Hillary Clinton would have won the Presidency of the United States over Donald Trump.

So first off, I would like to address that my opponent ignored my resolution analysis and has decided to drop this. I ask the judges to view all of the arguments that referred to how Trump has been viewed after his election or how he has implemented his policies null and void simply due to the fact that we are debating why they should have or should not have been elected. This should be a debate on their platforms and campaigns. If my opponent had wished to debate Trump is a bad President, he should not have chosen this resolution. Now moving into his point about the electoral college. I am a bit confused. Is he saying that Clinton would have won if there was no electoral college? If so, that should have been clarified in the resolution or in the first speech because that is a simple fact but I guess I will debate on why the electoral college is an important of our American society. You see, people tend to believe that America is a democracy, which is true to a point, but rather we are a Constitutional Republic. The Founders wanted to avoid the "mob rule" system. They sought to avoid contentions within the system. Imagine if an election came down to a tiny margin (like the Trump v. Clinton election). Trump would have called for a recount in just about every state. This would be a waste of federal funds and time. The Electoral College also forces candidates to win votes in states that where he does not have as much appeal. With a simple majority rule system, the President would simply be a regional favorite instead of a candidate who has to go to places where he is not supported as much and win the tough votes. [1] His next point about how Donald Trump was a bragger. Um? I think that could be said about any Presidential candidate? Every Presidential candidate tells the people how great they are and what they have done and how they can use that if they are President. I fail to see how that point applies. My opponent then talked about how he bullied other candidates. My opponent never provided a definition of bullying so it is hard to know exactly what he means when he says bullying but let's say he means that Trump called them names. Once again, negative campaign ads that are meant to hurt the other candidate's credibility are run a lot. Trump was simply taking a full negative ad and simplifying it into catchy nicknames that the people wanted to hear. This once again applies back into my second contention. The people wanted someone who was going to take a tough stance and not be politically correct. So I have two major responses to my opponent's response to my third contention. First off, I believe the article he cited comes from a biased source. It was written by Occupy Democrats, a site that is meant to support Democratic ideals. But if that isn't enough, this article falls outside of the bounds of today's resolution. The study cited talks about he is dislike because of his ousting of fake news AFTER he became President. Because this does not deal with during the election I ask this study to be thrown out of today's debate round. Even if you decide to count this though, let us look at a study that disproves my opponent's study. According to Forbes, only 29% of the American people trust the media and 37% believe the White House. Yes, the numbers are low on both sides but the American people currently trust Trump more than the media showing us that he is winning the war on fake news. [2] Pro next went on to talk about how world leaders hate him once he stepped in office. Once again, I remind you that anything that happened once he stepped in office should not be allowed in today's debate round because it does not fall under the resolution Finally, he argued that Trump's words are "like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators. " This is completely hearsay until my opponent brings up specific language that copies "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators. " Not only must he bring up just a copy of just one (which would be interesting to see) but Pro must bring up how Trump has used the words of all those dictators because my opponent used the conjunction and. When using the conjunction "and" my opponent is referring to these as a set. He is simply saying that Trump has used the same words as all of those dictators and if that is true, I would love to see evidence of that. The American people elected Trump to be their President because he ran a better campaign, tore off the shade of political correctness, and engaged in communication that the people wanted. [1] . http://www.slate.com... [2] . https://www.forbes.com...