Who should be the next POTUS?? Trump(Pro)....Clinton(Con)

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. Conclusion: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.