Who should be the next POTUS?? Trump(Pro)....Clinton(Con)
Debate Rounds (4)
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
I accept your challenge.
Looking forward to a good debate!
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. 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. The wall is estimated to cost about 17 billion dollars. 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."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.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.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.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."
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.There were also people without the necessary security clearance that had access to Clinton's email server which contained classified information. 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 Hillary has called for a 550% increase in Syrian Refugees even though ISIS has said they are going to send operatives disguised as Syrian Refugees. So Hillary believes that the lives of Syrians are greater than the lives of Americans? This shows that she has poor judgement.
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.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.
I look forward to the rebuttals.
http://www.breitbart.com.... (Watch Video Only)
I'm just going to separate my arguments into Pro-Clinton and Anti-Trump. I apologize for taking so long to post.
These arguments will be fairly straightforward. I will simply be taking key policies from Hillary's campaign website (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...) and explaining why they will be beneficial to the country.
1. Women's Rights (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...)
As president, Hillary will be a strong defender of women's rights in the United States and abroad. She has pledged to eliminate the gender pay gap that prevents women from earning as much for the same amount of work as their male counterparts. Women only earn 79 cents to every dollar that a man makes. (http://www.iwpr.org...) It's a sexist double standard that prevents half of the world's population from living up to their full potential. To fight it, Hillary will push for the passing of the Paycheck Fairness Act (https://www.congress.gov...). Hillary has also pledged to create paid parental leave so that new mothers and fathers may properly care for their newborn child without sacrificing their careers or other opportunities.
Hillary has also pledged to protect women's reproductive rights. No one should be able to restrict access for necessary women's health services and birth control. That's why she's standing with Planned Parenthood so that easy access to women's health clinics and services can be protected.
2. Gun Control (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...)
We cannot live in a country where first graders are killed inside their own schools, places of love and nurturing. We cannot continue to live in a country where your gender and sexual identity gets you killed by a man with an assault rifle. We cannot live in a society where people are afraid to step outside of their own houses. In light of the mass shootings in Orlando, San Bernardino, Charleston, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and others, we must take strong action and finally create adequate gun control. Hillary has pledged to eliminate the Charleston loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy the gun that killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. She has pledged to put into action policies that will prevent suspected terrorists and people on the no-fly list from buying guns. It's just common sense.
3. Campaign Finance Reform (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...)
Hillary will nominate judges that will overturn Citizens United, one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in American history. Why should some people get more say than others over who wins elections simply because they have more money? The power of multimillionaires and billionaires to buy elections is appalling. How is this democracy? How have we allowed this to happen? Campaign finance laws allow everybody to get an equal say in politics. The rich and powerful must not continue to be the only people who have the ability to influence our politics. This must stop.
4. Climate Change (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...)
Let's face it--the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. To stop it, we must invest in clean energy infrastructure (primarily wind and solar) so that the environment and atmosphere that we all rely on for survival. Hillary has promised to invest in this infrastrucure on day one so that the United States can begin to transition to more renewable energy sources and lead the world in clean energy production. She will cut oil and gas subsidies and instead invest in clean energy companies. She will also impose new emissions standards for vehicles and manufactures in order to limit the harmful greenhouse gases that are being put into our atmosphere, causing dramatic melting of polar ice, desertification, and extreme weather patterns that devastate coastal communities. (http://climate.nasa.gov...)
Mr. Trump has been involved in numerous situations that show his blatant, overt, and extreme racism. In the 1970's, Mr. Trump's real estate company was sued by President Nixon's Justice Department for housing discrimination. According to this article from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com...), "When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments...Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court." Both women were testers for the government investigation, and the markings of applications were so that the company would know to reject those requests. "Two former Trump employees, a husband and wife who rented properties, were quoted in court documents as saying they were told that the company...'discouraged rental to blacks.'" The government won the case, proving discrimination. The man is quite obviously opposed to granting minorities access to the same opportunities as their white counterparts--which cannot be explained by anything other than personal bias (racism). In a book by John O'Donnell (Trumped: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump--His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall), Trump says of a black accountment in his employ, "'Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.'"(http://www.nytimes.com...) Again, the man is completely and totally racist! Anyone who believes things like these listed above must not be allowed to become president. It's instantly disqualifying. End of story.
Mr. Trump once told a friend, "Women: you have to treat 'em like s**t." (http://www.dailywire.com...) Again, the man is indisputably sexist and unfit to be president! There's no other way around it. He calls women fat pigs, dogs, and disgusting animals. He said that people shouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina (his only female competitor in the Republican primary) because of how her face looked. He said once that if Ivanka weren't his daughter, perhaps he'd be dating her. (He was in his sixties at the time, and she in her twenties. How creepy is that?) (https://www.youtube.com...)
I realize these arguments have been relatively short; I will expand upon them in later rounds as needed. Keep in mind that if you continue to defend this man without addressing the blatantly racist statements mentioned above, it is to be assumed that you either choose to ignore the obvious red flags about the man, or that you agree with the aforementioned statements.
Eagerly awaiting my opponent's responses!
1. If Hillary was for Women's Rights, she wouldn't be accepting money from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia does not respect Women's Rights. Here is a short list of what women cannot do: Go anywhere without a male chaperone(mostly relatives), Drive a Car, Wear clothes or make-up that "show off their beauty," Are required to limit the amount of time spent with men they are not related to, Go for a swim, Compete freely in sports, and Try on clothes when shopping. If she truly supported women's rights, she shouldn't be accepting donations from Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Trump believes that Planned Parenthood shouldn't include abortions. He has said that as long as Planned Parenthood Includes abortions, he will not fund it. He has also said that Planned Parenthood helps many women with cervical and breast cancer. However Mr. Trump is pro-life unless it's a case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I do not understand why women would want to abort babies, when it was their own option to have one.
2. Dylann Roof got a gun due to clerical errors. Comey said the FBI made the error due to a breakdown in the background check system and confusion with paperwork between the FBI, local police departments and county jurisdictions. Some sources said that the FBI could have asked for the gun back with the confusion, so it's unfair to blame this on the so called Charleston Loophole. Neither Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, nor Syed Farook or his wife were on the terrorist watchlist or no fly list when they purchased their guns.  The terrorist watchlist and and no fly list do not apply to Sandy Hook and Aurora, so I do not understand what Con's objective in bringing those two up is. A Harvard study shows that more guns equals less violent crime. To ban "suspected" terrorists...keyword suspected is in violation of a due process of law which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Until one can prove that the gun will cause harm, they cannot ban a person from buying a gun.
3. The rich and the powerful that Clinton talks about are the same people giving her money for her campaign by lobbying. This again proves her hypocrisy. Clinton has been influenced by lobbyists from Walmart, Wall Street, BP, Goldman Sachs, and even Saudi Arabia. She has collected 100s of millions of dollars from SuperPACs as well. Mr. Trump financed 76% of his primary campaign with the other 26% coming from individual donations from merchandise and etc.
4. 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. Climate Change may be a problem, or it may not be a problem, but it shouldn't affect American workers in any way, shape or form. There are some facts listed on this website as to why climate change isn't real. http://thehill.com... Trump plans to make America energy independent by increasing domestic production. He is also for the Keystone XL pipeline which will bring more jobs to the U.S. In summary Hillary wants to take away jobs of Americans and plans to fund billions into an idea that is highly debatable. Even if it is real, American efforts will lower it by 1/100 of a degree(Celsius) as said on the source I provided.
1. "The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from 'discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.' The Trumps were ordered to 'thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis' with the Fair Housing Act.
The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties."
This case does not acknowledge that Trump knowingly discriminated against minorities. My opponents claim is completely false that the government "won" the case when it does not mention anywhere in the resolution that Trump knowingly discriminated. Another thing to consider...."In the signed statement, the employee claimed that the Justice Department lawyer who replaced Goldweber, Donna Goldstein, told him to 'lie' or risk being 'thrown in jail.'" So there go the so called "codes." If Mr. Trump was really racist, he wouldn't rent to blacks, but he did as stated in Con's source. John R. O'Donnell left the Trump Organization and joined a competitor. Those comments on Mr. Trump are bound to be biased and untrue. Mr. Trump is not racist. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has accepted donations from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups.
2. My opponent's claim about Trump saying: You have to treat women like s**t is flawed. The article in which Mr. Trump said this, referred to women who liked being abused because that's what they want. I strongly urge voters and Con to look at this video which explains the context in detail. This clearly shows how liberals will twist anything for their own gain. https://m.youtube.com...
Mr. Trump was obviously joking about his daughter. Everyone started to laugh in the video. Another case of how liberals will twist anything for their gain. My opponent has not provided any sources for Mr. Trump calling women "fat pigs, dogs, and disgusting animals." As a result I rate this claim as false. As for Carly Fiorina, Mr. Trump was referring to her persona. Carly Fiorina also criticized Barbara Boxer's hair during her 2010 Senate Campaign  And to be honest, are you really gonna call that sexism because the White House criticized Mr. Trump's hair. If Mr. Trump is sexist then the White House and Carly Fiorina are too.
3. I have defended Mr. Trump and am not a person to accept defeat so easily
Looking forward to Con's rebuttals of my arguments. Thanks for a good debate!!
Rebuttals to Round 2:
1. Border Wall:
First of all, your link #2 just brings me to the NY Times website, so we should consider this claim unfounded until you back it up with a link. Your claim about many people being killed by illegal immigrants is invalid as well because many people have been killed by all sorts of groups. It's illogical to pinpoint specific crimes on any one group of people as a means of supporting preventing immigration of a group of people. All nationalities have murderers in them; you can't blame one group for all of America's problems. Furthermore, the idea that immigrants are more violent than other native-born groups of similar education and socioeconomic status are just not true, as this study reports: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...
Now that we have the facts straight, I will separate this section into anti-wall and anti-mass deportation.
When someone proposes a solution to a problem, we can't just assume that it will work. So the first thing we must do is ask ourselves if this wall will work if built or if it is even buildable. All claims, unless otherwise indicated, in this paragraph come from this article: http://www.newsweek.com... . The first obstruction to the building of this wall comes from geographical features. First of all, the Rio Grande. Obviously the wall would have to be built on our side of the river, effectively blocking access to it for millions of people who depend on it for water and their livelihood. Given that Trump is supposedly the candidate who will fix and grow our economy, this policy doesn't seem very consistent with his message. Secondly is a number of large reservoirs that straddle the border. The Falcon International Reservoir is about 155 square miles (https://en.wikipedia.org...) which would be a major obstruction for the wall. The United States would have to build the wall on our side of the border, which would mean sacrificing large amounts of territory. Same goes for a slightly smaller reservoir, the Amistad. Another problem is Big Bend National Park, a wild and pristine area in Texas. Do you really want to build a wall through that? So just to build the thing would be a massive logistical and legal challenge in itself. Also, the construction of a wall would require the United States to buy hundreds of miles of property from landowners and businesses, also crippling the area's economy. So, even though it will be extremely difficult or even impossible to build, let's assume for the sake of argument that the wall is built and Mexico has covered the costs. Will it even prevent immigration, though? Drug cartels and coyotajes could eventually bomb it or tunnel under it, and in desert areas, the wall would be nearly impossible to reinforce if damaged. Boats could easily sail from Mexico to Padre Island in Texas, crossing the wall by going around it. The second thing we must ask is, is it necessary? According to the Pew Research Center, less than half (49%) of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. (http://www.pewresearch.org...) Mexico, as we've seen, is not the only country that undocumented immigrants come from. So why don't we work to make our immigration and naturalization process more streamlined and efficient to prevent illegal immigration from all parts of the world (Asia, Europe, etc.) It makes sense to say that we should do the most important things first; therefore we should focus on the largest source of illegal immigration (countries other than Mexico) and strengthening our immigration system. Then we focus on Mexico. Finally: should we do it? Contrary to popular belief, immigrants help the economy. As the Newsweek article points out, more people living in a certain place means more jobs. So a wall would also hurt border-state economies. For all these reasons, a border wall would be harmful rather than beneficial to the country.
Now for my anti-mass deportation arguments.
People have made their homes here. They have children here, and you want to get rid of all of them? After all, they're just looking for a better life. A mass deportation policy would tell them, "You don't deserve this opportunity to have a good life because of where you were born." Is that who we want to be as a country? Instead of building walls to keep people out, we should invite people in--but in a smart way. We do need to crack down on drug imports and the like, but if we go with an overly simplistic "solution" such as a wall we also keep out parents who want their kids to live a better life. We keep out people who are just looking for a way out of the cycle of poverty they are experiencing. And you want to tell them no? Why on earth would anybody want to keep those people out, people who want hope instead of violence and suffering? We should have a pathway to citizenship rather than mass deportation so that everybody, not just people who were born here, can experience the American dream.
On a more practical note, immigrants also contribute to local economies as well. See above.
Pro-Trump Contention 2 response:
I agree completely with you on this one. The way we treat our veterans is a disgrace and must be fixed immediately. However, this is a moot point because Hillary also has the same policy: https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Anti-Clinton Contention 3 response:
I concede to you this point. It's not that I can't think of a response, it's that I believe it was a completely stupid thing to do. It might also be potentially disqualifying if not for two reasons:
1. Trump, just a few days ago, has invited Russia to carry out cyberattacks on us. So Hillary made it easier for foreign countries to spy on us, while Trump actually encouraged foreign countries to hack us. So what does this tell us about his future cybersecurity policies?
2. With all the legal and political backlash that Clinton is facing, it would be pretty stupid of her to try it again. I believe that we can know with reasonable certainty that she will not make the same mistake in the future.
I do not concede, however, your statement about refugees. The United States vetting system is one of the most thorough, sometimes taking up to two years. Here's how it works: https://www.whitehouse.gov...
It's so effective that out of the 785,000 refugees admitted into the US since 9/11, only 3 have ever been convicted on terrorism-related charges (http://www.nytimes.com...) So we can be fairly sure that if any ISIS operatives tried to get in, they would not be able to.
Anti-Clinton Contention 4 response:
Taking money from a group doesn't necessarily mean anything. Giving money to a group is different. Given that she has been a strong champion of women's rights for decades, I don't think that these donations have caused her to change her views.
Unfortunately, I've nearly run out of the time and characters necessary to make a satisfactory response to your Round 3 arguments. I will respond to those next round.
Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!
Here is the link which was also posted on Mr. Trump"s Immigration Reform page:
My point is that all of the lives that were lost could have been prevented if our current immigration laws were enforced, which are not due to sanctuary cities, and because of the Obama Administration. A nation that doesn't enforce its laws is simply not a nation. To prevent more innocent lives from being taken, we must simply deport the illegals. We don't know who's going to commit a crime in the near future. It's better to be safe than sorry. And I never said that they were more violent than native born groups. All I'm saying is that the deaths and the horrors that families face can be protected.
1.Border Wall: The water that people use from the Rio Grande mainly comes from the reservoirs that are built. There are also the Devil, Pecos, and Nueces Rivers, not to mention countless other rivers in Texas that can be used for water supply. Most of the irrigation is done before the river reaches "El Paso anyways as stated in the source, so the people South of "l Paso depend on it for water supply which is provided by the reservoirs. The Falcon International and Armistead Reservoirs are operated by the Federal Government making it impossible to travel through illegally, especially since it requires a boat. The reservoirs don't need a Wall, and even if it was built, we would still have half the reservoirs, because the international boundary is right down the middle. It is virtually impossible to cross the Big Bend Area as well because of the Chisos, Mariscal, Santiago Mountains, and Carmen Mountains with elevations from 1800 to 4500 feet. The region is also a part of the Chihuahuan Desert making it miles from any help. The mountains range on both sides of the border, so the trek would be extremely long and dangerous. So again, a wall is not necessarily needed. Mexico is going to pay for the Wall, and my opponent has not refuted this claim, so I assume my opponent concedes this point. The businesses and landowners would receive money to compensate for their land. And besides, who would want to live in fear that an illegal could cross the river at anytime and run through private property? The wall isn't going to intrude private property as much, so compensation will be minimal anyways. The main economy of the region is agricultural, and that won't get affected as the farmland is far from the border itself due to erosion control and such. The other is mining which is far from the river itself as well. Unless Con can provide specific examples as to how the wall will be bad for the economy, this argument is invalid. Bombing the wall? That's a ludicrous idea. A breach in the wall isn't going to anything, as the Border Patrol would obviously find out in an instant. And besides, if they Mexican government allows this to happen in plain sight, there will obviously be retaliation by Mr. Trump, most likely making Mexico pay for the damages. The USBP, along with the Department of Defense and Army Corps of Engineers are developing technology to stop underground tunneling, most of which includes motion sensor technology. Walls can be repaired in desert areas during night or during the winter. But how would it get damaged in the first place? The Gulf of Mexico, especially the Mexican border is patrolled by the U.S. Coast Guard making it impossible to go from Mexico to Padre Island as my opponent claims. I'm pretty sure Mr. Trump knows where and where not to build a wall. According Con's source about half of the illegals come from Mexico compared to all the other countries combined for the other half. Mexico is clearly a greater threat because of our border. This number does not include the people that come from Honduras, Guatemala, and other Central American countries that are undocumented. The people here from overseas have overstayed their visas, and here is Mr. Trump's proposal on that: "Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. Millions of people come to the United States on temporary visas but refuse to leave, without consequence. This is a threat to national security. Individuals who refuse to leave at the time their visa expires should be subject to criminal penalties; this will also help give local jurisdictions the power to hold visa overstays until federal authorities arrive. Completion of a visa tracking system " required by law but blocked by lobbyists " will be necessary as well." There are more people here from crossing the border from Mexico than from overseas. 40% of the illegal immigrants overstay their visas, while the 60% cross the border illegally. We should focus on the border first as it's the greater problem. If immigrants help the economy so much, why don't we just let everyone come in? The answer to that is because a nation without a border is not a nation. I, as a citizen of the United States am required to pay my taxes to the federal government. Currently, as a Texas Resident, it is cheaper for me to pay the penalty imposed by Obamacare than to get health care, while illegals get free health coverage from my taxpayer money.
Anti-Mass Deportation Rebuttals:
My opponent is being politically correct with his argument. The illegals should have thought about the consequences before they came illegally in the first place. If parents want their children to have a better life, they should fight for it, like America did. As an American, I care about my family that came here legally. I'm saying no to coming here illegally. Legally it's perfectly ok. If these illegals receive health care, and I don't, I feel cheated. There are laws that keep order, and this is one of them. No one is above the law.....not Hillary Clinton, not you, not me, and definitely not the illegals. You are thinking about the lives of those illegals and refugees, not the lives of Americans like me. My opponents arguments in this section are based on political correctness and emotions.
VA Reform: 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?
My opponent concedes that Hillary Clinton is a criminal...
1. Trump was joking about Russia hacking Hillary Clinton 33,000 emails that she deleted not to hack classified information. And even if they did hack, what does it tell us? That our current security isn't effective
2. Trump faces far more backlash than Hillary Clinton because of the biased media. Trump receives backlash from politicians, and some people, while Hillary receives backlash from just Republicans and a majority of the people. If she continually lied about her server, what prevents her from doing it again? She isn't being arrested or being disciplined.
3. The refugee process may be thorough, but it still has flaws. It only takes a couple of terrorists to get by for terrorist attacks to happen. That was the instance in the Boston Marathon Bombing attack. Also, about 13% of the Syrian Refugees support ISIS. A small portion can prove fatal as was the case in the France attacks.
4. It shows strength in an issue if she didn't accept the money. Instead, it shows that she values the donation money over the fact that the countries hate women and LGBT. These donations show that she is willing to forget her position on women's rights and LGBT for money.
Points to be noted:
-My opponent fails to refute my claims about Mexico paying
-Con concedes that Hillary is a criminal
-My opponent fails to use certain examples provided in context (Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings)
-Con's third argument is completely hypocritical as she is one of those people
-My opponent twists the truth in his argument about Trump losing the lawsuit
-Con uses unreliable sources like the book by John O'Donnell- A person with bad relation with Trump
-My opponent fails to talk about the other states that share a border with Mexico
Final Statement: I, Pro have refuted all of Con's arguments and rebuttals up to this. Con fails to provide sources proving accusations against Mr. Trump. And one of Con's sources was simply biased against Mr. Trump. I have also proven that Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a good President, due to her email scandal. Not to mention how big of a hypocrite she is on the issue of Women's Rights and LGBT Rights. I would like the voters and Con to ponder upon this question: Why does Donald Trump want to become POTUS? He already has enough money to live a couple of lifetimes. He's already popular through his show "The Apprentice." The answer is, that he is running for America, Americans, Children, Police Officers, and our Veterans.
For all of the reasons, I urge a Pro ballot for this debate.
Thank You for a great debate, and I hope I have changed your mind about Mr. Trump
P.S. The media is liberal and against Trump, be careful what you cite
Rebuttals to Round 3:
1. First of all, Hillary did not accept money from Saudi Arabia and other countries near it. The Clinton Foundation accepted that money. So you say, "Well, the Clinton Foundation is run by Bill and Hillary, right? So that means that Hillary still had a hand in accepting the money, right?" Well, actually, this isn't true. If you look on the source you cited from Mint Press News, the article was dated June 26, 2015. Hillary Clinton resigned from the board of the Clinton Foundation in mid-April of 2015 to run for president. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Thus, the transactions occurred after she left; thus she did not accept or indirectly accept any money from Saudi Arabia. Pro has taken the facts out of context, twisted them to make it appear that Hillary herself accepted the money rather than her husband's foundation, and then failed to notice that the donation had occurred after she had left. Voters take note: Pro is making a false claim.
Hillary is in support of Planned Parenthood, abortion or not. Since abortion is considered to be a right of women, and Mr. Trump is against it, Hillary is more pro-women's rights than Mr. Trump. And just because you don't understand something doesn't make it immoral. I can't claim to understand quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it immoral. Birth control can fail, women could change their minds, or simply decide that they're not ready to be a parent yet. I would like to point out that Mr. Trump has flip-flopped on this issue at least four times since he started his presidential bid, and at least five times since the late 1990s. (http://www.nbcnews.com...)
2. I stand corrected about Dylann Roof. However, what Pro neglects to point out is that the Charleston loophole could not have been exploited just once. There's more to gun violence than the mass shootings we hear about on the news. 89 people die every day across the country from gun violence. (http://www.bradycampaign.org...) Is Pro claiming that the Charleston loophole has never been exploited? This seems highly unlikely. And yes, Omar Mateen was not on the terrorist watchlist at the time of the shooting. That's why we need to pass the bipartisan common-sense gun legislation that was proposed in Congress before it was shot down by pawns of the NRA. (https://www.washingtonpost.com...) It just is logical that nobody who has ever been on a no-fly list or a terrorist watchlist should not be able to buy guns. If this legislation had been passed, Omar Mateen would never have been able to buy a gun. And such measures are not unconstitutional. Here is the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I assume that you are saying that this legislation would deprive people of their rights to buy a gun, under the "liberty" part. So then we must ask, is the right to own a gun an individual right or a collective right? Let's see the Second Amendment. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because it says people, alluding to the collective rather than the individual, we will assume that it is a collective right. This means that an overall ban on guns would be unconstitutional, because it violates the collective right. A ban on certain dangerous people is not in violation of a collective right. It simply takes away the right of a person, not people, to own a gun. It's another basic question of individual rights over the common good. As we saw from the tragedy in Orlando, the right of potential terrorists to own guns is less important than the common good. It is perfectly constitutional for these gun measures to be passed and enacted.
Hillary Clinton made the excellent point that "people can’t board planes with full shampoo bottles—but people being watched by the FBI for terrorism can buy a gun, no questions asked?" (https://twitter.com...)
3. First of all, the article you cite shows no evidence that Hillary has been influenced by the donations you tell of. Again, Pro makes an unfounded claim. Yes, Mr. Trump financed most of his campaign himself. But most of the money that he gave to his campaign was not a donation, it was a loan. Thus, Mr. Trump could at any point recoup money from small donations to pay himself back for this loan. (http://www.politifact.com...) Given his dubious business record, I would not trust Mr. Trump to simply take back the money he made from small donors to pay himself back.
4. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real. (http://climate.nasa.gov...) The United States has started to resettle its first climate refugees after a low-lying Louisiana island has been almost completely flooded due to rising sea levels. (http://www.nytimes.com...) See a map of the disastrous effect that sea level rise will have on our coastal communities. (http://www.climatecentral.org...) As you can see, cities like Boston and New York will be flooded, destroying local and national economies. So taking action now on climate change will kill a few jobs in a dying industry. (http://www.motherjones.com...) But it will pay off in the long run by not flooding our largest economic powerhouses and shipping ports. You sacrifice a little and save a lot. Plus, Hillary has an extensive plan to revitalize coal communities. Here it is. (https://www.hillaryclinton.com...)
Anti-Trump Rebuttals rebuttals:
1. If the federal government won the case and made the Trumps agree to discriminate against someone for their race, doesn't that mean that the Trumps were guilty of discrimination? You claim that Trump may not have known about the discrimination. I find this hard to believe, since Mr. Trump was the president of the real estate firm at the time. Perhaps he was grossly incompetent and had no idea how his own business was being run, which also seems unlikely. From Nicholas Kristof: "A Trump rental agent said the Trumps...discouraged renting to blacks." (http://www.nytimes.com...) Key words there are "the Trumps." This implies Donald and his father themselves discouraged renting to blacks, which is discrimination and therefore racism.
Next you say that since Mr. O'Donnell disagrees with Trump that his book is untrue. First of all, this is a logical fallacy. Saying a source is untrue simply because it was written by someone who dislikes Mr. Trump is a ridiculous claim. Secondly, Mr. Trump himself said in a 1997 Playboy interview, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true." (http://www.playboy.com...) He admits to it himself! The man admits that he said something blatantly and overtly racist!
Here's the part I've been looking forward to:
Pro: "Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has accepted donations from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups." This claim seemed dubious to me, so I read the source. I want to ask you, did you read this article? If so, did something seem a bit...funny to you? That would have made sense, because Stubhill News is a satire news website. Among its articles are, "Trump enlists Tiffany Trump into U.S. Army", "Voting stimulates same area of the brain as puppy kicking", "Trump claims Obama's foreign policy led to 9/11", and "BREAKING: Hillary Clinton considering Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Secretary of Propaganda." Just look around on the site. (https://stubhillnews.com...) It's pretty hilarious, but sadly not reliable as an actual news source.
Pro: "I have defended Mr. Trump and am not a person to accept defeat so easily." You didn't respond to my argument about Mr. Trump's blatantly racist comments about black people being inherently lazy. Making a claim that the source is biased and therefore false is not an argument, it's a fallacy. Mr. Trump has admitted to making these statements already! Face it: Donald Trump said these things! With no proof that the source can be distrusted and an admission of the source's truth from the candidate himself means that he said these things and that he well and truly believes them. How can you honestly support a man who says such things? Even if he could fix the economy and all of the country's social problems, just this statement should be considered disqualifying. Is this really who we want to be as a country?
2. Your link to YouTube doesn't work, but I managed to find the article you are talking about. (https://books.google.fi...) All he is saying is, "Women enjoy being abused, so we should abuse them. Again, this is blatantly sexist.
In the interest of fairness, I will not respond to Pro's final arguments to preserve equal rebuttal time.
I have proven that Mr. Trump is exceedingly racist and sexist. The candidate admits to saying such things himself. Con has both made false claims and used multiple fallacies in his arguments. Saying things like, "The media is liberal" and insinuating that one side or another has a monopoly on truth is absurd. "Liberal" does not in any interpretation mean false. Neither does conservative. If a source is backed up by evidence, trust it.
I would like to thank Pro for a great debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.