Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

Round 3"My opponents argument is filled with nonsense fallicies and claims thatare just flat out innacurate.Let's start with the Chinagate scandal, my opponent claims that this is a conspiracy theory from infowars, but that's just- wrong. Firstly because infowars was founded in 1997, whilst the book "the year of the Rat (1996)," which I used as a source, was written in 1996. Secondly, claiming that if nfowars said it it must be false is just about as logical as saying that if it came from infowars it must be true- my opponent is trying to discredit this fact by stating that infowars reported on it, so this is pretty much an ad-hominem attack. "RonPaulConservativeMy opponent is responding to this sentence. "As for selling arms to China, it is difficult to take such claims seriously when such sites as infowars.com proliferate the claim. " stupidapeMy opponent doesn't seem to understand the definition of proliferate and guessed incorrectly."1. To grow or multiply by rapidly producing new tissue, parts, cells, or offspring.2. To increase or spread at a rapid rate: fears that nuclear weapons might proliferate.v.tr.To cause to grow or increase rapidly." [9]I choose my words carefully. Infowar spreads this claim, also known as proliferating, as opposed to being the orginal source. My opponent then proceds to misuse the ad hominem fallacy. "Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird." [10]If I was to attack my opponnet, RonPaulConservative, this would be an ad hominem attack. In lieu of attacking my opponent I am attacking the crediblity of his claim based upon the unreliable sources that spread the claim. Next, my opponent uses an analogy about if it came from infowars it must be true. The problem is that the crediblity of the source matters. If a statement came from one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals. Then, yes I would say the statement would be almost certanitly true. The reverse is true, if a bold claim came from a notriously inaccurate source, then the statement would proabbly be false. "If Alex Jones came out and said that Barrack Obama is a President, it doesn't diminish Obamas credibility as a President. " RonPaulConservativeThis is a faulty analogy since stating Barrack Obama is president is a mundane claim. Stating Hillary commited treason is a bold claim. "When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument."[11]Then, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy by naming William C. Triplett II and Edward Timperlake. [12] Just for starters both of them served under conservative administrations, meaning there could be a political agenda behind their accusations. As for Hillary Clinton not being charged, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove the claim is credible. The fact that Clinton has not been charged nor exonerated indicates I will not be able to prove her innocent nor my opponent prove guilty. Since a person is innocent until proven guilty, we must presume her innocence. As for the Clinton Foundation it is a charity that helps people receive AIDS/HIV medication. "What kind of work?Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost -- more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today. " [13]Somehow in my opponent's view this is violating the Constitution. Thanks for debating. Sources9. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...10. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...11. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...12. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...13. http://www.cnn.com...