Positive debate Trump vs Hillary

Con: "You imply that more guns implies more safety. If this were true, then the country with the most guns would have the least gun deaths, right?" "The United States, contrary to your claim, leads in gun deaths among developed countries. Thus, stricter gun laws and background checks do not make citizens less safe." This is the equivalent of seeing a dog's tail wag, hitting off a light switch, and now assuming the dog's tail is the reason lights turn off. Just because something happens in one instance, that doesn't make it the cause. There are many things relsted to violence like: 1)Culture 2)Upbringing 3)Television, movies, social media, youtube... 4)Not inforcing the gun laws you have. 5)Suicides... I could say, "no one has assassinated Obama, thus guns kept him safe, seeing the secret service carry them. Maybe, maybe not. * Con brought up this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... What is left out is that suicide is by far the leading cause of gun death in the U.S. People aren't using guns typically to kill each other, but to kill themselves. If they had no guns, they'd use pills, razor blades, ropes, etc, or screw the law and use a gun anyway. People getting ready to off themselves have no concern for gun laws. -"More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide." Con: "Checks on gun purchases could reduce gun violence by 56.6%" 1)Columbia Univ. is a liberal agenda machine, as are many universities nowadays. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com... 2)It would reduce gun related suicides, and... We know who will have guns no matter what the law says: -terrorists -the government -criminals http://mobile.nytimes.com... So essentially we would rob Peter to pay Paul. -Gun suicides might go down -Suicides by other methods would go up. -Gun deaths of the innocent by terrorism or criminal activity go up per the people being unarmed. * Con: "There's a handy little pie chart right at the top of the article that shows that they got their money from speaking, writing, consulting, and advising." To? Banks, investment firms, Goldman Sachs and repeatedly...Which is how lobbyists hand money under the table. $600,000+ for one speech? Uh huh...when pigs fly. And then the contents of many of these "speeches" seems to be classified information...So she does know how to keep things classified...just as I suspected. http://www.cnn.com... http://money.cnn.com... http://m.huffpost.com... * Con: "You only get fined if you can afford it but choose not to get insured!" Everyone I know that had no insurance got fined, including people like my cousin on welfare. * Con: "About immigration--you are implying that no non-English speaking immigrants should be admitted into the country, which would kill our economy." Con admits the Democrats are practicing plantation politics. They are being brought in for cheap labor and not some crusade to "do the right thing". The Liberals are bringing in slaves to do the labor. This is the madness that constitutes Democrat politicians "whoring for votes" from minorities. "We'll toss you some scraps if you keep us in power." If we used primarily our own people for labor, wages would go up, unemployment would go down, violence and crime would go down, and people needing welfare would go down. * Con: "As a nation of immigrants, it's against our basic American values." This is a deceptive concept. Most of the country is Christian, but most liberals get huffy if you say Christianity is "where we got our American values". If Christianity is not "where we got our American values", I don't remember a vote on what "our values" are. Why can't we have the "value" of shutting down borders to protect our children and citizens? Half of the country does not adhere to Con's concept of "American values", seeing liberalism as selling out the country to foreign oligarchs and other cultures inferior to our own. Can 350,000,000 people not repopulate and run this country? At some point we have to realise that our enemies are from foreign cultures, want to infiltrate our borders, and even want to infiltrate our government to change our laws based on non-Westernised concepts like democracy. * Con: "According to Politifact, Obama has kept the vast majority of his promises." Just not the big ones that got him elected...But he did pull all our troops out...and the Middle East became a hell hole and Europe is in crisis from overflux of Middle Eastern assylum seekers and refugees, taxing their law enforcement to exhaustion, breaking their welfare system, causing crimewaves, ghettos, rape epidemics, and skyrocketed unemployment via these non native language speeking asylum seekers who have no education or skills, and is even causing a race divide, hatred by migrants towards the hosting nation, and serious accusationd of possible civil wars. Liberalism at work... * Con: "What possible sort of economic barrier could be preventing us from doing this?" 1)The same one that keeps them threatening to ditch social security because we can't afford it anymore. 2)$19 trillion in unpaid debt. That far exceeds our GDP. Now the debt has put us in danger of inability to get a foreign loan. That is very problematic. Free schools- 1)What this does is handicap the school system with the inability to pay professors well, so the level of education goes down. What great mind would want to go to school for 10-12 years to be a professor for meager wages? The system in place now provides grants for poorer students and charges the rich full price. Free tuition just gives the rich who receive no grants, free tuition. And now that the wealthier families have more and the poor have a little more, the prices of consumer products go up. The poor wind up with a tradeoff that redistributes more from their pocket to the rich. http://www.businessinsider.com... * Con: "I would love to respond to your main arguments." Go ahead.