Negative Debate: Trump v. Clinton

Well, first I'll respond to your arguments from Round 2. Here they are. First of all, she didn't make the joke. Bill de Blasio did. And last I checked, Bill de Blasio is not Hillary Clinton. Secondly, the joke was pre-planned and intended to be a jab at political correctness gone overboard. So a Clinton surrogate made a cringeworthy joke in which the intended punchline was "cautious politician time." Donald Trump actually made statements that proved that he believed black people were fundamentally and inherently incompetent. He showed that he was actually, in fact, racist. So to prove that Mr. Trump is racist, I used a direct quote. You, instead of providing actual quotes or policies that Hillary supports, you quote a sheriff. We're not debating about whether or not a sheriff from Wisconsin can be president. We're debating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. So your claims of "plantation politics" just don't cut it. Give me evidence, and I will respond in full to your argument. Next you still continue to insist that Saudi Arabia "owns Hillary." I fully understand Saudi Arabia's grievous human rights violations. The thing is: they're not funding her! Just look in my arguments above. About the emails--I concede this point. Yes, it was stupid, and careless, and she should not have done it. We agree on this point. I, however, have two responses. 1. So you claim that Hillary made it easier for other countries to hack her emails. Just yesterday, Mr. Trump actually invited Russia, an adversary of the United States, to hack us. Is this the kind of behavior that we will see from him in office? Inviting a foreign country to carry out cyberattacks on the United States is much, much worse than being careless so that countries may more easily hack us. 2. With the amount of political protest and negativity that surrounds this scandal, we can be sure that she'll never do it again. Enough said. Next you mention Benghazi. Here's what I always say to counter that argument: House Republicans interviewed Hillary Clinton for eleven hours on this topic. And guess what: they found nothing. She is quite obviously not guilty. We can be sure of this because that even if there had been something extremely minor--a breach of some obscure protocol, for example--then the Republicans would have blown it completely out of proportion. Yet we've heard nothing from that House committee. Next you criticize the Iran deal. Let's put this in context. Iran had just attained enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. You say Iran is "the most apocalyptic nation on Earth," so we can probably assume that they would have used that bomb sooner or later. But if we lift their sanctions, guess what? We don't get nuked! Now what would have happened if we hadn't gotten that deal? Iran's economy would be a bit worse, and we would get blown to bits. I wonder which country gets the bad side of that deal? Lifting sanctions is a small price to pay for our lives. Rebuttals to Round 3: Again, you claim plantation politics and racism without a single shred of evidence. This argument about racism is basically invalid. I would like to point out that since you haven't responded to my arguments about Mr. Trump's blatant racism, you have effectively conceded this point. From this point on, it is to be assumed that Mr. Trump is an overtly bigoted individual, unless you respond to this argument in future rounds. Your arguments about sexism are mostly about Bill. We're not debating Bill Clinton. We're debating Hillary, who has been a champion of women's rights since the beginning. Donald Trump? Not so much. Unless you think that being treated like s**t is a fundamental right of women, this man is sexist. End of story. Next you make more claims about Saudi Arabia. Enough of that. I debunked that in Round 2. Con: "His daughters, wife, and ex Wives all say differently." These are three people. The rest of the country begs to differ. According to the latest Pew Research Poll, Hillary leads Trump among women by a record-breaking 16%. (http://www.pewresearch.org...) Next I will respond to your six points about Hillary. 1. Classified materials: Just see my rebuttals above. 2. Saudis: Again, I debunked this. Enough about Saudi Arabia. Choosing to believe a report put out by a media institution and then refusing to believe a statement from that same institution about how the report was false is hypocritical and inconsistent. 3. 9/11: See above. 4. Iran: I already responded to this. If the deal hadn't occurred, the U.S. would likely have been bombed. You prove this because you say that Iran is our "most deadly enemy" and is "congenitally hostile" towards the country. Again, giving an adversary government a better economy is a small price to pay for our lives. 5. ISIS: Well, this is false on two counts. First of all, the group is not unvetted. The United States vets its refugees more thoroughly than any other immigrant group. In some cases, it takes two whole years. Here's the whole process: https://www.whitehouse.gov...;6. Muslim Brotherhood: The source you cited does not give any evidence to your claim, but it provides a link to a website that does, from PJ Media: https://pjmedia.com...'s their three pieces of evidence:1. Her mother is tied to the Muslim Sisterhood.2. Her mother is on the board of an Islamic organization3. Huma Abedin formerly belonged to a group for Muslim minority affairs. It was a peaceful, moderate organization similar to the CAIR.Well, I believe I've responded to all of your arguments. Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!