Hillary Clinton's honesty.

I wish to first discuss the following statement made by my opponent: "First, I want to contend that if a person occasionally slips up and jay walks that person is still a law abiding citizen. " This appears to actually be a weak analogy. A weak analogy is of course, "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. " ( . https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... ) The reason this is a weak analogy is because jay walking is not a serious offense, where as lying to the FBI and American people is much more serious as Hillary was doing so in order to gain a powerful position. Jay walking doesn't have a serious effect on so many people, but a lie that is used to gain power will effect everyone in a nation. The second analogy my opponent makes about an intelligent person getting some questions on a test wrong is also a weak analogy. For one, the most likely reason such a person got those questions wrong was because they honestly didn't know the answer. In the case of Hillary Clinton, it's not that she didn't know the answer(and actually, the honest thing to do if she didn't know the answer would be to admit it, and not give an answer) she blatantly stated things contrary to knowledge she had. The example I provided where she stated Bernie has had no ads against him is one such example. She herself, made ads against Bernie, yet claimed Bernie has had no ads against him. That's not simply a mistake, that is a lie because she would know that she herself made ads against him, unless Hillary's mental health is not sound. However, I see no reason to believe Hillary has memory problems, and that would be something my opponent would need to prove. Another lie Hillary made that she would have had clear knowledge of the contrary, is when she said, in regards to TPP, "I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration,. .. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it. " However, during the process of TPP being negotiated, she said the deal was "setting the gold standard. " and not only that it "sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. .. when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. " ( . http://www.politifact.com... ) Again, she would have firsthand knowledge of whether she supported the TPP to begin with, but lied about doing so in debate with Bernie Sanders. I wouldn't call these slight mess-ups. Lying to the American people to gain power is not a slight mess up. I suppose I mistakenly used the cherry-picking fallacy, but given that we are in a debate arguing opposing sides, I figured you would bring up instances where Hillary has told the truth, then I would address those. Keep in mind that there is also a logical fallacy known as the fallacy fallacy, which is where someone presumes that an argument is wrong because of the use of a logical fallacy. ( . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... ) So I would remind people that my argument is not necessarily wrong just because of the use of a logical fallacy. In fact, if I can sufficiently prove that there is a pattern of her telling lies, this would prove she is dishonest. I would consider an honest person to always tell the truth in important matters, when it involves something as major as a powerful position such as president. I concede that a person can become honest after having told lies, so just because they told lies in the past that doesn't mean they are dishonest now, but there is a pattern of Hillary lying all the way through even to this year as I provided. So the reason I didn't discuss the times Hillary was honest is because even if she lies now and then, as long as she still does so, she cannot be called 100% honest. Now, perhaps Hillary could have made mistakes with the emails since not all of them were properly marked classified, however, "Throughout this saga, Clinton has said she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department. But Comey said FBI investigators uncovered "several thousand" work-related emails that she had not handed over, and three of those were classified at the time they were sent, though they were not marked as such. " This is again, something she should have known that she didn't hand over all emails. My opponent brought up Donald Trump, but that is irrelevant. I agree Trump is also dishonest, and is probably more so than Hillary, but we're discussing Hillary here. As long as there are dishonest statements made by Hillary, she cannot be called 100% honest.