Hillary Clinton's honesty.

I didn't want to waste my time against a weak argument. Opponent's arguments are below. "I will bring up several examples of Hillary lying, which should be sufficient to prove she is dishonest.1) First, on three occasions she claimed that her emails had no classified materials on them. Below are the quotes and the day they were said:"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials" (March 10, 2015)"I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (July 25, 2015)"I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified" (Aug. 18, 2015). At the congressional hearing with James Comey, representative Trey Gowdy asked FBI director James Comey, "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true? "To which Comey replied "That"s not true. " and "There was classified material emailed. "Sources used for the above quotes: ( . http://www.factcheck.org...... . http://www.politifact.com...... )2. Then on Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 in comments on Meet the Press, Hillary claimed "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against. " when in fact, Donald Trump was the largest recipient of attack ads from companies associated with Wall Street, and many other republican candidates, and Bernie Sanders, have had ads against them as well. (source: . http://www.politifact.com...... )3. On Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 in a debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said that Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take. "The statement of Obama's this refers to is "I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. "As you can see, Obama made no such claim to bomb Pakistan, merely that the US would act. ( source: . http://www.politifact.com...... )4. On Sunday, May 22nd, 2016 in an interview on "Meet the Press", Hillary Clinton stated "Let me say that I don't think (Bernie Sanders has) had a single negative ad ever run against him. " (source: . http://www.politifact.com...... ) when in fact she released an attack ad herself in January of that year against Bernie; . http://www.cnn.com...... and Generation Forward, a pro-O'malley group also released an attack ad against Bernie Sanders portraying fun moments that were not serious about Bernie, trying to portray him as not a serious candidate. Another ad by the same group attacked his record on guns. ( source: . http://www.politifact.com...... )You can see quite a few more false statements made by Hillary here: . http://www.politifact.com......And there are many others that I know of besides these I could show if you need me to, such as denying her support for TPP, when she did clearly support it at one point, and many other positions on which she flip-flops on that she then later denies having ever supported them. " CapitalistslaveR2 RebuttalFirst, I want to contend that if a person occasionally slips up and jay walks that person is still a law abiding citizen. Nobody is perfect. If you live long enough you will eventually breach the smallest of laws, even if you take great care to follow the laws. The same goes for statements of truth. If you are given 10,000 questions on an exam, even a very intelligent person is likely to answer some of them wrong. I wouldn't call this person dishonest though for scoring a 9,990 out of 10,000. I would call them human and thus subject to human fallibility. The above being established my opponent's entire argument is based upon a cherry picking fallacy. [0] Instead of focusing on the 9,990 times Hillary Clinton was law abiding and didn't jay walk or the 9,990 questions she answered correctly on an exam, my opponent focuses on the ten times Hillary Clinton messed up slightly. "Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. Logical Form:Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A. " [0]As for the emails, "'ll give Carrk credit: he's pretty creative at coming up with negative spin. Needless to say, though, there's nothing here—or in any of the other excerpts—that would even remotely reflect badly on Clinton. " [1]My opponent also withholds how many emails there was and none of them were properly marked as classified. Yes, Hillary did tell a falsehood that there was no classified information, but this can easily be chalked up to human fallibility. That she thought she was telling the truth and didn't realize that there was classified information due to the sheer volume of emails and to the improper marking and some with no markings. As seen here Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails. "Clinton has said she wanted the emails to be public, and turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department for release. "[2]"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked. " [3]Out of 55,000 emails 110 emails had classified emails, of those 110, three had markings. Out of those three all three were improperly marked. [4] This is a .2% margin of error for Hillary, none of which can be proved that she deliberately told a falsehood. I say we must give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. As for about the thirty or so non-email related falsehoods told by Hillary, this really isn't that much. All of them could have been honest mistakes. Considering the sheer amount of public speaking involved in her long political career. At least since 2000. [5]Now compare this to Donald Trump. [6] There are six pages of Trump's falsehoods as opposed to Hillary's two pages. Thank you for the debate, you are a worthy opponent. Sources0. . https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...1. . http://www.motherjones.com...2. . http://www.nbcnews.com...3. . http://bluenationreview.com...4. . https://verdict.justia.com...5. . http://history.howstuffworks.com...6. . http://www.politifact.com...