4th DDO Census Debate: Trump v Clinton

Before I begin going into specific responses to my opponent's claims, I'd like to note a glaring theme - or lack of one - throughout his opening statement; namely, his case is build virtually entirely around a negative one of Trump. That is, with the exception of a few relatively minor social issues, he does not argue affirmatively that Hillary Clinton would be a good president. Instead, he instead argues that Trump will be a bad one. Now, I completely understand why he might be reluctant to lay out an affirmative case for Hillary Clinton: it just isn't possible. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politican who has been on virtually every side of every issue. I do not envy his task, but my opponent's strategy is incredibly flawed for one reason; even if we accept Donald Trump as most likely being bad president, he must still prove Hillary Clinton would be better, and in absence of that, he really doesn't have a case. Argument 1 - Immigration and deportationWithout a doubt, Donald Trump's stance on immigration is a key factor in his sudden rise. I'm not going to question the fact that Trump's stated positions on this issue are well outside of what one might expect from an ordinary politican. He cares deeply for the American worker, which is why he is understandably upset that people are losing their jobs to illegal immigrants, and that people like Kate Steinly are being killed by violent illegal immigrants the government has refused to deport. My opponent notes several benefits of illegal immigration: he argues it heavily accounts for economic growth, a sixth of our economic growth from 2000-07. Unfortunately, this is a misrepresentation of his source; Greenspan only argued illegal immigration accounted for a sixth of our increase in the civilian labor force over that period. [1] This is not a good thing; a sixth of our jobs created over that period went to people who aren't legally here and don't pay taxes, rather than Americans or those with legal status who pay taxes. Our unemployment rate peaked at 5.8% during that period - imagine how low our unemployment rate could be if we let Americans do these jobs! [2]He also notes that illegal immigrants have sent $63 billion dollars back home just in the past year. While he presents the latter as a positive fact, demonstrating the humanity of illegal immigrants, I would argue to the contrary: it demonstrates the damage illegal immigration does to our economy. Putting aside the issues with non-payment of taxation as well as the fact these immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans who would do them, this is a net loss of $63 billion from our economy. According to my opponent's own source, 20% of Mexican households are supported by these sorts of remitances. [3] In effect, we are subsidizing Mexico and getting nothing in return. This is the sort of unfairness Trump has correctly brought to attention during his campaign. My opponent also notes that deporting illegal immigrats might result in a slight reduction in wages; however, Tump's tax plan alone would raise wages by 6.5%,[4] far more than the minor losses my opponent notes might occur under deportation. In the case of flip-flopping my opponent attempts to make, Trump did not actually alter his stance on illegal immigration; all he did was argue in favor of high-skilled visas. This is consistent with his platform, which argues for retaining them but raising the prevailing wage. [5] Rather than teetering, Trump has presented a consistent message: we must protect our borders. On a final note, my opponent argues that there is an immense cost to deporting all illegal immigrants. I don't deny that it would not be cheap; two things are worth noting here, however. The first is that Trump has, in actuality, expressed an openness to compromise on this issue. The wall and deportations are a starting point, but everything is negotiable; Trump noted that Rubio's views on immigration are "OK" and that, while he is tougher on it, it is only a difference of 'degree'. [6] Trump is a master negotiator and will no doubt get a great deal. Clinton unifierIn regards to Mexican rapists, Trump never said all Mexicans were rapists. Rather, what he noted was that the people coming over the border illegally aren't necessarily the best Mexico has to offer - many are criminals, such as the muderer of Kate Steinly, who liberal Democrats in San Francisco refused to deport. [7] Clinton supports such 'sanctuary city' policies. [8]Trump has also not caused any riots; Trump supporters have never rioted. These riots are led by leftists, and many of these riots are being caused by paid agitators who oppose him. [9] You may disagree with what Donald Trump says, but the fact is the rioters are people who oppose him. And yes - many riots are being caused by Bernie Sanders supporters. At the recent San Jose riots, Bernie Sanders supporters were documented assualting fellow Sanders supporters after mistaking them for Trump suppoters. [10] My opponent cites a study that has nothing to do with this scenario - it pre-assumes Trump supporters are rioting and harming others. I defy my opponent to provide just one instance of a Trump supporter refusing to help a minority. My opponent also argues that Trump's proposal to surveil certain Muslims neighborhoods and mosques is bad because it is impossible to work and unconstitutional; I disagree. A 2011 survey from Pew noted that nearly half of all American Muslims believe their leaders have not done enough to speak out against terrorism, 20% believe support for terrorism has grown, and 60% are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the US. [11] This helps my opponent, right? Wrong. American Muslims recognize the problem and are willing to help. Trump's proposal to surveil mosques and neighborhoods is not a draconian measure - in fact, it requires the help of American Muslims to work. Surveillance could be as simple as finding patriotic Muslims willing to investigate dangerous neighborhoods and mosques so that their communities can live securely. Is that such a bad idea? By rejecting any surveillance outright, my opponent rejects that very reasonable idea. Domestic policyNow, we finally get to my opponent's affirmative case for Clinton. My opponent notes Hillary Clinton has released more policy papers than Trump. This is true. But does it really matter? I would argue not. Policy papers alone do nothing that verbal statements don't accomplish. Trump is in fact far more open than Hillary in regards to media access - at one point, she hadn't had a press conference in over 180 days, while Trump is grilled almost daily by the media on every issue. [12]In regards to minimum wage, I will note that Trump is open to a minimum wage increase if it helps American workers. Clinton only recently supported raising one after receiving pressure from unions. Abolishing the wage would indeed harm Midwestern states, but so would raising it; after all, the cost of living in San Francisco is more than Witchita. According to the CBO, increasing the minimum wage to just $10 nationwide would result in 500,000 lost jobs. [13] In a way, this would continute the Clinton cartel's disastorous record of destroying jobs - remember that NAFTA killed 700,000 jobs. On abortion, my opponent argues vaguely that Clinton's stance is great and Trump's is awful. I disagree. Clinton's stance on abortion is that it should be legal up until very late in the third term. [14] Contrary to what my opponent says, this is not required by Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade allows for restriction of late-term abortion. [15] The stances of neither candidate are popular; only 20% support a total ban, and only 30% support total legality. [16] While Trump's position on abortion has changed, so has Clinton's; in 2000, she supported late-term abortion bans. Finally, on guns, my opponent makes a baffling argument: Trump has flip flopped on guns. It is true he used to support gun restrictions. But Hillary used to oppose them! [17] In 2008, she ran to the right of Obama on guns. Additionally, given my opponent views SCOTUS rulings as valid, how can he support a candidate who rejects the court's ruling that there is a right to guns? Like Hillary, he must twist himself into a pretzel to attack Trump. References1. . http://immigration.procon.org...2. . http://www.multpl.com...3. . http://www.thedialogue.org...4. . http://taxfoundation.org...5. . https://www.donaldjtrump.com...6. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...7. . http://www.realclearpolitics.com...8. . http://www.breitbart.com...9. . http://dailycaller.com...10. . https://pjmedia.com...11. . http://www.people-press.org...12. . http://townhall.com...13. . http://www.themainewire.com...14. . https://www.americarisingpac.org...15. . http://www.theatlantic.com...16. . http://www.gallup.com...17. . http://www.ontheissues.org...