Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

Conceptual Distinctions: Pro has set up an extremely unfair criteria for assessing Clinton’s actions. His arguments concerning Benghazi and Terrorism may be interpreted and reformulated in the following syllogism: P1) Hillary failed to assume a position that she was not elected to P2) This failure entails that she was poor at her elected position P3) If she was poor at her elected position, she will be a poor president C1) She was poor at her elected position C2) She will be a poor president So when pro states:”. For someone running for president I would expect her to make those strides to try and better America and the world to the best of her ability, even if that is not what she is specifically assigned to do. “ Pro is essentially saying that Hillary failed to do the Defense Secretary’s job for him, so that means she was a poor secretary of state, and by virtue this would make her a poor president, or at least that is how it comes across. And if this is pro’s position, how is this not a blatant non-sequitur? This is like assessing a violinist's capacity to play viola, by how well they play cello. 2. As aforementioned, we judge president’s by policies not scandals. If you ask any political scholar they will assess the effectiveness of Nixon, or Bill Clinton independent of their scandals. So why is it the case that we are going to judge her effectiveness as president on scandals, not policy? Of course this isn’t my argument, but this just seems like pro is unfairly stacking the deck against Clinton. 3. Please refrain from adding new arguments in the fifth round of a five round debate. Rebuttals: Whitewater: Ok let’s try this again. Pro’s claim is that the Clinton’s engaged in illegal actions. Within the legal discourse, if there is not sufficient evidence to indict someone, for all intent and purposes, they did not do it. If you are not convicted of something, then the law cannot hold it against you. It may be the case that the trial was speculative or open to doubts, and it may be tried again, after a second unsuccessful prosecution then something has got to give. However, after a third unsuccessful prosecution, then I believe we have grounds to say that is the case that they didn’t commit the act. So when pro asks “ why was she ruled innocent three times? “ It’s because she really really really didn’t do it. Benghazi: Pro states that this event displays incompetence on Clinton’s part. Once again, how can one be held accountable for someone else's role? More importantly, this is not how the experts interpreted the event. The experts believe the event was responded to quite well, as evidenced by the testimony of the accountability board and House Armed services committee. Also, Clinton certainly can’t be held accountable for this, because the SoS does not have the power to command military action in any capacity. The SoS is not part of the NCA. “Constitutionally, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the national defense rests with the President. Since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the President has used the Secretary of Defense as his principal assistant in all matters relating to the National Military Establishment (NME) -- later the Department of Defense. The Secretary has statutory authority, direction, and control over the Military Departments and is responsible for the effective, efficient, and economical operation of the department.” How can Clinton be implicated for not assuming a task that she can’t constitutionally nor legally undertake? http://www.iwar.org.uk... Terrorism: Pro states:”Once again Hillary Clinton was obviously not the only person involved in this argument. But nevertheless she was involved, not only directly, but in many speeches she supported taking boots off the ground. When they succeeded and this happened, it left a hole from where the Taliban used to be that was replaced by ISIS.” Ok, once again my opponent puts forth an extremely insufficient account of the formation of ISIS. ISIS was founded in 1999, while Hillary was the first lady. Please tell me how the first lady is held accountable for foreign policy. However, let’s jump to what’s happening with ISIS in 2009 when Clinton becomes SoS. As of 2009 when Clinton assumed SoS, ISIS was in a desperate state, as many of its leaders had been killed, and the group was dropped by Al-Qaeda. In 2010, Baghdadi assumed power. This was what catalyzed ISIS’s resurgence. Unless the Obama Administration directly put him in power, I don’t see how they can be blamed. ISIS continued to grow by virtue of the Syrian civil war which was in protest to Assad. America did not put Assad in power. In 2014 ISIS more or less reached their current state. However, Clinton ceased to be SoS in 2013. So given this account of the history of ISIS, and given that ISIS reached their current extremely militarized state that severely serves as a global threat in 2014, how can she be held accountable? I would like pro to cite his source stating that 66 terrorisms had taken place in the US. Now remember, we are speaking in the context of ISIS or radical islamist organizations. There have been 8 terrorist attacks on US soil committed by radical islamist organizations since 2009. Once again, as I have said before, this is NOT her job. I don’t find it to be the case 8 attacks since 2009 is too bad, and even if it was possible to blame Clinton for this, it is still the case that this is an oversimplification. The etiology of radicalism is multifaceted, and it is intellectually dishonest to assign any meaningful blame to Clinton. http://www.dailywire.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... Email: On a philosophical distinction, person X can display a set of undesirable traits Y without X necessarily entailing Y. So Clinton, in a particular instance can make a mistake displaying recklessness, but this doesn’t mean that her presidency would be characterized by recklessness. However, she cites convenience as her cause, is it reckless to seek convenience? It is reckless to jeopardize national security, however as aforementioned there has been no evidence of a security breach. It is also reckless to break the law, however she hasn’t broken any laws.Pro once again states that this is illegal, but in a different manner, stating that one has to seek approval. While this may be a convention, it is nowhere to be found in the legal code. There have been amendments enacted since, however these are irrelevant because one can’t retroactively establish something as illegal. A link to the relevant legal code is below, if pro is going to make the claim that the act was illegal, even though she wasn’t indicted, at the very least he should have to cite the text and provide a reasonable interpretation that could establish the act as illegal. https://www.archives.gov... Gun Control: I believe pro is missing the point. He states:”Con ends his point by saying I have not provided a reason why the gun control measures that were effective in other countries wouldn't work in America. Once again, I never claimed it wouldn't, but those gun control measures would violate the second and multiple other amendments.” That is precisely my point, if a policy is good then it should be enacted. However, since I have provided reasons for its effectiveness, and he has not provided reasons against, it follows that within context this is a good policy, and it necessarily follows that it should be enacted.Gun control in other countries has greatly reduced gun-related crimes. I would argue that less gun crime increases well being, and by virtue of our criteria for good policy, it is necessarily the case that a mechanism through which reduced gun crime is reduced is good. Also, I am not arguing for a gun ban. Control and ban are completely different things. However, shortly on the 2nd amendment “"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." EVERY citizen does not constitute a well regulated militia. This is to effectively equivocate the word “citizenry” and “militia”. It’s not “even if”, it’s obviously the case that people refers to the members of the militia. Pro then proceeds to advance an argumentum ad consequentiam. Just stating that argument X entails unfortunate consequence Y, doesn’t do anything anything to establish the truth of Not X. Which is precisely what pro’s doing. TAX AD NAUSEUM: I believe pro once again misses the point. Although I don’t believe this was the case, however even if it was effective in the 80’s it doesn’t follow that it will be effective now. I don’t have space to argue Reagan, but we have good reason to believe it would be ineffective now. As you recall, I cited an IMF study stating the following:”If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.” The study examined data from 1990-2012. The claim is that Reaganomics does not benefit the middle class like it aims to. This is made clear in the study. GDP growth can be explained by increased disparity, as the rich get really rich. Once again, it is not the case that they will necessarily generate less money, it is the case that they will be required to pay a larger share of their income. Pro’s argument also presumes that the rich actively reinvest in the US, which he has not substantiated. He has provided no reasons to believe this. I ask pro if it all possible to merely offer a closing statement in the final round, and I will as well. It's just proper decorum.