Positive debate Trump vs Hillary

Well, since this is a positive debate, I will first defend my own arguments. Your rebuttals to my arguments carry negative information, which is in violation of your own rules, which say, "In this debate we will only point out good or positive things...We will not attack the other's candidate and will simply try to sell our particular candidate." In my interpretation, it is fair to rebuke policies proponed but not to attack the other candidate directly. Thus, as per the rules, I will respond to the policy points you made, but refrain from responding to your personal attacks on Hillary. In my rebuttals to your arguments, I will not post any negative information about Trump himself, but rather respond to his policies which you indicate. If my interpretation of these rules is incorrect, please inform me. They were fairly vague in terms of rebuttals, so I suggest you revise them in the next round for maximum clarity.You imply that more guns implies more safety. If this were true, then the country with the most guns would have the least gun deaths, right? Let's fact-check this.The United States leads in per-capita gun ownership worldwide. There are 112.6 guns for every 100 citizens; more than enough for everybody to have one gun. This is followed by Serbia, Yemen, Switzerland, and Cyprus. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) The United States, contrary to your claim, leads in gun deaths among developed countries (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, stricter gun laws and background checks do not make citizens less safe.Rather than endangering people, gun control makes people safer. According to Columbia University, both universal background checks on gun purchases and background checks for ammunition purchases can dramatically reduce gun violence. Checks on gun purchases could reduce gun violence by 56.6% and ammunition checks could reduce it by 80.6%. (https://www.law.columbia.edu...) over 31,000 Americans die each year from gun injuries, so ammunition background checks could save 25,000 lives each year and gun background checks could save 17,500 American lives each year.Your next three statements, about how Hillary beat Bernie, women's rights, and buying the superdelegates are all personal attacks, so I will not respond to them until you make it clear that these arguments were in agreement with your rules.Next you ask where the Clintons got all there money. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here, but your second source, from Forbes, gives you the answer to your question. There's a handy little pie chart right at the top of the article that shows that they got their money from speaking, writing, consulting, and advising.Then you claim that climate change doesn't exist, saying an "actual" scientist doesn't believe in climate change. I disagree. According to NASA, 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is real and is caused by human activity. (http://climate.nasa.gov...) So perhaps if you ask one scientist, as you imply, you'll find someone who doesn't believe in the existence of climate change. But if you were to ask, say, one hundred scientists, you would get an overwhelming concensus that climate change is real and human-caused.Next you say that the Democrats will botch financial and tax reform. First of all, your claim that you make is completely false, as proved by your own article. At the very top of the page, it very clearly says, "If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment." The point: You only get fined if you can afford it but choose not to get insured! Thus, your claim that the Democrats "emposed [sic] a penalty on people who couldn't afford health insurance" is false.Then you say that Democrats killed the electric car. Again, according to the movie that you cited, this is not true. In the summary article you gave me, the documentary mentions as the possible killers of the car:-U.S. Consumers-Battery Companies-Car Companies-Oil Companies-The Hydrogen Fuel Cell-California Air Resources Board-The George W. Bush administrationAs you can see, the only political culprit listed on that list is Bush, who, as we both know, was a Republican and not a Democrat.So you claim that Democrats haven't done anything to combat climate change? They would, if Republicans would stop fighting it. The recent COP 21 climate change deal came out with a treaty that would significantly reduce emissions. President Obama was at the conference and supports it. However, Republicans in Congress are trying to kill it. (http://thehill.com...)About immigration--you are implying that no non-English speaking immigrants should be admitted into the country, which would kill our economy and our standing in the world. Anybody, provided that they have been safely vetted, should be allowed citizenship. We can't build walls to keep people out. As a nation of immigrants, it's against our basic American values. You say Obama and, by extension, the Democratic Party, has broken almost all of its promises. Not so. According to Politifact, Obama has kept the vast majority of his promises. _http://www.politifact.com...)Finally, you say that we cannot make community colleges free. If other countries can make four-year colleges free, why can't we make two year community colleges free? The United States has the largest economy in the world. (https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)) What possible sort of economic barrier could be preventing us from doing this? Much smaller countries with much smaller economies have done this and more. Why can't we acheive the same thing they did?I would love to respond to your main arguments now, but I will refrain from doing so until you clarify your rules.Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!