Russia attempted to sway the 2016 US presidential election

Hello. I will rebut Con and extend my arguments.REBUTTALSCon's Round 2 argument hinges on two ideas: [1] Russia's release of DNC emails is irrelevant because said emails are real, and [2] Russia didn't hack the actual votes.In response to [1]: I think it should be obvious why this is incorrect. If someone threatens to release true but damaging information about you, that's blackmail. And if an agent decides to try and get blackmail on Person A to drive them out of business and let Person B's company win the markIsn't it et, then it's obvious that that agent is on Person B's side. It should be even more obvious that the agent is on Person B's side if the agent collected information on BOTH Person A and Person B, but chose to release information only about Person A.This is essentially what happened in the 2016 election: As my evidence shows, Russia had the ability to hack both Republican and Democratic parties and release their internal information, but only hacked the Democratic party. Hence why we have access to the DNC's emails, but not the RNC's.Many people have found items they consider scandalous within the DNC emails -- Pizzagate springs to mind. Imagine, if you will, that the RNC emails had been leaked. It's reasonable that people would have developed parallel conspiracy theories about RNC email content, and that people would have voted against Trump based on those conspiracy theories -- just as they did with the DNC and Clinton. By SELECTIVELY releasing true information, Russia tipped the scandal scales against the Democratic party.Let's say Con and I were both running to be class president. If a third kid, call him Sergei, ran around telling everyone that I had peed my pants in kindergarten (and this was true), that would bias the voters against me -- even if Con themselves had also peed themselves in first grade.Perhaps most importantly, my evidence in Contention One clearly shows that Russia INTENDED to cause harm to the Democratic party. So even if Russia failed, Russia still made the attempt -- which is what this discussion is about, is it not?TLDR: Russia selectively released information with intent to harm the Democratic party. That's swaying the election.In response to [2]: Russia didn't hack the voting machines, I agree. But having a democratic election requires more than just un-hacked voting machines, it also requires a fair appraisal of the evidence for and against each candidate. This topic is: "Russia attempted to sway the 2016 US presidential election". I believe it should be obvious that you don't need to hack the voting machines to sway an election. Indeed: why hack the voting machines when you can just sway people's votes themselves?TLDR: Swaying people's minds is swaying the election.EXTENSION OF PRO CASECon attempts to rebut my first contention, about the targeted release of harmful information against the Democratic party. My response is above. Perhaps more importantly, Con does not contest my evidence that Russia was behind the hacks -- only that true information cannot sway an election. Thus: We must accept that Russia targeted the DNC for hacking, with intent to hurt the Democratic party.Con fails to respond to my second contention about odd Russian connections to the Trump campaign (and the FBI investigation thereof). While evidence is currently only circumstantial, this suggests that Russia was interested in a Trump victory. This contention is totally conceded. Thus: We must accept that Russia attempted to influence people close to Trump.Con fails to respond to my third contention about Russian trolls promoting Trump on social media. This is an obvious attempt to sway people towards Trump. This contention is totally conceded. Thus: We must accept that Russia attempted to change the minds of American voters via a wave of pro-Trump social media shills.TLDR: Russia promoted Trump on social media, influenced advisors close to the Trump campaign, and selectively released information with intent to hurt the Democratic Party -- and Hillary Clinton. This sounds very much like an attempt to sway an election.