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

Why? Because he has ignored my resolutional analysis. The resolutional analysis I presented was simple and he has dropped it throughout today's debate round. This said, his points about Trump being unpopular and all the points I cited in the second round do not stand and should be thrown out of consideration. But even if you want to consider polls I would like to take two points into consideration 1. Polls were completely wrong The funny thing is that Donald Trump has been on a bad side of polls throughout the entire election. EVERY SINGLE POLL said that Hillary would win. What happened? Trump won. As we sat there that night, and states were repeatedly called for Trump, we sat in shock. Why? Because the polls were wrong 2. Poll among the base I believe it is important to look at how polls are conducted. The polls my opponent cited included many people who did not vote for Trump? Hm, wonder why they said they didn't approve? I am going out on a limb here, but is it maybe because they didn't like him the first place? Let's look at how his base voters approve of him for more accurate statistics. 88% of Trump's base voters according to a recent poll [1] have said that they approve of Trump's work in office. Alright, I found this next point very interesting. He talked about how his amnesty source talked quite a bit about how being anti establishment makes Trump bad. I challenge you to read this article and the heart of this article is a bash of President Trump for signing an executive order that prohibited illegal immigrants into the US (or as the article puts it "refugees"). He then said well the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights said Trump says torture is necessary in certain circumstances. First, I would like to say that this commission is a very flawed commission. It takes very weak stances on how it deals with terrorism. To clarify what Mr. Trump had stated, it is that he believes that waterboarding should be allowed to be used on terrorists. This is a very controversial issue and to be honest, if a group of terrorists is planning to bomb the United States, I believe we should do everything in our power to protect US citizens. If my opponent does not believe in the protection of US citizens, lets have another debate, but I think we should put the safety of our country first. This final argument, my opponent comes into this with a flawed mindset. I could ask him the same question. Why did Hillary Clinton call Republicans a "basket of deplorable? " Why did Hillary Clinton call us racists, sexists, and homophobics? My opponent also asked why he would put Neil Gorsuch in his cabinet? If my knowledge of current events is correct, he is an associate justice of the Supreme Court which is not Trumps's cabinet. He next asked why he used Russian intervention? My opponent is not able to decisively show that he used Russian intervention because the FBI cannot even prove after investigating for six months that Trump even allowed Russia to meddle in the election and help him win. Due to character count, I cannot go down each group of people he listed but simply put, Trump did not insult these groups of people, rather he talked about policy reform that he would bring to each of these separate groups. If insulted these groups so bad and called them horrible names, why did they vote for him? A great number of women, African-Americans, and Latinos voted for him. He finally talked about how Trump is make America white and hate again and used different catchphrases, but this my opponent's opinion. I backed up with hard facts that the people of the United States wanted Trump to be President. Trump has not turned our country into a laughingstock but instead has made it a stronger country that has a booming economy. [2] Before I finish out this round, I just would like to quickly say my opponent did drop some of my arguments. He failed to address my point where I asked him to bring up how Trump has said things similar to "Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Marcos, Kim Il-Sung, and other dictators. " This was a major accusation brought up by Pro but never supported. He dropped my resolutional analysis and instead decided to bring up arguments outside of the bounds of today's resolution. He dropped my response to his point about how Hillary Clinton has held many positions. He also dropped my point where I talked about how other women have run for President and wanted to win the Presidency, Hillary is not the first. It is hard, no impossible, to sidestep the facts and this why my opponent has failed to address many of my arguments. I thank my opponent for his time, but I urge a ballot for the Con. Thank you! [1] . http://www.newsweek.com... [2] . http://www.politico.com...