Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

The reason it appeared that you claimed the standard was good was because when I raised my argument about what I thought was good, you disputed it by saying that it was not the standard.The reason why it appeared that way to you is because you are twisting my words. The best thing you could have done was directly ask if I believed it was good. Oh wait, you did. You directly asked me "Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct?"" and I said NO!!!!!!!!. You have no excuse for continuing the line of thinking that I called it good.Except my central argument wasn't based on fallacy. I made one example that was poor, which only renders that example 'worthless.' You argued against me claiming that what she did was good. There is no need to respond to the entire argument.My central argument is unaffected.Good for you. When did I say otherwise. You complained that I skipped long side arguments.Which I countered, leading you to attack the one example I made that you see as hypocrisy, which I then explained in detail.And I countered showing how it is still hypocrisy.See my first response.Why? You don't see my responses.As I pointed out in a previous argument (which you did not respond to) the word poor also means "worse than is desirable." Dealing with the standard is one meaning, but it is not the only.You don't get to choose what is desirable. The majority of people seem to think that it is the desirable way to do it. So, you are still wrong. Sorry I didn't tell you you were wrong earlier.]I never stated that my central argument was the standard. Merely that I think more than someone's views should be the criteria for electing a president.I don't know what you consider your central argument. Your use of the word poor is flawed. Thinking we should strive to be better than we are does not mean that what everyone else does is poor. Your central argument is flawed because you didn't use the word should.What I did not apologize for was hypocrisy, which my argument was not. It was a bad response, but not hypocrisy.The statement doesn't represent how you actually think. That is enough for me.Why did you dispute my original claim? BECAUSE.So do you still stand by your counters of my argument?YES.Well, it seems that you countered my original argument for reasons not relating to the debate at hand.Your words did not deal with the debate at hand. That was my objection.I said: you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs.Now who is picking and choosing your statements?That is why I am confused.No, you are confused because you don't listen.Ok, so correct me instead of simply accusing me. Reaffirm your position in a different way. I think I made it pretty clear why I think that you have moved away from your original argument.Just stop twisting my words.Well a) throughout a debate, new arguments can be presented.Why should I listen to your new argument when we haven't gotten any closure on your first argument?b) You said my argument was flawed, I disagree. So we debate it. It's how a debate works. I would like to know why you think my argument is flawed, because it seems to me that we are in agreement.If you want to know, try reading what I wrote.Your original response of why my original response is flawed contradicts with the arguments you are making now.False, go read my arguments.You claimed my argument was flawed because the opposite of what I say should be is "That is the only criteria anyone ever uses."I said other things. Try reading those.Now, you argue that just because something is the standard doesn't mean it's good. Which is it? If you still find flaw in my original argument, what is it?Your first argument wasn't describing what was good.Um… ok… how so?Jesus Christ man, read what I wrote.You can't just say "you're wrong" in a debate or "you made one bad argument." That doesn't invalidate any points being made.True. I explained, go back and read.Which word are you discussing? "Poor"? As I explained above, poor does not necessarily imply 'below what is standard,' it can imply 'below what is desirable.'Yes, you used "poor" wrong.