Who should be the next POTUS???Donald Trump(PRO).......Hillary Clinton(CON)

Pro's case: Contention 1: Border not being left alone: [1] The US currently spends $3.7 billion/year to keep ~21,000 border patrol agents and another $3.2 billion on 23,000 inspectors at ports of entry, a third of which has already been fenced off. Their source indicates that Mexico's purpose for the pamphlet is to only protect migrants if they so choose to illegally immigrate- it doesn't encourage them. "It is a natural and fair response to consider this as an attempt to promote undocumented immigration, but that is absolutely not the intent of the Mexican government." [2] There's no way that Mexico's going to pay for the wall. Voters, be extremely skeptical of the pro's case- they don't have sources that indicate that Mexico will be able/want to pay for the wall. They just have a blind plan text of Trump with no solvency and now a huge spending disadvantage at best. This issue is won by con because Mexico won't pay. [3] Crime rates by illegal immigrants have dropped by a lot EVEN as the proportion of Americans born on foreign grounds increases. Also, there is absolutely no conclusive correlation between immigration and crime. [4] Even so, American born citizens are even higher prone to violent crime than immigrants. [4] As an example, El Paso, a city with a population of 500,000, has one of the lowest crime rates in America despite sitting across the Rio Grande from the horribly crime plagued Juarez. Finding all of the immigrants would be pretty difficult and in order to do this, the criminal record of each immigrant would need to be ignored. [5] The administration would have to stop focus on deporting serious criminals. [5] Even if Trump tripled the amount of ICE deportation officers, that would be insufficient not to mention the spending disadvantage and time it takes to get the personnel trained. This dis-ad links back into my economy disadvantage to Trump, but more on that later. [5] The FBI would have to get in the way and set aside some of their important missions in order to help ICE deport. [6] No solvency: Not only does the wall perpetuate the idea of xenophobia, it'd have to break ~36 laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Independently, the wall won't work. [6] Around half of the unauthorized immigrants came from legal means such as airplanes and ports. Contention 2: [7] Huge uniqueness issue: Hillary Clinton is already pushing for huge VA reform. The net benefit is the lack of privatization. Trump plans to allow the VA industry to be privatized which leads to huge impacts. If the government performs a function directly, there are public forms of accountability checking exploitation. [8] However, with privatization, the result is muddled middle ground with a lack of accountability that we can't predict the results of in the interest of capitalism. [9] Consolidation of political decision making in elite hands increases the risk of every existential threat we face today. Trump rejected to call McCain a war hero because he was captured? That seems kind of anti-vet to me... Contention 3: Hillary's emails were not dangerous in any way. [10] At best they were careless and she owns up to that. It was a mistake. Just because she made a mistake doesn't mean she's disqualified from president. [10] Clinton's emails posed no major threat to America and were deemed subordinate to top secret. Hillary's email problem is imaginary. The FBI found no reason to prosecute. Extend the pro's argument that liars doesn't deserve a seat in office, I'll turn it. [11] Not only does Trump empirically lie more than Hillary, but people vote him up higher in the polls as a habitual liar. The pro made the fallacy of Ad Populum- asserting something based on popular opinion. Be skeptical of this contention, my arguments outweigh the pro's on the fact that the FBI's credibility outweighs the pro's sources' credibility. There is a ton of suffering happening in the Middle East right now. EVEN if ISIS were to send attacks through Syrian Refugees- it wouldn't matter. [12] ISIS attacks are inevitable and limiting immigration can't even get close to preventing them. Contention 4: Hillary has evolved her position on LGBT rights. She's accepting the money because it would help her solve the issues that those very people are advocating, there's nothing wrong with her accepting a donation from the enemy in order to stop their monstrous practices and this contention provides no reason to vote against con. My case: Contention 1: First of all, attempting to gain offense by listing Hillary's "bad" track record will get the pro no where in this debate with how many concessions were made in this contention. I don't have space to refute point by point, but use my framework to see why qualifications are key(pro cedes that). I could go on for days about Trump's bad track. Trumps's quals: 1.) [13] He was at least was a military general/governor 2.) I never said he hated their culture, I just said he was ignorant. That's the second source from my first speech. 3.) Sorry, forgot to tag. That was my third source. He's empirically ignorant. 4.) This argument does nothing to answer the fact that Trump is used to being the leader- my ev indicates that Trump will have a hard time adapting while Hillary Clinton is already ready. My claims are sourced, pro should probably check out the sources section. If my opponent bothered to look at my sources, the warrants are all present. Also, a lot of the arguments I made are analytical and don't necessarily require cites such as the ignorance argument. Why vote con? Pro has ceded a sourced claim that specialized skill is key- as a result they concede the fact that Trump has a uniquely higher chance than Hillary to fail in office. Err on the side of caution- that was my fourth source that was completely ceded by pro. Contention 2: Pro completely misses the point of my argument. I argued that Trump's ideological underpinning would hurt the LGBT community by perpetuating the impacts. They say danger of opposing genders in same bathroom- No danger, attack would be inevitable if someone really wanted to. There are no filters to keep men out of woman's restrooms anyways. Answer to Syrian Refugees and LGBT money for Hillary is answered earlier. They say Congress likely to be Republican- Doesn't matter, we are arguing a hypothetical. Not whether something would happen, but should. Why vote con? They cede state-level anti-transgender legislature which doesn't solve. I argue that Trump's delegation would be comparatively worse than keeping all transgender legislation federal level and his bad ideology would perpetuate impacts.[14] Vote con to promote Hillary's pro-LGBT policy that's comparatively better than Trump's. [14] He'll appoint judges that overturn marriage equality, Contention 3: Pro concedes that Trump was imitating the reporter which is my exact argument. It doesn't matter how long it's been- extend the entire argument that he victimized the disabled because it was completely ceded. Impacts and framework ceded- remember voters, I argued that you evaluate this arg first. Contention 4: China just buys US debt. Also, pro misses the point and cedes the fact that we create an irrational threat out of China in the first place. The pro provides no reasoning as to why we should believe these threats that Pan argues are constructed, even if seemingly real. Re-read impacts to see why you vote con on this. Contention 5: Trump causes recession, this is ceded- extend my ev. Also, pro's source link doesn't work and is not reliable. Contention 6: I argued the implications of such law, which is ceded by the pro. Contention 7: They cede Russia is powerful. I argue that Trump diverges from Trump's policies and that's ceded too, vote con for impacts. This is a prereq to US and Russia coop. Contention 8: He said he was joking about the Chinese fabricating climate change in my source, he really thinks climate change is a hoax. [16] Also, Clinton has supported the coal industry for ages. [16] She was taken out of context. [15] Hillary is a step in the right direction for climate. [18] Warming is real - all factors confirm. Vote for con here: Climate impacts are ceded, Trump bad for climate ceded, vote con for risk of extinction Sources: [1] http://foreignpolicy.com... [2] http://www.cnn.com... [3] http://www.economist.com... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5] http://www.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.esquire.com... [7] http://www.militarytimes.com... [8] http://prospect.org... [9] http://www.nyu.edu... [10] http://nypost.com... [11] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [12] http://www.slate.com... [13] https://www.whitehouse.gov... [14] http://www.teenvogue.com... [15] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [16] http://www.politifact.com... [17] http://www.nytimes.com...