Positive debate Trump vs Hillary

Round 1 rebuttals: About his family supporting him: Hillary's family supports her as well. Since your statement goes for both candidates, it cannot truly be seen as an argument specifically for Mr. Trump. You say that words are cheap and actions are what matter. Let's review what Trump has done: He has outsourced his products to "Bangladesh, China, Honduras, and other low-wage countries." (https://www.washingtonpost.com...)And yet he says, "We need somebody that can take our jobs back from China." (https://www.washingtonpost.com...) You can't get much more hypocritical than that. His businesses have filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, and he says, "I'm going to do for the country what I did for my business." (https://www.theguardian.com...) This is why we can never let this man become president. 1) According to the latest Pew Research Poll, Hillary leads Trump among women by a whopping 16%. (http://www.pewresearch.org...) 2) Well, good for him. He still said, "You have to treat [women] like s**t." (http://www.politico.com...) 3) What about his recent remarks when he said that women should find new jobs if they are sexually harassed? (http://www.usatoday.com...) Nobody should have to leave their career because of harassment. That doesn't seem like respect or support to me. 4) Again, this goes for both candidates. They are both trying to find ways to protect the country from attacks like the one you mention. Donald Trump's method, however, is overly simplistic and not appropriate for a complex situation such as the refugee crisis. Hillary, however, is dedicated to finding smarter vetting strategies that will keep our country safe while granting refuge to people fleeing violence. Choleric personality: Well, first of all, choleric doesn't mean what you say it means. Choleric: 1.easily moved to often unreasonable or excessive anger: hot-tempered 2.angry;irate(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) But I'll just assume for a moment that it means what you say it means. I would like to point out that Clinton also has this temperament. "Leaders and directors": Hillary has served two terms as a senator, has been the First Lady of the United States, and served for four years as Secretary of State. "Will rise to the challenge": After her husband's comprehensive health care reform bill failed, Hillary led the charge to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which gave millions of children access to health insurance. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) "Thick-skinned": Hillary has been vilified by men and women of both parties for decades. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) No matter what you think of her policies, you have to admire that she continues to fight for what she believes in. Thus, this is also not really an argument for Mr. Trump, as it applies to both candidates. Why Trump? rebuttals 1. No, he is not an ordinary politician. And no, that's not necessarily a good thing. A politician is not an inherently bad thing to be. The two brilliant men you mentioned earlier, Roosevelt and Churchill, were both politicians. Unless you can prove that all politicians are immoral or dishonest people, this argument is invalid. 2. Well, "this cannot be overstated enough" is an oxymoron, but I get your point. However, unless you can prove that Hillary is corrupt, then this point is really irrelevant. 3. Yes, Trump is willing to talk to Putin. So are Obama and Hillary. The current president has held several meetings with Putin. (http://www.cnn.com...) The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump has repeatedly praised dictators such as Kim Jong Un, Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, and Vladimir Putin. (http://www.cnn.com...) Meanwhile, he picks fights with the U.K., our closest ally, and threatens to abandon our allies in NATO, leaving the door open for Putin to invade the Baltic States without much opposition. 4. This point is rather irrelevant because the first family doesn't have any power. Why does the first family really matter? Mike Pence: You say that Indiana has had AAA ratings since 2010; actually it was July of 2008. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)That's about five years before Pence took office, implying that the state was enjoying a general economic upswing. Pence doesn't have much to do with it. Mike Pence also has a long record of being anti-LGBT and anti-women's rights. In March of 2015, he signed a bill that allowed businesses to discriminate against gay, lesbian, or transgender people. In 2011, he forwarded an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. He has said gay marriage signals "societal collapse" and opposed the repeal of the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Do we want someone who is so blatantly anti-LGBT and anti-women's rights as the closest advisor to the president? http://time.com... http://www.motherjones.com... I will make some of my rebuttals to your Round 4 arguments now and some in the next round because I am running low on characters. You have a good point about culture, upbringing, and the like. We can simply compare our statistics here in the United States with other countries with similar cultures (such as Canada and Western Europe) to test my claim. As you can see by the articles I cited earlier and their statistics about per capita gun deaths, this still holds true. Pro: "Columbia Univ. is a liberal agenda machine, as are many universities nowadays." Read their methods for their research. (http://www.thelancet.com...(15)01026-0/abstract) As long as there is nothing that would indicate bias in the study methods, this information is still valid.Pro: "More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die from suicide."In that case, gun control would still save about 7,020 American lives every year. How could this possibly be a bad decision?Unfortunately, I've run out of characters. I will respond to the rest of your Round 4 arguments next round.Thank you!