Bernie Supporters Should Vote For Hillary

I am happy to accept this challenge and I think it addresses a timely and consequential question. --- POSITION --- I don't believe that supporters of a particular candidate in general are under any obligation to vote for a different, "lesser evil" candidate if their preferred candidate appears not realistically viable to be elected. More specifically for this topic, I believe this extends to Sanders supporters voting for Clinton, as there are fundamental differences between those candidates. --- BURDEN OF PROOF --- As my opponent is attempting to argue that people should put aside their convictions and make a compromise for strategic reasons, I believe that the burden of proof falls firmly on him and that I do not need to demonstrate anything, merely undermine his case. I believe that my position--that people should vote for the candidate they most agree with (or not vote at all if they are completely disenfranchised)--is the default and principled approach to voting and that it falls to the "pro" side of this argument to convince readers otherwise. --- REFUTING PRO'S POINTS --- (Paragraph by paragraph, quotes abridged for space reasons, I have no intention to misquote my opponent) "Hillary Clinton is not perfect, no candidate is. [. .. ] If she were elected, she would, without a doubt, be a great President. " This paragraph is full of vague and subjective statements. Additionally, they have no relevance to why Sanders supporters in particular should support Hillary Clinton. Specifically, my opponent states that Clinton "expresses views largely consistent with Liberals. " Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a democratric socialist, not a liberal (1). Therefore, my opponent's assertion refutes his own position by explicitly drawing attention to the fact that Clinton and Sanders support differing ideologies. "Furthermore, while many people do not view Hillary as a progressive, I disagree. [. .. ] At best, she would be a progressive powerhouse, seen as the most progressive President we've ever had, and a President able to work with both sides of the aisle to achieve a progressive agenda. " This paragraph is again full of vague and unsupported assertions. Not a single stance either candidate has taken on any issue is explicitly stated by my opponent. Sanders and Clinton disagree on the following (2): -The minimum wage (Sanders proposes a rate that is 25% higher than what Clinton proposes). -Healthcare (Sanders supports a single-payer system, Clinton does not). -Lawsuits against gun manufacturers (Sanders opposes, Clinton supports). -Education (Sanders supports making public colleges tuition free and eliminating government profit on student loan repayment, Clinton doesn't). -Marijuana legalization (Sanders supports the rights of states to do so, Clinton opposes marijuana legalization). -Police reform (Sanders wants new use of force and internal investigation policies, Clinton doesn't). -Social security (Sanders wants to expand it, Clinton doesn't). -Financial reforms (Sanders wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, Clinton doesn't). -Wall Street reforms (Sanders wants to break up the banks, Clinton doesn't). -ISIS (Sanders has taken an isolationist stance on this, Clinton advocates for strong US involvement, Sanders opposes training Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, Clinton supports doing so). -Syria (Sanders opposes a no-fly zone, Clinton supports it). -Afghanistan (Sanders wants to withdraw troops, Clinton wants to maintain some troops). Clearly there are meaningful and substantial policy differences between these two candidates. In many areas where Sanders has proposed radical changes, Clinton is firmly cemented in the status quo. There is little reason for Sanders supporters to like Clinton on principle. "In addition, I believe the stakes in this election are far too high to consider a protest vote. [. .. ] But for now, we must focus on stopping Donald Trump, who is clearly not the answer to what ails this country. " Contrary to my opponent's summary of this paragraph, this line of thinking is exactly why American politics have gotten to the state they are in, and why demagogues with major party backing are able to be successful. Alternatives have been undermined, disregarded, disempowered, criticized and dismissed as "spoiler candidates. " But that is a self-fulfilling line of thinking, and if it could be seriously challenged, the "third party" candidates wouldn't be likely to be labelled that way anymore (as Sanders' performance in this election in spite of a literal DNC conspiracy against him (3) demonstrates). Many Bernie Sanders supporters would be closer to the Green Party's Jill Stein on issues than they would be to Hillary Clinton. They have no obligation to compromise their principles and vote for a candidate they do not agree with the most, purely for strategic reasons. (1) . http://www.washingtonpost.com... (2) . http://www.businessinsider.com... (3) . https://www.theguardian.com...