Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

I have decided to first offer argumentation for why I believe Hillary Clinton would be a good president. I was initially going to take a weak position and merely negate pro’s claims, however this is a topic I feel quite strongly about, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so. I will offer refutations in the following round. However, I am puzzled at pro’s round as he didn’t question policies as a standard of measuring good presidents, but he has mentioned nothing of Clinton’s policies, he has just put forth a structureless Gish Gallop of asserted scandals. Furthermore, he has failed to establish how these necessarily entail that Clinton would be a poor president. I suggest that pro take one or two good arguments and develop them as opposed to hurling a lot of minimally developed arguments at me. P1) Good presidents have good policies P2) Hillary Clinton has good policies C) Hillary Clinton would make a good president P1) This is true by virtue of the definitions advanced in the first round. Pro has not demonstrated any contention with this issue, so I take it to be the case that we agree upon the notion that Good presidents possess good policies. P2) While I can’t defend every policy Clinton holds given character limits, I will argue a couple in detail. Taxes on The Wealthy: Hillary Clinton has planned to raise taxes on the wealthy. If it is the case that a policy is moral, then the policy should be enacted, contingent upon if humans should act moral. While I find this to be somewhat of analytic proposition, I will formulate my argument in the form of a syllogism. P1) Humans should act in a way that maximizes well being P2) Imposing higher taxes on the wealthy maximizes well being C) We should impose higher taxes on the wealthy P1) This is axiomatic. While P1 explicitly endorses utilitarianism, however I would assert that all moral systems reduce to this common goal. On deontology certain acts are said to be definitively right or wrong, under the assumption a respective prohibition or permission will increase well being, which may be deduced from the categorical imperative, at least in the functional sense. Even under a contractarian framework, upon forming societies individuals relinquish some of their natural rights in order to promote well being. Increase in well being is especially important in policy making. P2) Most economists, even conservative economists admit that Republican tax plans would entail a severe budget gap, increases in borrowing, and even less taxes paid by the rich. Over the last 15 years tax exemptions have increased, and as the filing of tax returns of such individuals using these exemptions has declined. Furthermore, 70% of capital gains benefits go to the top 1%. However, raising taxes on the wealthy will generate sufficient revenue to fund a multitude of public institutions. Furthermore, raising taxes on the rich will generate revenue without entailing a financial strain, which cannot be said for the middle class, who pay proportionally more than wealthy individuals, who evade taxes via exemptions. Raising the tax burden to 40% on the 1% would generate 157 billion dollars in the first year. Raising it to 45% would generate 276 billion dollars. Raising the tax burden to 40% on the top 0.1% would generate an extra 55 billion dollars the first year, which is more than the combined tuition of every single four year public university in the nation. Raising it to 45% would generate 105 billion dollars. Regarding the 95-99 percentile, a 30% tax would generate 86 billion dollars, and a 35% tax would generate 176 billion dollars, which is the amount the Federal Highway Administration would need to make vast improvements to infrastructure per annum. Imagine that, a 35% tax on the top 4.9-1.1% would pay for the entire cost to significantly improve highway infrastructure. As the well being of the middle class declines, and the rich get richer, I see no justification for the wealthy being able to evade taxes through exemptions. According to the CBO, less invasive methods such as subsidizing capital gains on inherited assets would produce 644 billion dollars in 10 years. Eliminating deferral on foreign profit would generate 900 billion dollars. Individuals who are extremely wealthy, wealthier than ever before, especially taking into account that the middle is worse off than ever before, need to pay their fair share of taxes. C)If we agree that humans should behave morally, and that what is moral is what produces the most well being, which I have established, and that raising taxes on the wealthy would generate income, which can be used towards the public good, then it is demonstrably the case that taxes on the wealthy should be increased. Furthermore, by virtue of our definition of what a good president is, and what good policy is, this constitutes a good policy, and provides a reason for why Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Gun Control Clinton’s gun control policy will entail a net increase in well being. As P1 is the same in this argument, and has already been reasonably affirmed and the P2,C, can be reformulated inputting gun control, I will merely argue that gun control will entail a net increase in well being. The United States is disproportionately affected by gun violence. A United States citizen is ten times more likely to be killed by a firearm than citizens in other developed nations. Gun related death is in the United States is 25 times more likely than in other developed nations. It is necessary to impose background checks to prevent the mentally ill and criminals from obtaining guns. A study authored by contributors from FSU,US, and a North Carolina judge states the following”evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates. Kalesan et al states the following regarding the effectiveness of these measures:”The three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0.39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100R00;000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100R00;000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100R00;000.” While second amendment fervor makes it extremely difficult to reduce the number of guns in America, it is an extremely measure in other countries, subsequently one would rationally deduce that it would be effective in America. Look at the following graphs: s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="736" /> Australian gun violence dropped 72% after imposing stricter gun control after a mass shooting. America has experienced a multitude of shootings, but nothing has been done. In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. It is demonstrably the case that gun control is effective in other countries, and furthermore there are measures within the US gun happy paradigm that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Clinton advances stricter gun control policies which will entail a net increase on well being, given that less gun violence is conducive to producing well being, and as such this is a good policy and by virtue this is another good reason for why Clinton would be a good president. As aforementioned, I will conduct my rebuttal in the next round, however I would like to first say, any asserted scandal that my opponent has merely listed but not explained in detail should be disregarded as he has not shown why this would establish Clinton to be a poor president. Furthermore, he has not explicitly stated why the contentions he has raised would establish Clinton as a poor president. I humbly ask my opponent to abstain from introducing a veritable plethora of unsubstantiated arguments in his next round, all of which I cannot possibly refute given character limits, and instead to stick to refuting my claims and further establishing his arguments. I do not intend any of these criticisms as ad hominems, I’m merely looking to have a structured framework, in such a manner which produces a productive and vigorous exchange.