Debate: It is preferable Hillary Clinton is elected rather than Donald Trump

Where to begin, where to begin. I know, I'll start with the nice ad hom by Pro: This argument has no impact anyways because Con fails to show how this would affect the country if she became President. I wish debates like this would be intellectual, about the policies and economics not conspiracy theories about corruptions. Bleh" Here we see that Pro either does not know or does not understand what kind of content would be on the emails of the Secretary of State. This would not include asking the President what time is tea or telling her closest aides a funny joke. The content on those emails discuss top secret information that is critical to the international and internal affairs of the United States gov't. There is evidence that one of her hacked emails might have gotten a US spy keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear program hanged. This is also, as stated previously, blatant disregard for the Executive Order of President Obama. If she so fragrantly ignores the orders of the President whom she is serving under, what guarantee do we have, as the American people, that she will pay attention to our concerns? She shows complete disregard for top secret information combined with a Hobbesian opinion of herself. This is not some one who we should have as President. Free TradeHere Pro makes a false cry of strawman, when above he concedes my point. "Con’s arguments against this is that (a) Trump wants to renegotiate the trade deals which isn’t true as Trump wants to 'rip them up' ". However, a renegotiation of trade agreements is very much in order. Many US manufacturing jobs are exported overseas to be done by cheap slave labor, something that is not Utilitarian. This brings us to the Utilitarian argument Pro tries to make: Governments must provide the greatest good to all world inhabitants. First, Pro's argument revolves completely around emotional appeal and assumption that Global Utilitarianism is preferred to National Utilitarianism. A Gov't has a duty to act as Utility not to the citizens of another gov't, but the the citizens of itself. In addition, the moral good, according to Pro, is that people should continue to work in (astonishingly) low wages of factory labor. A renogatiation of trade deals would lead to necessary albeit drastic reforms in those countries due to a plummet in quality of life. Thus the true "moral calculation" is to allow the oppressed people take control of their own destiny instead of continuing to support international Free Trade deals which serve only to enrich the gov'ts which oppress them. For example, 36% of the Chinese population lives on perhaps $2 a day.Again, this argument presented against Trump's Free Trade policy is pseudoUtilitarian, illiberal, and concerns itself with the well-being of mass collectives and not individual persons. Ultimately, it amounts to an emotional appeal masquerading as an logical argument: "It's nice, so we should do it."Gun Rights (merely a rebuttal)Pro misrepresents the truth here. This was not a "volunteer local campaign organizer" but a Democrat Delegate who had pledged to vote for Clinton at the DNC. She would have most certainly done her in depth research into Clinton's actual positions.CorruptionAccording to Pro's argument here, "The only way that these corruption arguments have an impact is if Con proves that they affect the national wellbeing". This negates his entire argument on Trump's supposed Corruption, but does nothing to minimize the effects of Clinton's Corruption. (Yet one must ask, do we really want a corrupt individual?)ISILThe amount of money to be spent on a war, and the subsequent Nation-Building effort proposed by Pro's description of Clinton's strategy. However, Pro has done nothing to discuss the nature of Guerilla Warfare and the manipulation of Galulan tactics. Pro asserts that if we leave, Iraq will fall to the insurgents again. Instead, he proposes we continue to prop up a puppet gov't which will continue to need US presence and protection for many years to come. Instead, the plan should not be to prop up a pupper gov't, but to acknowledge that the time for Iraq to exist is now at an end. Perhaps part of it going to the Kurds and another part of it should go to Iran. The alternative to Clinton's drone warfare and postwar puppetry is to simply acknowledge to end of Iraq. Make sure it goes to allies after waging a fierce war with ISIL and other Wahhabis.Brings us to IranThis brings us to the second part of Trump in the Middle East. Trump's ability to negotiate. Although he has made many rhetorical criticisms of the current Admin's negotiations, he would most certainly continue the negotiations started by President Obama. This is necessary because this allows the US to become more of an ally to one of Saudi Arabia's major regional rivals; and one that is primarily controlled by Shia Muslims, and thuse not at all likely to support the Wahhabis of Extreme Sunni Islam (nor their Salafist cousins). It would be far better to try to make up with Iran and form an alliance there than to continue allowing Saudi Arabia to channel trade money and foreign aide to be channeled into the pockets of Wahhabists in order to further Saudi influence internationally.brings us to Saudi ArabiaUsing the sources cited by Pro, one can quickly see that Pro completely misrepresented the evidence he himself provided. As stated: "The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library". This goes on to state that Saudi Arabia ceased donations to the Clinton Foundaion only while she wass Secretary of State. It also claims that Saudi has given very little, providing a hyperlink to its source. This source says "some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating." It continues to say "Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors — or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to “materially increase” their support — was never initiated during Clinton’s State Department years." The only reason that Saudi Arabia would have had a gap in between donation periods during which Clinton served as Secretary of State was to avoid the possibility of a Political Scandal. Again, Saudi Arabia has been found to be funding Islamic Extremism (most notably Wahhabism but Salafist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, have always found those pockets open). It is time to shift from the Wahhabi State to the Iranian State which has shown, with its negotiations with the Obama Admin, that it is willing to engage in talks. These negotiations can be continued and strengthened by a Trump Admin, but would be halted for the sake of Foundation donors.It should be pointed out that the Clinton Foundation is little more than a Clinton Slush Fund, spending less that 6% on charities it claims to support. Even the library Pro mentioned was the Clinton Presidential Library: a monument Bill Clinton built for himself. Hillary has been personally profiting from this slush fund. Again, this Corruption may seem innocent and unimportant, but this is some one who seeks the highest office in the land. I have provided many examples of this Corruption, whilst Pro has merely provided Trump University, as all other claims have been debunked.That Precious List of Leaders who Hate TrumpIn no particular order:Barack Obama would prefer to see the political platforms of his own party and "his legacy" continued, so of course he'd support his own party's nominee.Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud has been proven to support Clinton and be an aide to America's enemies in the Middle East. It is obvious that he would dislike Trump. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who's Nation grows wealthier each time Mexican immigrants in the US send money back home. What possible reason could he have against Trump? Could it be that he understands the Mexican gov't must be a Utility for the Mexican people, not for world people?Or what about David Cameron, who was so out of touch with his own people that he has now decided to resign after being on the losing side of the Brexit vote?How about Boris Johnson, who claims that crime has gone down. What about the Rotherham child prostitution scandal, where the gov't chose not to do its job and ignored the exploitation of young British girls? Does he count this, or ignore as the authoritied did?Erdogan, who, in response to an attempted coup, cracked down on the civil rights of all his citizens.My personal favorite: The Socialist Pope who has decried Individualism, Capitalism, and Money as the Devil's Dung, who says those who build walls are immoral ("not Christian"). Is this the same Pope who lives safely behind the walls of Vatican City? The same Pope whose Church continues to accept billions, if not trillions in tithes? On Keynesian EconomicsIn his final sentence (the adhom), Pro claims he wishes these arguments became more economic: In the beginning he proudly admits he has no idea what Keynesian Economics are. Not knowing who Keynes was, or at least not knowing Keynesian economics, should be evidence enough he is not ready to engage in economic debates. https://en.wikipedia.org...An example of Keynesian economics (provided here merely for example, not argument) is the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Here the US gov't encouraged banks to make riskier loans to lower income individuals. Although altruistic and provided immediate benefits, this is considered to be one of the major contributions to the Housing Bubble and Economic Recession of 2008. Conclusion/Closing ArgumentTrump is preferable to Hillary Clinton not because Trump is perfect or magnificient, but because Clinton is least preferable of any possible candidates, with many Dems preferring a third term for Obama instead of Clinton. Thus, VOTE TRUMP!