Who should be the next POTUS???Donald Trump(PRO).......Hillary Clinton(CON)

R1: [1] Our net immigration is declining. Just because they believe in something doesn't mean that it's correct. [1] Our border is more secure now than ever. [2] The Border Patrol's endorsement is filled with many lies and misinfo. [3] An Austin official also argues that Mexico's intent is not to encourage illegal immigration. The guide literally says in the first chapter that the best way to enter any country is to do so legally. Pro cedes that Mexico says it won't build/pay for the wall. That was my second source from round 3. My argument is not that there's no money to build the wall, but Mexico will just outright rejects the wall. Also, don't let pro add to his argument in the rebuttal, he should have been responsible and provided the remittance evidence in his first speech. Now pro cedes that our own citizens proportionately commit more crime. They also cede that there is no correlation between immigration and crime. And lastly, they cede that there is an ultra low rate of crime in El-Paso despite it being across from one of the most crime plagued cities in Mexico. Voters, these concessions are huge, so include them in your decision calculus. Why should we stop illegal immigration when there is no unique problem with it? Sure, it's possible for illegals to commit at least some crime, but deporting/stopping them won't stop lives that are being taken from other means domestically.We should be focusing on bigger threats than immigration crime. My argument was that Mexican immigrants proportionately perform less crime and thus there's no reason for the US to uniquely focus on stopping that crime through deportation any more than focusing on other means of crime. Don't let pro try to persuade you through ethics when many more lives are being lost through other means that pro doesn't solve for. Be EXTREMELY skeptical of the pro's next argument as it has no evidence whatsoever, it's just trying to trivialize catching immigrants with oversimplified math. EVEN if training and spending wouldn't be a problem, that doesn't stop the fact that it wouldn't be sufficient. My argument was that the FBI is going to need to still to help ICE deport, not train them- that was my fifth source in round 3. Pro has no sources to back his rebuttal- prefer my ev. Now extend my ceded argument that FBI will have to focus on ICE instead of other important missions, causing an imbalance and other harms. Extend my ceded argument that we'll have to stop focusing on serious crimes- this means we're deporting even the good immigrants that will be beneficial to our society. Con says FBI doesn't help deport, I never argued that. I argued that they'll have to help with Trump's plan. Con also says it doesn't take long to find serious criminals and that familial ties will offset future difficulties. This argument is backed by no evidence, how do we know families will be easier to find? Refer to my fifth source in my last speech, it provides all of the warrants as to why catching illegals will be super hard and prefer it over pro's trivialization. And the source isn't by John Oliver, there is an actual writer beneath that video. The source is credible. Endangered: The project will potentially impact 111 endangered species, 108 species of migratory bird, four wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries, and an unknown number of protected wetlands. They can't be moved because that's their only environment. Anthropocentrism is an entire different issue on it's own, so I won't argue that here. [5] I won't argue for all the other laws because of space(endangered species is the most important one violated anyways), but just know that about 40 laws would have to be waived for the wall to be built. I argued that the wall won't solve the pro's argument that immigrants cause crime. Now pro concedes that half of undocumented illegals come from other means. This is pretty huge because now the pro cedes that the wall won't solve any immigration crime and that there's no reason to build it. R2: [6] She'll do quite a few things for VA: avoid privatization, ensure timely quality care, deliver world class care, connecting their skills to jobs of the future. Trump shouldn't have insulted a veteran in the first place- that's not a good presidential indicator. Indicts of Hillary invalid- they were made in the rebuttals, more on that later. HUGE concession by pro: Trump's VA reform leads to privatization which leads to many existential impacts as indicated by my sources. This is just yet another reason to vote con. If the veteran industry is privatized, it won't be in the veteran's interest: it'll be in the corporation's. Vote con to reject the pro's notion that this is a good thing. R3: It was deemed that the server emails were subordinate to top secret, even if it's Barack he's still an expert. My source indicates that it was not even dangerous, which is now ceded by the pro. Pro does nothing to answer this. Also, pro ceded my argument that Hillary owned up to the mistake and that isn't a disadvantage to her being president. Hillary didn't lie- if she did FBI would have actually pursued her. My source is ran by actual fact checkers. Pro argues that people don't vote Trump up as a liar but my argument is that he empirically lies more. Pro now cedes this; this is all a voting issue judges: no reason to vote pro on this contention. As for Syrian Refugees, here's the argument: Stopping their immigration here won't solve any attacks. Attacks are still going to happen. As a result, we accept refugees to stop suffering in the Middle East which is a net benefit. Also, I did have evidence if you would look. Vote con to affirm relief of suffering in the Middle East. R4: My argument is that accepting money from the enemy is fine AS LONG as it's used to combat their bad practices. I never argued that Hillary's going to change Saudi law, I argued that she's going to stop those kind of practices on domestic land with that money. What Saudi does it up to them. Accepting their money doesn't mean that Hillary endorses the enemy. R5: I didn't answer pro's argument against Hillary's bad track record because he made new arguments in the rebuttals which creates unfair ground for me. He should have made those arguments in his first speech. Vote con because this is a fairness issue. Trump's disqualifications: 1. I said he was a military governor, not a state governor. This is equivalent to political experience and thus I didn't cede anything. 2. He mispronounced Tanzania. Again, that's in my second source, first speech. 3. Again this goes back to my fact checker argument which you cede- he empirically lies a lot. 4. My source indicates that his experience isn't equatable with the president. I don't even need quora to support my claims. I only used it to provide an outline for my arguments that are supported by other sources. All of my indicts of Trump are supported by different sources besides quora. Pro concedes yet again that Hillary's specialized education skills outweigh Trump's. Here the argument: Hillary has had job experience much closer to the role of the president than Trump and thus her skills are specialized relative to his. R6: My ev was specific to ISIS attacks inevitable- we can still solve LGBT harm. Pro cedes that there is no danger of men and women in the same bathroom. Pro cedes that Trump will appoint judges to overturn marriage equality. BIG CONCESSION because this takes any other equality claim he can make for Trump. There are just too many concessions for pro to win this contention. R7: Here's the overview of my ableism argument: Trump mocked a reporter that he knew was disabled, that's all that matters here. He makes the disabled different and his language is horrifying. Here were the impacts: 1. Disabled body silence 2. Ableism assumptions destroys academic space 3. Neolib institutions support ableism exploitation Vote con to avoid these impacts. R8: Opponent continues to argue threats of China without refuting my arguments core subject: their created threats of China are through the lens of the westerner which is inherently biased. The pro generalizes over a billion people in China. My argument is that they can not possibly understand China because of the lens they view them with. R9: My source argues that Trump's speed of deportation is going to be too fast no matter what. You didn't refute my source which argued that Trump's plan would create a unique challenge for the economy. R10: Implications of law are that we're xenophobic, pro NEVER refutes that. We don't want to give other nations that picture of us. R11: They have divergent views of the world order, non nuclear prolif, Eastern Europe, etc. My source specifically says that. Trump's presidency would be disastrous for US-Russia relations. R12: Not a debate about whether GW is false or not. My claim that GW is true is the 17th source. Pro cedes that Trump thinks GW is a hoax. Pro never argues that GW is false, he just argues the cliche argument that scientists' opinions were cherrypicked, prefer my actual ev. Hillary isn't going to take coal jobs away, she just argued that they're losing their jobs and we need to help them. All of pro's final points are refuted in this speech [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] https://www.aclu.org... [3] http://www.politifact.com... [4] http://www.outsideonline.com... [5] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [6] https://www.hillaryclinton.com...