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

Con starts off by arguing why the content of Clinton’s emails matter. But this is a new argument in the final round of argumentation, thus the judges cannot take this argument into consideration. Note that Con has never argued that the corruption of Clinton would harm the US until now, and thus under my framework that I established and Con accepted this argument is negated. Free Trade Con responds to my argument that a government as an entity ought to value all lives globally by writing it off as an emotional appeal. My argument was not an emotional appeal as it was based entirely on sound logic. The closest Con actually gets to responding to my argument was merely a sentence followed by a lack of justification and thus a bare assertion, “A Gov't has a duty to act as Utility not to the citizens of another gov't, but the the citizens of itself.” Con also argues that free trade makes people work at low wages in factories, and that a trade deal would reform this. Yet, when examined the logic doesn’t add up. Any trade deal that would abolish free trade would naturally have to make trade taxed (thus not free) and thus add tariffs. Tariffs makes a corporation pay more money and thus in able to make up for the costs the company (a) pays the workers less or (b) highers less workers. Both of these outcomes are bad, and Con doesn’t explain how tariffs would help workers besides arguing that workers have low wages because of it. But this doesn’t work because firstly a job with low wage is better than no job at all for workers (so free trade is already preferable to Con’s world already) and the alternative would only mean lower wages. Con’s position simply doesn’t work. Gun Rights She was a former delegate, but now only a campaign manager. http://dailycaller.com... Regardless, it is a truism the best indicator of what someone will do is what they say they will do (especially in this instance) so feel free to look through all of Clinton’s quote on what she believes in. Just background checks, closing loopholes, etc. Common Sense stuff https://www.google.com... ISIL Con argues that instead of using Clinton’s after-winning plan of establishing democracy in Iraq (dropping the fact that Clinton’s plan is better at defeating ISIL than Trump’s) that we divide it up and give some to the Kurds and Iran. The problem is that this isn’t Trump’s plan, this is Con’s plan. And thus this doesn’t advance the burden to prove Trump is preferable to Hillary at all. It is irrelevant. Brings us to Iran Con argues that Trump would continue negotiations in the Middle East and then how continued negotiations are important. This argument has no impact because Clinton will also continue diplomacy in the Middle East [1], and thus this argument doesn’t show Trump as preferable. It actually shows it as unpreferable since Clinton has better relations to foreign leaders (see my link to all the foreign leaders who hate Trump.) Brings us to Saudi Arabia Con’s conspiracy theory here is simply unfounded. They donated once to build a library, and a library was built with the money. That was it. An connections to corruption or such are simply unwarranted, and all other points that Con makes aren’t relevant to the debate. That Precious List of Leaders that Hate Trump Con shows that the people that hate Trump are on balance bad people. Although the claims may be true, this doesn’t change the fact that they hate Trump or that they are influential foreign leaders. And those were the impacts of my argument. The impact of my argument is unscathed by this rebuttal. Peace and love. Remember to waive next round [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...