rights. Hillary Clinton accepted donations of millions of dollars from anti-LGBT countries.[13]http://www.newsbusters.org......
This table shows exactly how much she has received and the punishments for homosexuality.
She has also received money from countries that do not respect Women's Rights.[14]

I look forward to the rebuttals.

Sources:
[1]http://www.ojjpac.org...
[2]http://www.nytimes.com...
[3]http://m.imgur.com...
[4]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[5]https://www.judiciary.senate.gov...
[6]http://cis.org...
[7]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[8]http://www.factcheck.org...
[9]http://www.breitbart.com...
[10]http://www.cnn.com...
[11]http://www.cbsnews.com...
[12]http://www.wnd.com...
[13]http://www.newsbusters.org...
[14]http://www.mintpressnews.com...

Looking forward to refuting Con's arguments. Good Luck
ForeseenParadox

Con

Thanks pro for debating with me!

Introduction: My case will be presented in a similar format as the pro's case was. However, there are a few differences in my argument types. First off all, I will address 2 advantages of Hillary Clinton in which I compare to Trump. The next two contentions are criticisms of Trump which are basically philosophical dis-ads. And finally, the last 4 contentions are pure dis-ads of Trump. I'll use the same citation format as the pro.

First, I'll argue the advantages of a Clinton presidency.

Contention 1: Qualification
It is not an incorrect thing to say that Hillary Clinton is overqualified to be POTUS. [1] Her qualifications include being Senior Class President of Wellesley College, graduating with honors from Yale Law School, completing yet another year of graduate studies at yale, named one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991, served 8 years as First Lady of the US, served 8 years as First Lady of Arkansas, served as US Senator from New York and served as US Secretary of State. These accomplishments only begin to scratch the dusty surface of why Hillary Clinton is qualified to be the POTUS. She's been in several positions that require skills that the president needs on a day to day basis. [5] McDonald and Erickson indicate that Hillary is overqualified. [6] Also, this gives Hillary a dynastic advantage to becoming presiden over Trump.

On the other hand, Donald Trump is highly unqualified for a few reasons:

1.) He's never held a state positions such as senator/representative/governor.
2.) He doesn't pronounce the names of a ton of countries correctly, proving his ignorance towards other cultures.
3.) This lack of knowledge is even extended further with his apparent ignorance towards most of history, science and government, making him a terrible choice for POTUS.
4.) Successful business man often struggle with positions of politics because they're no longer the boss. [4] They must split power with the legislative and judicial branch.

This argument is super important because we only hear what Trump says he'll do- His terrible qualifications show that his plans are probably not though out that great and he wouldn't do well in the seat. This contention alone is why you vote con. Presidents with specialized skills can make more meaningful contributions than their peers who are less endowed academically. That's from Kweronda. [4]

Contention 2: LGBT
Hillary has shown comprehensive support for the LGBT community while Trump has done very minimal work. Not only does he oppose same-sex marriages, but he has delegated some transgender legislation to the states which is comparatively worse. [7] State action does not solve because there are at least 28 states participating in anti-lgbt legislature. [8] Trump's legislature would perpetuate homophobia-there are just too many impacts on the homosexual community:

1.) Shorter life expectancy
2.) More likely to be victims of violence
3.) Higher risk
4.) Higher suicide rates
5.) More likely to suffer from mental illness
6.) More likely to abuse substances
7.) Inability to establish long-term relationships

Now, I will discuss some major criticisms of Trump.

Contention 3: Ableism
[13] Trump's action towards disabled people is absolutely horrifying and is exemplified by his reenactment of Serge Kovaleski's disability.

[9] First, we should reject the idea that Trump's idea disability makes people different to create the starting point for a sense of open to diverse body relations. There are multiple impacts:

1.) The silencing of disabled voices and violence against disabled persons
2.) Continued ableist assumptions in the academic space destroys education
3.) Ableism supports neoliberal institutions that use disabled individuals as huge sources of income

Argument framing: [14] Evaluate Trump's ableist rhetoric before weighing any advantages that the pro presents-ableism stems from rhetoric and is a learned behavior. Only Clinton's lack of ableist behavior would have any chance to avoid the aforementioned impacts and improve the condition of the disabled.

Contention 4: Securitization
15][16] Trump's focusing on the Chinese currency manipulation 'threat' ignores US seigniorage privilege - such privilege favors US structural power in the global economic system. Such threats normalize US structural power. This completely turns the pro's case for a few reasons:

1.) [17] The 'China threat' created by Trump's discourse causes the deterioration of US-Sino relations that Trump fears through a paradigm of painting China as a threat
2.) [16] Western realism causes aggression that escalates to war
3.) [17] American leaders historically use China representations to create fear as a political tool- Trump doesn't solve engagement with China.

[17] Framing: Voters, evaluate this argument before evaluating the pro's case- Trump's language will eventually shape reality. If we paint China as a threat, then they will become a threat. Don't let Trump's dangerous rhetoric into the office and shape China into the threat that we don't want them to become.

Finally, I will argue some major disadvantages or a Trump presidency.

Contention 5: Economy
First, Trump will cause the worst recession in history. Trump claims that "I've borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts... I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal." This policy would be incredibly disastrous. What's worse- Trump's promise to deport undocumented immigrants. Forcibly removing them would leave an estimated $381.5-$623.2 hole in the U.S. economy. Also, banning all Muslims would cost the U.S. around $24 billion a year. Trump's policies would undoubtedly throw the US into a terrible recession. All of that's [18]

[19] Not only would Trump throw us into a major recession, but it could be even worse than the Great Depression.

Contention 6: US Hegemony
Do you hear all of that rhetoric about Trump making America great again? Well, that's only a strategy by Trump to hide what the real implications of his plans are. Trump's immigration policy hurts US leadership by a LOT. This kind of immigration policy could cause collateral damage to the American image. "What's the American brand after we've rounded up 11 million people and sent them packing?"
[20] All of that is Stewart in 2016.

Contention 7: Russia War
The relationship between the US and Russia is complex and multifaceted. Clinton would operate in this already existing relationship but Trump would seek to upend it. This creates the possibility for huge divergences. Trump's presidency would convince Putin to operate within the US-led world order. Clinton has familiarity with many of the major European and Russian players because of her time in office as secretary of state. Trump would offer the most significant deviation in 70 years! His is just about placed in a category by himself among American politicians. There is the possibility that Putin and Trump would find themselves at odds.
That's all Parakilas in 2016[20]

Contention 8: Climate
Trump's complete rejection of climate change would be terrible news for the climate. His effect is underestimated. He's even called global warming a hoax. Do we really want a man like Trump in office who doesn't accept one of the most widely accepted ongoing phenomenon? Mr. Trump has discussed doing away with many of Obama's integral climate programs such as the Clean Power Plan. Trump would make reckless attacks on our progress towards achieving a greener future.
That's all NY Times [21]

I want to again thank the pro for agreeing to debate with me, this constructive has been a hell lot of fun to write and I look forward to the rebuttals!

Sources:
[1] https://www.quora.com..., first post by Fount Holland
[2] http://www.nydailynews.com...
[3] https://www.quora.com..., post by Nick Malik
[4] http://www.newvision.co.ug...
[5] https://www.quora.com...
[6] https://www.quora.com...
[7] http://www.hrc.org...
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[9] Chandler in 2009 - "WALKING THROUGH A WAVERING WITH-ITNESS: AN EXPLORATION INTO DISABILITY PRIDE AND SHAME"
[10] Zelinger in 2007 - "6 Forms of Ableism We Need to Retire Immediately"
[11] Hehri in 2007 - "Confronting Ableism."
[12] Zelinger in 2015- "6 Things You Must Know About The Disabilities We Can't See
[13] http://rampyourvoice.com...
[14] Hehir in 2007- : "Confronting Ableism."
[15] https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[16] Pan in 2004- https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au...
[17] Pan in 2012- Knowledge, Desire, and Power in Global Politics
[18] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[19] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[20] https://www.chathamhouse.org...
[21] http://www.nytimes.com...,
Debate Round No. 2
ILikePie5

Pro

Thank You Con for responding in a timely manner.

Rebuttal 1: Qualification
Hillary Clinton's terms as Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady were the highest positions she has been in. Now lets look at her track record during these positions.

1.) Sen. Clinton voted for the War in Iraq which destabilized Iraq and caused the growth of extremism in the form of ISIS[1]
2.) Sec. Clinton supported American air power to overthrow Gaddafi which has led to an anarchy and a base for ISIS and other terrorist organization.[1]
3.) Sec. Clinton supported arming Syrian moderates, in which some were affiliated with Jihadi Extremism. Many of the American arms are now in the hands of ISIS as a result.[1]
4.) Four Americans were killed under the watch of the State Department which was headed by Sec. Clinton. On top of that, Hillary Clinton lied to the parents of those victims blaming the attack on a YouTube video. Not only that, when the parents found out the truth, Hillary Clinton called them liars.[2]
5.) She put national security at risk and lied about through her emails. (Details in Round 2)
6.) While Hillary was First Lady, Bill Clinton signed NAFTA which resulted in a 1 million U.S. job loss, not to mention Bill was almost impeached.[3]
7.) Sec. Clinton helped bring Iran to the negotiating table which resulted in the Iran deal which is a disaster for the following reasons: Iran gets 150 billion USD to support extremist organizations, improves their technology, and puts Israel, our key ally in the region at risk.[4]

Qualification of Trump:

1) President Eisenhower didn't hold any public office, and he is ranked as the 8th best President.(He is highly ranked in many other sources as well)[5]
2) This claim is not backed up by any evidence (Just because I don't know a country doesn't mean I hate their culture)
3) This claim is not backed by evidence (Trump was part of the establishment in D.C. so he knows the government. He also graduated from Wharton School of Finance, so I'm sure he knows history and science)
4) A businessman has to be willing to work with others to make deals. Trump has many employees that he has to interact with. And besides, he has friends in Congress, and he will have the opportunity to elect 2-4 judges of the Supreme Court.[6][7]

My opponent points out reasons that aren't supported by evidence for Mr. Trump, and claims these are the reasons to vote Con? Every candidate says what he or she will do. Clinton's "specialized skill" isn't going to help us!!!

Rebuttal 2: LGBT
Mr. Trump does oppose same-sex marriage but that issue was settled by the SCOTUS which made it legal.[8] It's a state that knows its own people better than the federal government, and the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to make those laws. Think of it this way....anyone can act as transgender and go to the bathroom they choose. Imagine a man going into the girls bathroom while your daughter is in there. I know I would be scared for my daughter. Mr. Trump supported the Gay community during the Orlando attack. While Mr. Trump blamed it on Radical Islamic Terrorism, Hillary blamed it on guns. Many LGBT members said they would support Trump because safety is their first priority[9], and Hillary plans to bring in 550% more Syrian Refugees bringing more terrorism to the U.S.[10] ISIS has said they will send operatives disguised as Syrian Refugees.[11] And is Hillary really advocating for LGBT Rights? She has accepted countless amounts of money from nations that don't respect LGBT rights (Details in Round 1) Religious reasons also make this a controversial issue.

LGBT Rights is another debate by itself, so I'm not going to refute all the impacts it has on the LGBT community, because it's ultimately up to the states. With Congress likely to be Republican, it will be impossible for the bill proposed by the Democrats to be accepted.[12]

Contention 3: Ableism
Mr. Trump was imitating a groveling reporter. He personally didn't know Mr. Kovaleski, and even if he did it was 30 years ago. Not to mention the fact that Mr. Trump is 70 years old. He could've simply forgotten. I'm pretty sure Trump wasn't mocking Mr. Kovaleski, who he hasn't seen for 30 years. Not to mention the fact that he has met with hundreds of reporters throughout his career.[13] And why would he knowingly insult disabled people in the first place?

Contention 4: China
Currency manipulation by China is bad for the American economy. Currently the U.S. owes China 1.2 trillion dollars.[14] If our current trade deficit were to be reduced, it would create anywhere from 2.3 to 5.8 million jobs.[15] We don't necessarily see China as a threat, but a cheater. And remember its China that doesn't respect us. They militarized the South China Sea....did the U.S. do anything to stop it? They know that we are getting ripped off and we still aren't doing anything, they simply think we are stupid. Remember, Trump is a businessman, he knows how to negotiate, he can and will fix the trade deals.

Contention 5: Economy
My opponent provides circumstantial evidence. Mr. Trump clearly says that he would only make those deals "IF the economy crashed." I don't think my opponent can predict when the economy will crash. And it did crash, would we just sit there with 20 trillion owed? It would be a disaster for Americans. This claim is contingent upon the economy crashing. Removing illegal immigrants at one time will cause a hole in the economy, but Mr. Trump says it will take a couple of years. But remember this, there are also about 45 million Americans living in poverty compared to 11 million illegals.[16] I'm sure a fourth are willing to work. My opponent is comparing lives of people to money, by saying it would cost the U.S. 24 billion. Is that money more valuable than the safety of Americans? The ban is temporary anyways. As for Trump causing a recession that is false as said by Peter Navarro(Read full report)[17]

Contention 6: U.S. Hegemony
First of all Trump really wants to Make America Great Again. Second of all, Trump's immigration plan is primarily just enforcing the law by deporting illegals.[18] It would show that America will enforce its laws. What do countries think of this? A country: Not willing to enforce laws, do nothing about trade deals when we are getting ripped off, that is a part of NATO, in which NATO members are not paying their share, that made the Iran deal which is a disaster. The image is that America is stupid.

Contention 7: Russia
Putin has praised Donald Trump.[19] Trump becoming President can help thaw U.S.-Russian relations. Imagine if the two countries can fight ISIS together. They have shown that they are willing to work together. Hillary Clinton cannot thaw relations with Russia as she has already been in that position. Remember Russia has the most nukes in, the world. If these relations could improve, the two countries with the most nukes would be working together. My opponents claims about Putin and Trump not willing to work together are completely false. Mr. Parakilas never says this in his report that Trump will be bad for US-Russian relations

Contention 8: Climate
Mr. Trump said he was joking if you read your source. Putting coal miners out of work is not the solution to Climate Change. Hillary has said that she will put coal miners out of work and put many coal companies out of business.[20] Obama's Climate Action Plan would lower the temperature by 1/100 of a degree Celsius costing billions of dollars and would jeopardize jobs. Not to mention the other 6 reasons why Climate Change isn't real.[21] The majority of scientists statistic was a two question survey in which only 77 out of the 3,000 scientists had more than half of their papers accepted by the climate science journals. The questions were also very vague to begin with.[22]

It has been extremely fun to debate with you. I hope I can change your view of Mr. Trump after this debate, as the media has brainwashed a lot of people with their lies about Mr. Trump.

Sources
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2]http://cnsnews.com...
[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5]http://www.rantpolitical.com...
[6]http://www.politico.com...
[7]http://www.thegreenpapers.com... (Judges Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer)
[8]http://www.npr.org...
[9]http://www.inquisitr.com...
[10]http://www.cbsnews.com...
[11]http://www.wnd.com...
[12]http://www.centerforpolitics.org...
[13]http://abcnews.go.com...
[14]http://www.npr.org...
[15]http://www.epi.org...
[16]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[17]http://www.cnbc.com...
[18]https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[19]http://www.cnn.com...
[20]https://www.youtube.com...
[21]http://thehill.com...
[22]http://www.forbes.com...
ForeseenParadox

Con

Pro's case:
Contention 1:

Border not being left alone: [1] The US currently spends $3.7 billion/year to keep ~21,000 border patrol agents and another $3.2 billion on 23,000 inspectors at ports of entry, a third of which has already been fenced off.

Their source indicates that Mexico's purpose for the pamphlet is to only protect migrants if they so choose to illegally immigrate- it doesn't encourage them.
"It is a natural and fair response to consider this as an attempt to promote undocumented immigration, but that is absolutely not the intent of the Mexican government."

[2] There's no way that Mexico's going to pay for the wall.
Voters, be extremely skeptical of the pro's case- they don't have sources that indicate that Mexico will be able/want to pay for the wall. They just have a blind plan text of Trump with no solvency and now a huge spending disadvantage at best. This issue is won by con because Mexico won't pay.

[3] Crime rates by illegal immigrants have dropped by a lot EVEN as the proportion of Americans born on foreign grounds increases. Also, there is absolutely no conclusive correlation between immigration and crime. [4] Even so, American born citizens are even higher prone to violent crime than immigrants. [4] As an example, El Paso, a city with a population of 500,000, has one of the lowest crime rates in America despite sitting across the Rio Grande from the horribly crime plagued Juarez.

Finding all of the immigrants would be pretty difficult and in order to do this, the criminal record of each immigrant would need to be ignored. [5] The administration would have to stop focus on deporting serious criminals. [5] Even if Trump tripled the amount of ICE deportation officers, that would be insufficient not to mention the spending disadvantage and time it takes to get the personnel trained. This dis-ad links back into my economy disadvantage to Trump, but more on that later. [5] The FBI would have to get in the way and set aside some of their important missions in order to help ICE deport.

[6] No solvency: Not only does the wall perpetuate the idea of xenophobia, it'd have to break ~36 laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Independently, the wall won't work. [6] Around half of the unauthorized immigrants came from legal means such as airplanes and ports.

Contention 2:

[7] Huge uniqueness issue: Hillary Clinton is already pushing for huge VA reform. The net benefit is the lack of privatization. Trump plans to allow the VA industry to be privatized which leads to huge impacts. If the government performs a function directly, there are public forms of accountability checking exploitation. [8] However, with privatization, the result is muddled middle ground with a lack of accountability that we can't predict the results of in the interest of capitalism. [9] Consolidation of political decision making in elite hands increases the risk of every existential threat we face today.

Trump rejected to call McCain a war hero because he was captured? That seems kind of anti-vet to me...

Contention 3:
Hillary's emails were not dangerous in any way. [10] At best they were careless and she owns up to that. It was a mistake. Just because she made a mistake doesn't mean she's disqualified from president.

[10] Clinton's emails posed no major threat to America and were deemed subordinate to top secret.

Hillary's email problem is imaginary. The FBI found no reason to prosecute. Extend the pro's argument that liars doesn't deserve a seat in office, I'll turn it. [11] Not only does Trump empirically lie more than Hillary, but people vote him up higher in the polls as a habitual liar.

The pro made the fallacy of Ad Populum- asserting something based on popular opinion. Be skeptical of this contention, my arguments outweigh the pro's on the fact that the FBI's credibility outweighs the pro's sources' credibility.

There is a ton of suffering happening in the Middle East right now. EVEN if ISIS were to send attacks through Syrian Refugees- it wouldn't matter. [12] ISIS attacks are inevitable and limiting immigration can't even get close to preventing them.

Contention 4:
Hillary has evolved her position on LGBT rights. She's accepting the money because it would help her solve the issues that those very people are advocating, there's nothing wrong with her accepting a donation from the enemy in order to stop their monstrous practices and this contention provides no reason to vote against con.

My case:
Contention 1:

First of all, attempting to gain offense by listing Hillary's "bad" track record will get the pro no where in this debate with how many concessions were made in this contention. I don't have space to refute point by point, but use my framework to see why qualifications are key(pro cedes that). I could go on for days about Trump's bad track.

Trumps's quals:
1.) [13] He was at least was a military general/governor
2.) I never said he hated their culture, I just said he was ignorant. That's the second source from my first speech.
3.) Sorry, forgot to tag. That was my third source. He's empirically ignorant.
4.) This argument does nothing to answer the fact that Trump is used to being the leader- my ev indicates that Trump will have a hard time adapting while Hillary Clinton is already ready.

My claims are sourced, pro should probably check out the sources section. If my opponent bothered to look at my sources, the warrants are all present. Also, a lot of the arguments I made are analytical and don't necessarily require cites such as the ignorance argument.

Why vote con?
Pro has ceded a sourced claim that specialized skill is key- as a result they concede the fact that Trump has a uniquely higher chance than Hillary to fail in office. Err on the side of caution- that was my fourth source that was completely ceded by pro.

Contention 2:
Pro completely misses the point of my argument. I argued that Trump's ideological underpinning would hurt the LGBT community by perpetuating the impacts.

They say danger of opposing genders in same bathroom-
No danger, attack would be inevitable if someone really wanted to. There are no filters to keep men out of woman's restrooms anyways.

Answer to Syrian Refugees and LGBT money for Hillary is answered earlier.

They say Congress likely to be Republican-
Doesn't matter, we are arguing a hypothetical. Not whether something would happen, but should.

Why vote con?
They cede state-level anti-transgender legislature which doesn't solve. I argue that Trump's delegation would be comparatively worse than keeping all transgender legislation federal level and his bad ideology would perpetuate impacts.[14] Vote con to promote Hillary's pro-LGBT policy that's comparatively better than Trump's. [14] He'll appoint judges that overturn marriage equality,

Contention 3:
Pro concedes that Trump was imitating the reporter which is my exact argument. It doesn't matter how long it's been- extend the entire argument that he victimized the disabled because it was completely ceded. Impacts and framework ceded- remember voters, I argued that you evaluate this arg first.

Contention 4:
China just buys US debt. Also, pro misses the point and cedes the fact that we create an irrational threat out of China in the first place. The pro provides no reasoning as to why we should believe these threats that Pan argues are constructed, even if seemingly real. Re-read impacts to see why you vote con on this.

Contention 5:
Trump causes recession, this is ceded- extend my ev. Also, pro's source link doesn't work and is not reliable.

Contention 6:
I argued the implications of such law, which is ceded by the pro.

Contention 7:
They cede Russia is powerful. I argue that Trump diverges from Trump's policies and that's ceded too, vote con for impacts. This is a prereq to US and Russia coop.

Contention 8:
He said he was joking about the Chinese fabricating climate change in my source, he really thinks climate change is a hoax. [16] Also, Clinton has supported the coal industry for ages. [16] She was taken out of context. [15] Hillary is a step in the right direction for climate. [18] Warming is real - all factors confirm.

Vote for con here:
Climate impacts are ceded, Trump bad for climate ceded, vote con for risk of extinction

Sources:
[1] http://foreignpolicy.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] http://www.economist.com...
[4] http://www.economist.com...
[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
[6] http://www.esquire.com...
[7] http://www.militarytimes.com...
[8] http://prospect.org...
[9] http://www.nyu.edu...
[10] http://nypost.com...
[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[12] http://www.slate.com...
[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov...
[14] http://www.teenvogue.com...
[15] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[16] http://www.politifact.com...
[17] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ILikePie5

Pro

R1:
If our border is so secure, with only fencing, how are illegals crossing the border in the first place? A Border Patrol Union consisting of 16,500 members endorsed Trump.[1] They believe that Trump's Immigration Plan will work, and who k owns immigration better than them?

First of all, a Mexican official said that it doesn't encourage them. That is obviously a biased person, and as the source states, if the Mexican government really wanted to prevent people from dying in the desert, why doesn't it use its army and police to prevent it? They are encouraging illegal immigration, and if you are going to believe a biased person, that's your problem.

If my opponent wants evidence, then that is what I will give. Mexico receives about 20 billion dollars in from illegal wages every year from the U.S.[2] Who's does it benefit? Mexico. If we were to stop that 20 billion, we have enough money to build the wall already. But let's also do some simple math as well. About 14 million Mexicans visited the US in 2012.[3] The current price for a visitor's visa to the US is $160. Doing the math, there is another 2.3 billion right there, but Trump proposes to increase the visa cost, so it will value more. The diplomats and Mexican CEOs would account for about a billion dollars, but Mr. Trump plans to increase the cost the of these as well.

My argument is this: If we simply enforced our immigration laws, all of those lives you see that were lost, would be alive today. I'm not saying illegals commit more crime, I'm saying they commit crime, and that leads to American lives lost. It could have been prevented if our laws were enforced.

First, let's talk about ICE. Here is a way of how it wouldn't take long for training, and wouldn't cost extra: "As a force multiplier, a single officer position for immigration agents within ERO should be established providing all officers with full immigration arrest authorities. This will require no additional training. All immigration officers with full arrest authority should be removed from non-law enforcement functions that they currently serve in, such as those who now serve as detention facility guards. We would suggest that the old INS Detention Enforcement Officer position be reinstated with approximately 2,500 officers to replace detention guard positions that would be vacated."[4] This is coming from Chris Crane an ICE Union leader. Funding is not a problem, as the officers are remains in ICE. Only the positions are changing. Those 2500 officers are going to come from other branches of ICE. There are reasons as to why Mr. Trump said ICE should work with local task forces to root out illegals, as well as crime. As for finding them, lets mathematically think about this. There are 3143 counties in the U.S.[5] That equates to about 4 ICE officers per county working alongside 900,000 police officers throughout the country. The number can change depending on the number of illegals. More will be needed in California as it has the most. If each ICE officer along with police help, caught 1 illegal per day for the next 2 years, there would only be approximately 50,000 left. In many cases, illegals have families, and more will be caught, offsetting future difficulties. The FBI doesn't need to help train the additional ICE officers as I stated. They DONT help deport illegals as Con claims. As for criminal records, they can be first, but it doesn't take one day to find the most serious criminals. If there is information, by all means apprehend them. As for criminals records, same thing applies to them. Once the one a day goal is achieved, Intel can be gathered.

My opponent uses a source by comedien John Oliver to support his case. Out of all the sources, a comedian? Nevertheless, I will still rebute the claims:
-Endangered: A lot of species are endangered, but they can always be moved or replaced. And does the life of your child matter more or the life of an animal?
-Water: The water is provided by reservoirs, which are government operated making it impossible to cross illegally.[6] Mr. Trump has said that some places don't need a wall due to natural borders like mountains.
-NA and Repatriation Act: How does this even apply to the wall? All it states is that Native American artifact that are found and are lineage related should be returned
What about the other half that jumped the border?

R2:
It was under the Obama Administration, which Hillary was a part of in which resulted in the current condition of the VA. She was responsible for it, and if she couldn't do anything then, what's she going to do now? And it was under her watch that 4 Americans died in Benghazi. If you're talking about John McCain, maybe he shouldn't have insulted Trump supporters, calling them "crazies."[7] Trump also later called McCain a hero, and also said that his rise in polls meant that people agreed with him.[8] If Mr. Trump hated Vets, then why did a Vet give him his Purple Heart?[9] Because Mr. Trump is pro-Veteran.

R3:
My opponents 10th source comes from Obama before it was revealed by James Comey that the server did contain classified information. Does my opponent know what the defenition of "Top Secret." If not, here it is from Merriam- Webster:
containing or being information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation
Out of the 52 email chains, 8 contained Top Secret information[10] Remember that the people are higher than any form of government. The government is made by and for the people. People didn't call Mr. Trump a liar in polls, and this claim isnt in the source. As for lying. Hillary lied under oath about something that could have harmed our nation. Mr. Trump expressed concerns that were twisted by the media to benefit their agenda.

Not accepting Syrian Refugees would be more beneficial than allowing them. In short, my opponent concedes that it is harmful, instead pointing that it's inevitable, which is not backed up by evidence.

R4:
My opponent thinks Hillary can change the law in Saudi Arabia with their own money. Which is impossible. Why would Saudi Arabia give her money if they knew she advocates against their practices. My opponent thinks accepting money from bad people is good, which is ridiculous.

R5:
My opponent concedes that her track record is bad and offers no rebuttals against those. Instead Con attacks Mr. Trumps record but doesn't provide any evidence.

1. Opponent concedes that political experience isn't required. Eisenhower wasn't a governor
2. I'm asking for specific names of countries from speeches
3. Again how is he ignorant? What has he specifically said?
4. He wont have a hard time adapting, he already has the skills needed to negotiate/work with Congress and SCOTUS.

Con's sources are from Quora, which has no specific statements from Trump supporting evidence.

Specialized Skills is a general term. Everyone has different skills, but Hillary's have failed our country, unlike Trump's.

R6:
If my opponent thinks attack is inevitable, then what law will stop people from harming LGBT? Again my opponent circum-navigates my argument.

States can benefit both sides. LGBT can go to pro-LGBT states. Its more transparent compared to federal policy. My opponent offers no rebuttals for my argument saying LGBT care about safety from terrorism rather than being rejected from a bakery if Con read the source. Hillary Clinton will appoint judges that can harm our 2nd Amendment which takes away our guns. Which issue of greater importance, 2nd Amendment or LGBT?

R7:
My opponent doesn't know the definition of groveling. It is "to give oneself over to what is base or unworthy" Mr. Trump was imitating a reporter who backed away from his own story that he wrote. That reporter happened to be Kovaleski. Mr. Trump couldn't have known that it was him. Kovaleski was victimized by the media's lies, not Mr. Trump. The impacts were applied by the media.

R8:
China steals our jobs, and holds 1/20 of our debt. They militarized the South China Sea. China is a threat to our jobs

R9: I argued why Trump wouldn't cause a recession, never ceded

R10: I refuted the implications, and didn't cede.

R11:
I never said Russia wasn't powerful. Putin called Trump "Bright and Talented" look it up. Which policies would he diverge from? No specific examples are provided

R12:
My opponent doesn't refute my claims of how its GW is false. Where is Hillary going to put the miners? On a wind farm?
Con forgot 18th source, so claim is invalid

Points to be noted:
-Con thinks China isn't a threat to our jobs
-Con avoids my arguments about LGBT
-My opponent says Pro has CEDED almost every contention when I haven't
-Opponent concedes Hillary's track record
-Hillary has failed with Russia
-Opponent doesn't refute any of my claims, all he says is "Pro has ceded this and that," which is false
-Opponent doesn't talk about enforcing existing laws
-Opponent doesn't know what groveling and top secret mean
-Opponent claims that the FBI is greater than the people which is false
-Opponent thinks money is greater than lives of people
-Opponent thinks refugee and illegal lives are greater than American lives

Thank You!!!

VOTE PRO!!

Sources:
[1]http://www.cnn.com...
[2]http://www.cairco.org...
[3]http://www.ibtimes.com...
[4]https://www.judiciary.senate.gov...
[5]http://www.mapsofworld.com...
[6]http://www.ibwc.state.gov...
[7]http://www.politico.com...
[8]http://www.cnn.com...
[9]http://www.washingtontimes.com...
[10]http://www.nytimes.com...
ForeseenParadox

Con

R1:
[1] Our net immigration is declining. Just because they believe in something doesn't mean that it's correct. [1] Our border is more secure now than ever. [2] The Border Patrol's endorsement is filled with many lies and misinfo.

[3] An Austin official also argues that Mexico's intent is not to encourage illegal immigration. The guide literally says in the first chapter that the best way to enter any country is to do so legally.

Pro cedes that Mexico says it won't build/pay for the wall. That was my second source from round 3. My argument is not that there's no money to build the wall, but Mexico will just outright rejects the wall. Also, don't let pro add to his argument in the rebuttal, he should have been responsible and provided the remittance evidence in his first speech.

Now pro cedes that our own citizens proportionately commit more crime. They also cede that there is no correlation between immigration and crime. And lastly, they cede that there is an ultra low rate of crime in El-Paso despite it being across from one of the most crime plagued cities in Mexico. Voters, these concessions are huge, so include them in your decision calculus. Why should we stop illegal immigration when there is no unique problem with it? Sure, it's possible for illegals to commit at least some crime, but deporting/stopping them won't stop lives that are being taken from other means domestically.We should be focusing on bigger threats than immigration crime. My argument was that Mexican immigrants proportionately perform less crime and thus there's no reason for the US to uniquely focus on stopping that crime through deportation any more than focusing on other means of crime. Don't let pro try to persuade you through ethics when many more lives are being lost through other means that pro doesn't solve for.

Be EXTREMELY skeptical of the pro's next argument as it has no evidence whatsoever, it's just trying to trivialize catching immigrants with oversimplified math.

EVEN if training and spending wouldn't be a problem, that doesn't stop the fact that it wouldn't be sufficient. My argument was that the FBI is going to need to still to help ICE deport, not train them- that was my fifth source in round 3. Pro has no sources to back his rebuttal- prefer my ev. Now extend my ceded argument that FBI will have to focus on ICE instead of other important missions, causing an imbalance and other harms. Extend my ceded argument that we'll have to stop focusing on serious crimes- this means we're deporting even the good immigrants that will be beneficial to our society. Con says FBI doesn't help deport, I never argued that. I argued that they'll have to help with Trump's plan. Con also says it doesn't take long to find serious criminals and that familial ties will offset future difficulties. This argument is backed by no evidence, how do we know families will be easier to find? Refer to my fifth source in my last speech, it provides all of the warrants as to why catching illegals will be super hard and prefer it over pro's trivialization.

And the source isn't by John Oliver, there is an actual writer beneath that video. The source is credible.

Endangered: The project will potentially impact 111 endangered species, 108 species of migratory bird, four wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries, and an unknown number of protected wetlands. They can't be moved because that's their only environment. Anthropocentrism is an entire different issue on it's own, so I won't argue that here.

[5] I won't argue for all the other laws because of space(endangered species is the most important one violated anyways), but just know that about 40 laws would have to be waived for the wall to be built.

I argued that the wall won't solve the pro's argument that immigrants cause crime. Now pro concedes that half of undocumented illegals come from other means. This is pretty huge because now the pro cedes that the wall won't solve any immigration crime and that there's no reason to build it.

R2:
[6] She'll do quite a few things for VA: avoid privatization, ensure timely quality care, deliver world class care, connecting their skills to jobs of the future. Trump shouldn't have insulted a veteran in the first place- that's not a good presidential indicator. Indicts of Hillary invalid- they were made in the rebuttals, more on that later.

HUGE concession by pro: Trump's VA reform leads to privatization which leads to many existential impacts as indicated by my sources. This is just yet another reason to vote con. If the veteran industry is privatized, it won't be in the veteran's interest: it'll be in the corporation's. Vote con to reject the pro's notion that this is a good thing.

R3:
It was deemed that the server emails were subordinate to top secret, even if it's Barack he's still an expert. My source indicates that it was not even dangerous, which is now ceded by the pro. Pro does nothing to answer this. Also, pro ceded my argument that Hillary owned up to the mistake and that isn't a disadvantage to her being president. Hillary didn't lie- if she did FBI would have actually pursued her. My source is ran by actual fact checkers. Pro argues that people don't vote Trump up as a liar but my argument is that he empirically lies more. Pro now cedes this; this is all a voting issue judges: no reason to vote pro on this contention.

As for Syrian Refugees, here's the argument: Stopping their immigration here won't solve any attacks. Attacks are still going to happen. As a result, we accept refugees to stop suffering in the Middle East which is a net benefit. Also, I did have evidence if you would look. Vote con to affirm relief of suffering in the Middle East.

R4:
My argument is that accepting money from the enemy is fine AS LONG as it's used to combat their bad practices. I never argued that Hillary's going to change Saudi law, I argued that she's going to stop those kind of practices on domestic land with that money. What Saudi does it up to them. Accepting their money doesn't mean that Hillary endorses the enemy.

R5:
I didn't answer pro's argument against Hillary's bad track record because he made new arguments in the rebuttals which creates unfair ground for me. He should have made those arguments in his first speech. Vote con because this is a fairness issue.

Trump's disqualifications:

1. I said he was a military governor, not a state governor. This is equivalent to political experience and thus I didn't cede anything.
2. He mispronounced Tanzania. Again, that's in my second source, first speech.
3. Again this goes back to my fact checker argument which you cede- he empirically lies a lot.
4. My source indicates that his experience isn't equatable with the president.

I don't even need quora to support my claims. I only used it to provide an outline for my arguments that are supported by other sources. All of my indicts of Trump are supported by different sources besides quora.

Pro concedes yet again that Hillary's specialized education skills outweigh Trump's. Here the argument: Hillary has had job experience much closer to the role of the president than Trump and thus her skills are specialized relative to his.

R6:
My ev was specific to ISIS attacks inevitable- we can still solve LGBT harm.

Pro cedes that there is no danger of men and women in the same bathroom.
Pro cedes that Trump will appoint judges to overturn marriage equality. BIG CONCESSION because this takes any other equality claim he can make for Trump.

There are just too many concessions for pro to win this contention.

R7:
Here's the overview of my ableism argument:
Trump mocked a reporter that he knew was disabled, that's all that matters here. He makes the disabled different and his language is horrifying. Here were the impacts:
1. Disabled body silence
2. Ableism assumptions destroys academic space
3. Neolib institutions support ableism exploitation
Vote con to avoid these impacts.

R8:
Opponent continues to argue threats of China without refuting my arguments core subject: their created threats of China are through the lens of the westerner which is inherently biased. The pro generalizes over a billion people in China. My argument is that they can not possibly understand China because of the lens they view them with.

R9:
My source argues that Trump's speed of deportation is going to be too fast no matter what. You didn't refute my source which argued that Trump's plan would create a unique challenge for the economy.

R10:
Implications of law are that we're xenophobic, pro NEVER refutes that. We don't want to give other nations that picture of us.

R11:
They have divergent views of the world order, non nuclear prolif, Eastern Europe, etc. My source specifically says that. Trump's presidency would be disastrous for US-Russia relations.

R12:
Not a debate about whether GW is false or not. My claim that GW is true is the 17th source. Pro cedes that Trump thinks GW is a hoax. Pro never argues that GW is false, he just argues the cliche argument that scientists' opinions were cherrypicked, prefer my actual ev. Hillary isn't going to take coal jobs away, she just argued that they're losing their jobs and we need to help them.

All of pro's final points are refuted in this speech

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] https://www.aclu.org...
[3] http://www.politifact.com...
[4] http://www.outsideonline.com...
[5] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[6] https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Venice 1 year ago
Venice
let go trump
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Skinnyp// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Easy

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Dropping it would confuse the voters. And it would make it fair. I refuted your rebuttals in the final round which you did in Round 3. So it's fair for you to have refuted only my first 2 contentions
Posted by ForeseenParadox 1 year ago
ForeseenParadox
Someone has to get the last refutation in, the round is still balanced. You broke your side of the deal because we were supposed to drop my other reputations from round 3.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Dude, you were only supposed to refute my first two contentions from round 3. Now the entire debate is in your favor as you got more chances to refute my claims.
Posted by ForeseenParadox 1 year ago
ForeseenParadox
Oops, made a mistake. Every time I say that I argued something when obviously it was you who argued that, it was a mistake. This is mainly in contention 1. Please ignore that mistake.
Posted by ForeseenParadox 1 year ago
ForeseenParadox
The ones that I already refuted but wasn't supposed to? Also, that 18th source should have been the 17th source.
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
You have to refute my first 2 round 3 rebuttals
Posted by ForeseenParadox 1 year ago
ForeseenParadox
Since you refuted the refutations that I wasn't supposed to make in round 3, what's the point in me re-refuting your round 2 argument?
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
Bernie Sanders dropped out ages ago, and it was because of the rigged system against him. The DNC supported Clinton not Sanders. If I were a Sanders supporter, I would never trust Hillary. The only way to stop Hillary is to vote for Trump
No votes have been placed for this debate.