Hillary Clinton's Statement on Scott Walker and Planned Parenthood is False.

I thank Con for his arguments. While they are brief and while they mostly just bring up potential nitpicks at my arguments, they do deal with a bit, and I would like to, in detail, refute most of what he has put forward. I will number my refutations in order of how he has discussed my case. 1. I fail to see validity to Con’s comments about my point on true and false statements being hearsay, or mere gossip/rumors. I showed where the email came from [2], and calling that gossip/a rumor, when I have documented proof from an writer at Politifact that this is one way they consider cases, is simply a misnomer. I used this Reed example because it relates to Clinton’s statement on how it attaching absolute terms (“stranded” and “nowhere to turn”) to a nebulous subject matter. I never said this is not just one way they consider things to be true or false, but it does give insight into if this current statement can also be considered false by those same standards. If it can be, then I have fulfilled my BOP and affirmed the resolution, as there is no reason to call one statement “Half-True” and one “False” using the same standards when both commit the same crime. 2. I would like it noted that Clinton’s statement was exclusive to “...cancer screenings, breast exams and birth control” [3]. If I can show that CHC’s provide these already, then Con’s entire rebuttal would be disproven. If Con would check source [4], he would see that I have done so already. CHC’s provide much more expansive care than PP’s, with mammograms (which PP doesn't do) and without abortions. CHC’s provide pap tests and mammograms, other family planning services (like birth control), and cancer and communicable disease screening [4] [10] [11]. With this, my previous argument remains valid, as CHC’s provide the exact same services that PP’s do in the area’s Clinton’s statement covers, which is all I need to prove. This argument clearly stands. 3. My next point is working to just dispel the notion that this is entirely at the fault of Walker. Let’s use a thought experiment: Let us say that a woman is dating a man. The woman discovers soon that the man is married to another woman and that he is cheating on her. The non-married woman gives the cheating-husband a choice: choose between your wife or I. The woman gives the man three days to do this. To seize on this opportunity and collect various benefits, the cheating-husband kills his wife and collects insurance money after making it look like a robbery. Is the non-married woman culpable for the woman’s death? While not a perfect example, it goes to show how most of the culpability lies in the hands of the people, administrators and heads of PP, in making decisions. If we go on to entirely blame Walker, we can use the same line of reasoning to blame the non-married woman for the death of the wife, even though all they did was give a choice. Walker didn’t ask for PP to be shut down completely, but to stop performing abortions, just as the non-married woman didn’t ask for the wife to be murdered, only for the cheating-husband to stop having an affair and choose. PP administrators deserve blame in this situation, as they are the one’s who decided to not comply with newly installed Wisconsin law and continue doing abortions. They chose to defy state law and continue what they were doing. Culpability lies in the hands of the heads and administrators of the 5 PP’s that shut down, not necessarily Walker. While he did give the choice, it remained a choice, and one those 5 PP’s clearly made. 4. I am confused as to Con’s dismissal of my 4 PP’s that lost state funding and didn’t close down. It asked a serious question: why would 5 PP’s close down and 4 remain just fine? If this was just merely one or two closings, then it could be attributed to hard economic times, but it’s not, and it can’t be. This just goes further to show mismanagement and preparation for the consequences of choices PP made with the ultimatum, unless my opponent can provide another explanation. Even if he could, my point in point 3 still stands. 5. It is one thing to say that that a decision has caused discomfort or will take a bit longer; it is another thing to say that a decision has caused people to be stranded and to leave them with nowhere else to turn. The two are not synonymous. Discomfort on a subway is the not the same as being stranded on an island. My point of factoring out the costs was to show how something like this can be planned and anticipated and isn’t a large struggle at all. With time, it is reasonable to assume that women can find time in their schedule, most likely in the same block of time that they would go to the previous PP nearest to them. With discomfort, it may be a bit more difficult, yes, but the are discomforts in life all of the time. Restaurants and shops close down, friends move away, jobs take people to other places across the globe, any number of things. It is not the state’s job to control such things; more to the point, that is not the same thing as being “stranded” or having "nowhere else to turn." Not to mention, my larger point about CHC’s still stands and proves the resolution even Con finds a way to disprove this. 6. With the PP closings and adjusting, I think considering the women who went there had relationships with their doctors, and went there fairly regularly, and had a community that went there too, it is reasonable to assume that women would have known about the closings, and would have found time to adjust while the PP’s closed. It would take a large leap in faith to assume that they wouldn’t have known. 7. I think Con makes a critical error in his arguing. He says, “While they might ignore certain factors, they do raise the point that many women were left theoretically stranded when their PP closed. I’ll concede that the “Nowhere to turn” is false, which is why the statements are half true.” The problem here is that “Nowhere to turn” and “Stranded” are still relatively synonymous. If one is stranded, they have nowhere else to turn. If one has nowhere else to turn or go, they would be considered stranded, lost, helpless, and/or grounded. Con conceding that “‘Nowhere to turn’ is false...” is a critical flaw as he also dismisses all he was saying about being “theoretically stranded.” He has, essentially, conceded the debate with this. One cannot be “theoretically stranded” and have somewhere to go, or else they aren’t even stranded in the first place. Conclusion: While Con does do well (and in my favorite font, too), I am afraid he fails to prove Clinton's choice of words are valid and thus fails to defend her; they still remain absurd and overly-dramatic word choices, and they make her statement overzealous and, hence, False. I have upheld my BOP and dismissed all of Con’s arguments extended forth, and affirmed the resolution. I have upheld the points that: -CHC’s are ubiquitous and provide everything Clinton is talking about, thus showing how women do have places to turn for the exact same services and are not stranded. -PP administrators made a choice to defy state law and continue abortions procedures and lost the state grant, leading to eventual financial mismanagement of money already coming in from other sources/closings, and thus are culpable for the closings. -PP’s still exist (22 currently) and aren’t hard to get to, money or time wise. -Discomfort is not the same as being theoretically stranded. -How nobody's really ever stranded, considering that they are free to move anywhere (a point Con hasn’t even touched on) -Con partially conceded the debate already by saying that “Nowhere to turn...” is false, which makes it impossible to be stranded. Clinton can say it was inconvenient, or uncomfortable, or made it a tad harder, or a tad more difficult, but using the words “Stranded” and phrases such as “Nowhere to turn,” misses the mark still, and causes her statement to retain no element of truth. Women can go places still, and they still have those places to which to turn. Clinton's statement remains lacking any element of truth, which I have extensively shown and upheld. I strongly affirm the resolution once again, and rate Clinton’s statement as False. I thank Con for a great debate, and I strongly urge a vote for Pro. Over to Con. Sources: http://www.debate.org...