Debate: It is preferable Hillary Clinton is elected rather than Donald Trump

Progressive Economics Con argues that both Trump and Hillary support a progressive tax. The difference is that Trump supports a tax on all high-income elites whilst Clinton will allow loopholes for Wall Street billionaires. Regardless of the fact that Con’s argument here is completely unwarranted (Con provides no evidence that Clinton’s plan allows loopholes, and it doesn’t [1]), even if this path of thought works, Trump is *more* likely to use tax loopholes given that he *is* a high income elite businessmen, and businessmen have many connections with other businessmen. Also, I *turn* Con’s impact that the wealthy-elite don’t pay any taxes by bringing up Trump’s massive tax cuts for the rich. Raising taxes creates revenue for the US. This can be used to pay off the debts. Having lower revenue makes it harder to pay off the debts. A positive $191 billion is better than losing $9.5 trillion. *Turn* my opponent’s argument that the national debt is caused because, the expenditures of the US gov't tend to far exceed its incomes almost every year by trillions.” because Trump’s plan would decrease the income by $9.5 trillion, and thus by Con’s reasoning Trump’s plan leads to a greater national debt. Side note: Con’s weird argument on Keynesian tactics or whatever is simply false given that Obama has significantly benefited the economy including 9 million new jobs, decreased crime, and 15 million more people with health insurance [2]. Free Trade Con argues that Presidents ought to seek to benefit the US rather than other countries. This is simply logically false. Every single entity intrinsically seeks to maximize desirable states and minimize undesirable states. I as an individual seek to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering to myself, because this is what I desire. I can also see that other beings desire this too, that is why saving someone from suffering out of no exceeding harm to myself is a *good* thing. Creating a thousand employment opportunities at the expense of a million lives simply isn’t a morally or logical thought. A president is a being, a government is an acting entity, thus they still fall under the scope of moral action. They still ought to seek to reduce suffering, they *have* to as acting entities. Thus, governments and presidents have to use utilitarian calculations when making decisions. Obviously they can value bringing bringing a thousand jobs to the US rather than to Australia. But not killing millions for such a superficial value such as employment. The reasoning is inherently flawed. In accordance to the truism that is moral calculation, Clinton is preferable to Trump. Even regardless of this, free trade helps the US, it doesn’t hurt us. Con’s arguments against this is that (a) Trump wants to renegotiate the trade deals which isn’t true as Trump wants to “rip them up” and doesn’t work anyways because it is unwarranted and doesn’t work anyways because he supports tariffs thus against free trade. And (b) cutting corporate taxes makes up for it. This doesn’t work because the difference is that tariffs result in retaliatory tariffs, as when China nearly collapsed the poultry industry by raising their tariffs in retaliation [4]. Side note: Con does a straw man when he says that I assume Trump would cut all economic ties, all I said was that he will impose large tariffs which Con concedes. Gun Rights The audience is faced with two sides, a volunteer local campaign organizer versus Clinton herself. Which source is closer to the truth? Hmmmmm….. Corruption Trump University was sued due the fact that they broke the law by claiming that they were a university, which it is not. And secondly that it systematically preyed on the uneducated and elderly to sign up for business education when all it actually gave were motivational speeches: thus dishonest advertising [4]. Regardless, debating this point is boring. The only way that these corruption arguments have an impact is if Con proves that they affect the national wellbeing. How does Con argue that corruption affects national welfare? He doesn’t, thus the idea that either candidate’s corruption has impact is negated. Foreign Affairs First of all, Con’s point that Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with stopping terrorism since Con does not connect it to Clinton being kinder on terrorists, or any effect in the violence of terrorist groups. If anything it is a positive since the “terrorists” lost 25 million dollars. But regardless of that, the claim was fact checked and it was donated to build a library. Of which was built with the funds and no further donations given [6]. Con’s argument after this does not make sense. It compares Trump’s and Clinton’s plans for defeating ISIL and completely ignores their tactics for doing so which I went over last round. So remember that Clinton’s plan will be more effective in defeating ISIL. Con instead skips ahead until after we defeat ISIL and set up a government, of which Con criticizes Clinton of trying to set up democracy which will simply be taken over by radicals again. This reasoning begs the question, what is Trump’s strategy then? What’s the alternative to Clinton’s plan? After we defeat ISIL we can either stay in the region or leave the region. Leaving the region will make the region be more likely to be taken over by radicals again than not leaving the region. So assuming Trump’s plan is different from Clinton’s (otherwise Con has no point), Clinton is already better than Trump. Then if we do stay around, the best government to implement would be a democracy since the people can check the power of the government and prevent it from becoming tyrannous like in Syria. Clinton ends up being preferable. Immigration Clinton wants to increase the amount of Syrian refugees immigrating to the US to 65,000. This will have no discernable harms and all of the harms that Con brings up are negated by my assessment (which I referred to in the previous round “my argument on immigration” but deleted due to character space.) The process for admitting a refugee begins when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends a referral to the state department after conducting in-depth interviews, home country registration checks and biological screening (eye scans.) Among those who pass these background checks, a small portion are referred for overseas immigration based on their vulnerability (survivors of torture, sexual violence, political persecution, female head of household.) The state department then does its own intensive screening, which goes through nine different governmental agencies. The entire process takes around 2 years. Of the 750,000 refugees admitted to the US, two have been connected with terrorism activities [6]. Regardless of all of that, given that only 2% are single-males, the amount of rapes and crimes that they would do is relatively low. Trump in Business Con gives zero examples or evidence that Clinton bribes foreign powers. But regardless of that, Trump’s egotistical personality and lack of diplomatic tactics will lead many foreign leaders to hate Trump, which is evidenced by the most influential and powerful foreign world leaders saying they hate Trump [7]. Clinton’s Emails This argument has no impact anyways because Con fails to show how this would affect the country if she became President. I wish debates like this would be intellectual, about the policies and economics not conspiracy theories about corruptions. Bleh [1] https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [2] http://www.factcheck.org... [3] http://www.nationalreview.com... [4] http://www.newyorker.com... [5] http://www.politifact.com... [6] http://time.com... [7] http://fortune.com...