Hillary Clinton for President

I'll start with rebuttals followed by their counters. Gun ViolenceMy statement of expansion of background checks must have been misinterpreted by you. I didn't mean just expanding the numbers, I meant also upping the standard of criminal regulations. The standard would be raised higher and reach farther to ensure it doesn't fall into wrong hands. Your statement of mass shooters passing background checks is due to a weak system currently in place, while Clinton aims to fix that [1]. My opponent makes a second statement regarding criminal feasibility, and while I doubt how 'easily' can they obtain one, many measures will be taken to minimize all attempts. The last argument of my opponent boils down into perspective. If these 'millions' of gun owners don't pass the second standard established, and their guns are revoked, they deserve to be revoked because their psychological stability wasn't as sound as it seemed. They will be refunded for most of their weapons revoked, as was the case in Australia [2]. In a case like the United States, the less guns, the merrier, especially since you did not refute my claim of the causality and correlation of guns and murder. The next argument of my opponent isn't very relative. The small spike of murders 2 years after the buyback was coincidental and done mostly through different weapons, other than firearms [3]. The increase rate also wasn't as strong as you'd think as you can see in the graph below (also obtained from Source 3). (The restrictions were introduced in 1996)My opponent's final rebuttal is "In other words, it wasn't effective. Yes, the mass shootings may have stopped, however, nothing really changed", however that is a contradiction. 20 years without mass shootings after the buyback was established, shows an obvious difference especially when 7 years later, all murders started to decline. Foreign PolicyI won't refute the 'hypocrisy' of Clinton concerning her previous experiences, I don't want to be accused of a "tu quoque" fallacy towards Donald Trump. All I can say about Hillary concerning Iraq and Benghazi is that positions change. Hillary has changed towards a more progressive foreign policy instead of military intervention at first move. It has been 8 years since Benghazi and 14 since her first stance on Iraq. The greatest defence I can really apply is that her position changed towards diplomatic procedures versus military procedures more than 6 years ago, before this race came to be. Now, concerning you agree with her current stance on diplomacy versus violence, this is one topic in which you believe that Hillary should be President, especially since her opponent does not make his own decision and keeps changing stances on military intervention [4]. Tax ReformMy opponent does not do a very good job in explaining the cause of the wealth gap in the United States. In a very skeptic view, such as mine, I can accuse with very good reason that the ultra-rich secure their position by making proxies out of the Republican party members. Many republicans, especially on the far-right, are known to be susceptible to be 'convinced' by lobbyists by accepting their 'financial donations' [5] in order to keep maintaining tax breaks for the rich [6]. My opponent argues that the top .01% 'earned' this money when all they have done is monopolize current fiscal empires into coercion with competitors to enforce market dominance [7]. The US is not a laissez-faire economy, and Americans deserve protection from ultra-rich corporations using government puppeteering [8]. Conclusion My opponent cannot say that the Australian buyback wasn't a success because they has been a 20 year streak on mass shootings being absent along with a 20 year decline in gun violence. Relating to gun control, my opponent left my proof of causation and correlation between the ownership of firearms and gun related shootings and murders un-refuted. In foreign policy, my opponent failed to refute that Hillary Clinton has updated her stances in a more progressive manner with examples such as temporary leaving Assad in power to plug a power vacuum. My opponent did admit that he accepted this new diplomatic stance "I agree with you and Hillary on: We should seek diplomatic solutions rather than blatant military intervention and the use of economic sanctions. ". I guarantee you, and the voters if Hillary didn't update her stance, you would have called her position outdated and dysfunctional, simply because she changed it. It is better she realized it was wrong now than never. On taxation, my opponent has stated he supports a progressive taxation system which Hillary advocates for, including individuals, and has left my argument of her attempt to eliminate oligarchical monopolies un-refuted. My opponent has left half of each arguments without a rebuttal. I look forward to his explanation and next argument. Sources[1] . http://thehill.com...[2] . http://www.gunsplus.com.au...[3] . http://www.aic.gov.au...[4] . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[5] . http://www.rollcall.com...[6] . http://www.wgem.com...[7] . http://www.alternet.org...[8] . https://www.popularresistance.org...