Hillary Clinton for President

Gun ViolenceMy opponent starts off his rebuttal in a fairly ridiculous attempt to deter the voter from my sources. If anyone has any doubt about them, I urge you to look at it yourself. My source regarding how Hillary Clinton will expand background checks was written, and I'm willing to believe you chose not to put in the effort to look for the facts. There was a source link within it showing the detailed process of the new system [1]. In this system, like I stated before, by expansion, the system will raise the standard for sales high enough that the current system, with its weak foundation of allowing psychologically unstable individuals to obtain them, removes their eligibility. Something you already pointed out, repetition doesn't help. Your next statements regarding the Charleston loophole isn't offering any help to your argument, you just gave the definition and admitted that Hillary will attempt to plug the loophole. My opponent started to make a strawman fallacy in order to question how Hillary will fulfill these promises. The Charleston loophole can be plugged with extending the background check to an unlimited amount of time, and granting more powers to the checks of the FBI [2]. If you really have to resort to asking 'how' on a subject area as menial as this, you can look it up in any finer details of her sites. As for obtaining firearms, my opponent has also resorted into assumptions. Alcohol and firearms are not the same, guns don't have psychologically addictive chemicals. Not to mention, the police forces of the United States today and their expertise, along with yearly expenditure are far greater than the weak mismanaged police forces of the 1920's [3]. Sure, criminals will find a way to get their guns, but they'll have to try hard for it, and it is better we apply the pressure of the restrictions hard enough the criminals will feel it on their backs instead of inviting them into buying their own arsenals. The next argument of my opponent becomes a lack of me refuting his argument of criminals attaining guns from buyers with clean records which is a fallacious claim. I responded to his prior claim with "My opponent makes a second statement regarding criminal feasibility, and while I doubt how 'easily' can they obtain one, many measures will be taken to minimize all attempts". I didn't need to go into details before, as I mentioned how the background checks and loopholes would be plugged, which I have now gone to the effort of also solidifying (Refer to Source 1). Continuing with Australia, I already refuted your claim that "it didn't work". I provided a graph, along with a two sentence response on how the system worked. If you doubt me, look at the previous round again. Your own source which you used to back your claim of how it didn't work backfired. You should read it closer next time as it states that after the system, the murder rates in Australia "flattened" (As in, fell) with the exception of a brief spike [4]. Your current argument also contradicts with your previous argument stating that "What really occurred after the ban was an increase in murder rate before it eventually returned to around the same" unlike how you are stating now that it was "steadily decreasing 15 years before the massacre" without foundation. I also ask that the next sources you use regarding gun control (National Review) isn't an obvious Republican leaning website with Republican-friendly articles [5], as I provided the effort to present sources news sources, not opinionations. My opponent also attempts to excuse himself for a lack of rebuttal in the prior round to correlation of guns and murder with his current articles, as I pointed out, were biased opinionations. Foreign PolicyThis next argument of my opponent is the cleanest and shortest. My opponent virtually concedes as due to the rules laid out in round 1 "In this debate, I [Con] will argue against a Hillary Clinton presidency. My opponent will argue in favor of it. ", he did not make an argument against her foreign policy, he states he "agrees with it". My opponent uses his own personal matter of trust, but using subjective terms is not helpful to your argument in this debate. Whether you trust her or not, these are her current stances and you have admitted to agreement. Tax ReformMy opponent defends the argument of monopolies in this section of the debate by relying on John Rockefeller, known for using coercion in his monopolies with competitors to raise out the price and profit of his company [6]. You can't expect him to not defend himself, even if he is wrong. "Making a monopoly takes a chaotic market and turns it into an industry. " is not what a monopoly is. It dominates the market and destroys competition [7][8] leaving no obstacles to stop its growth of power until the nation becomes a puppeted oligarchy. That is one of the most dysfunctional principles of laissez-faire [9]. Supermarkets aren't monopolies, because they have competition which they do not coerce with, especially giants like WalMart who still fight against companies like Amazon and Target [10]. ConclusionIn guns, my opponent decides not to recognize that the recent mass shootings after the system were mostly out of terrorist attacks, such as the 2016 Sydney Hostage crisis. The shooter had outside support and was able to funnel weaponry into Australia [11]. The recent surge in terrorist attacks in developed nations is the surge, not the mass shootings as independent psychologically unstable outbreaks [12]. My opponent proved nothing with his opinionation article which was marked with bias, not statistics against correlation, as well as his unfounded statements of the decreasing murders prior to the gun ban, when in actuality, guns were already being slowly restricted [13]. In foreign policy, my opponent makes the ridiculous unfounded claim that "millions of lives were lost" in the Middle East and North Africa because of Clinton when Iraq would have already gone through [14] and Libya was already doomed to fall [15], even without her own intervention. As for my opponent and his trust issues towards Clinton, that is not relative to all, nor is it a solidified argument accompanied by his other subjective claims. In taxation, I don't know where my opponent gets the idea that she "didn't advocate for a limit on taxation", whatever that means. I already gave the definition of a monopoly, and I suggest you update your vocabulary. I thank my opponent for his argument, once again. I'm sorry if I was curt or if I seemed rough in my debate, I just wanted to get my point across strong. Sources[1] . https://www.hillaryclinton.com...[2] . http://www.factcheck.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.mintpressnews.com...[5] . http://www.nationalreview.com...[6] . http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com...[7] . http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...[8] . http://ivn.us...[9] . http://spiderbook.com...[10] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] . https://www.rt.com...[12] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[13] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[14] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[15] . http://www.nytimes.com...