Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Animosity against President Donald Trump is a campaign killer

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
fauxlaw
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 2
Description
Historic evidence will demonstrate that a negative campaign is rarely a successful campaign. The negative mantra of the Left is approaching a catastrophic effect for Democrats of whatever brand to which they wish to sub-subscribe: Liberal, Progressive, Socialist.
Definitions:
Animosity: a negative thrust of attitude toward another; in this case, one candidate, and those voters who support that candidate vs another candidate
Donald Trump: who is the president
Campaign: From a political perspective, an organized effort to encourage voting for a particular candidate [or policy]
Round 1
Published:
Historic evidence will demonstrate that a negative political campaign, particularly one engaged in a presidential election, is rarely a successful campaign. I’ve been around for presidential election campaigns since Eisenhower. Although I do not recall the 1952 Eisenhower/Stephenson campaign [I was 3 years of age], I have made it a matter of significant study since, whereas the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy campaign [I was 11] is riveted into memory.
 
In 1952, the leading Democrat candidate during the primary was Senator Estes Kefauver [D-TN], who, by the time the Democrat National Convention rolled around that July in Chicago, Kefauver easily held sufficient delegates to win the nomination in the first round. He was, as is popularly said, a “shoe-in.”
 
Just one problem: the Party bosses, themselves, hated Kefauver, in spite of the will of the peoples’ voting choice. They engineered a unique delegate counting scheme that resulted, as they desired, in a first-round defeat for Kefauver. This was certainly not the first time “dirty politics” was engaged in a presidential campaign; that’s been around since our third presidential campaign when George Washington was no longer eligible to run. However, in the modern age, this party convention was as mired in dirt as ever witnessed by the Greatest Generation; my parents’ generation.
 
Once Kefauver’s defeat occurred in first-round voting, Kefauver’s star was finished; he never achieved better numbers again in two, and finally three delegate voting rounds, withdrawing from consideration after that third round. Hometown boy Adlai Stephenson, Governor of IL, who never declared his candidacy or ran a primary campaign, gave what is now called the keynote speech. It so stirred the convention that the Party sought his nomination over Kefauver, and ultimately won. Stevenson lost handily to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, hero of World War II.
 
I mention this campaign because its result of engineering Stevenson’s nomination was the springboard from which the Democrats, beginning with the 1968 Hubert Humphrey campaign, used the concept of “Super Delegates;” Party-chosen, not elected by the people. Humphrey was a pro-war candidate. Viet Nam, you may recall. It was the basis of his defeat against the campaign of Republican Richard Nixon.
 
This was a negative campaign by Democrats, arguing for continuation of the Viet Nam conflict, in an age when America had grown bitterly contrary to war. This was, once again, a Chicago convention. “The whole world is watching!” was the mantra of the opposing Democrat crowd of people in the streets. They opposed everything; they were certainly not in favor of a Nixon presidency, but Hubert did not inspire, either. The words echo in my mind to this day. 
 
Enough ancient history; it occurred, I’ll wager, before many of you were born. Advance to a time in all of your memories: Hillary Clinton, wife of disgraced, but effective President Bill Clinton, was the Democrat nominee. Although it is difficult to find evidence that it was her husband’s disgrace that elevated her political star, the seeds are there.[1] The negative campaigning by Republicans to effect the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998, halfway into his last term, launched sympathy for Hillary, which she managed to turn into political capital.
 
She had a legitimate shot at securing the 2008 presidential nomination, but for the greater efficiency of the political prowess of an unknown in presidential politics: Senator Barack Obama [D-IL], elected to the Senate in 2004. Hillary’s Senate election occurred in 2000, but had a far greater base of support than did Obama for the 2008 presidential campaign. That condition changed over the summer. That spring and summer’s presidential nomination campaign was a bitter, mud-slinging affair of Democrat v. Democrat with not much in either campaign of “what-I’ll-do-for-the-people.” It was a contest of two significant Demo-demographic firsts: a black man and a white woman, nether of which had ever had a legitimate shot at the presidency in either party. Either way, it was a win-win for Democrats. They fought hard to lose-lose it for their animus toward one another, but, eventually, a slick political powerhouse developed behind Barack Obama. For Obama, the primary campaign had much greater animus against Hilary Clinton than against the Republican contender, and was far more difficult to navigate than the eventual victorious presidential campaign against John McCain.
 
Obama held the White House for two terms; Hillary did not oppose him in 2012; she was his Secretary of State until the second term. Her leaving that post was a clear signal, although she denied it, that she was engaged in a run for the 2016 presidential campaign, although she could not have guessed who her Republican opponent would be. 
 
Hillary announced her campaign in spring of 2015. Even then, she had already been “crowned” with the nomination, and won it handily. As of Donald Trump’s media circus announcement of his candidacy in June of that year, the animosity against him began: it’s just a publicity stunt, it was alleged, to boost ratings, and income, for his hit NBC TV series, The Apprentice.[2] By early fall one year later, the Trump campaign was accused, once again, of a publicity stunt, this time to end the campaign;[3] one of the earliest of this particular, long-lasting mantra.
 
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was riddled with errors, usually targeting Trump. She apparently approved one of the most disastrous tactics in advertising by putting her competition smack in the middle of a campaign [advertising] slogan: “Love Trumps Hate.”[4] It garnished signs and bumper stickers all over America, all saying “Trump,” not “Hillary.” Hillary’s personal stamp was via a graphic-laden “slogan,” using a simple ‘H’ and an arrow, supposedly saying, “I’m with Hillary.”[5] However, it seemed strikingly reminiscent of the 1980s tee shirt, emblazoned with such an arrow that spelled out the intent: “I’m with Stupid.”[6]
 
One of the most telling examples of animus hurled by Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump was the infamous debate challenge, their last debate on October 19, 2016 to accept the results of the presidential election.[7] Amid other accusations that Trump would be a “Putin puppet,”[8] and would deal a serious blow to Social Security,[9] this challenge of acceptance was particularly poignant when, once the election results were clear, Hillary Clinton failed to meet her own challenge, even publishing a book about it: What Happened.[10]
 
Since the election, the continued derision against President Trump has not abated, as suggested by the Vanity Fair article referenced earlier, predicting Trump’s end game. We have been told, ever since the election, that Trump would be gone in six months, then one year, then by mid-term. He’s still here. We were told that he would be buried by Stormy, and Avenatti, by Cohen, Manafort, and Flynn, by Russia-Russia-Russia, by urine tapes Putin has, by Mueller. He’s still here. Then impeachment, and conviction, by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler. He’s still here. There’s more, but the foregoing tells a sufficient story.
 
Meanwhile, what’s going for the Democrats? Their positive message for 2020 was offered by the Party’s leader, Tom Perez in April 2017, talking shyte.[11] Now, there’s a positive message. It’s so positive, it will bury the Democrats in it come November.
 
 
 



[8]ibid

[9]ibid

Published:
I beg to differ, and here is why.

My opponent says that "Historic evidence will demonstrate that a negative campaign is rarely a successful campaign." Of course, this couldn't be farther from the truth. You used Trump as an example, but Trump is the epitome of the term "negative campaigning". Trump's entire platform was based on negativity, but he still got an overwhelming support from right wingers of all ages. Just think about it for a second...Trump's infamous "Grab Them By ….." comment went public before he took office. Any normal person would think that this is a campaign killer, but it turned out that over 60% of white women continued to vote for this man.

Trump has insulted everyone under the sun before and during his presidential run and yet he continues to get support. His entire campaign was based on building a wall on the southern border...Yes, the southern border needs more security for sure, but the issue isn't with what he has said; it's how he says it.

Case in Point: Since day one of his campaign in June 2015, Trump has made racist lingo and proposals cornerstones of his campaign. Here are eight comments from Trump's presidential campaign. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-outrageous-comments-mexicans-article-1.2773214...He goes on to name this ethnic group as killers and this ethnic group as rapists while disregarding the fact that white people commit more crime out of any ethnic group...The funny thing about it is that Hispanics still supported him during his presidential campaign, which helped him get elected.

President Reagan's presidential campaign was negative, scrutinized etc, but Reagan certainly won the election didn't he? I don't condone drug use, but lets see how contradicting Reagan actually was..."The Just Say No" movement was about the war on drugs, but it specifically targeted a certain demographic. The 80s crack epidemic devastated the Black community and harsh drug sentencing was the solution. Reagan vowed to stop the spread of drugs if he gets elected and would implement stiff penalties to those who sold/used drugs....On the other hand, the US government played a key role in drug trafficking before & during Reagan's presidency...I'll just say one word; CONTRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking

Everyone knows that crack is made from cocaine, and it wasn't Black people who were bringing the drugs into America. At the same time, Reagan did absolutely nothing to punish the cocaine users who were predominantly white...So, why am I bringing this subject to the table?...Well, just take a look at Joe Biden's current campaign. Biden wrote & bragged about the 94 Crime Bill, which devastated Black communities with harsh prison sentencing...At the same time, white cocaine addicts got a slap on the wrist...The point I'm trying to make is that Joe Biden still has black support even though he used racist tactics to target a certain demographic of people......Here's the kicker!...Biden's son and daughter are certified drug addicts and this information has been plastered all over the news since 2019.

As of 4/8/2020, Vice President Joe Biden has won the nomination for the DNC, and that speaks volumes.
Round 2
Published:
I. Trump campaign promises & accomplishments:
My opponent said “Trump's entire platform was based on negativity, but he still got an overwhelming support from right wingers of all ages.”Would we like to know why my opponent’s last admission is correct? 
 
What is typical of presidential campaign promises, or do they all “just tell us what we want to hear?”[1] The standard is actually not bad, and Trump, to date in on track.[2]
 
Note, first, that my opponent’s claim is unaccompanied by any citation, let alone a credible citation. That’s just fine. Let’s see what Trump’s campaign promised, and what has been accomplished to date. PolitiFact has offered a “Trump-O-Meter[3] to gage the results of his “negative” campaign, since my opponent claims it was “entire[ly] negative.”
 
However, there are two issues with the Trump-O-Meter. First, it declared that the goal to withhold funding to sanctuary cities failed, but the Trump administration won the court battle over the issue,[4] so it should be scored as a promise kept, not broken, and this will be reflected in the numbers below in section 1.a.
 
Second it calls a promise to release his tax returns after the audit is completed as a broken promise. However, no legal mandate exists for a presidential candidate, or a president, to release tax returns. Therefore, this cannot be considered as a broken promise.
 
I.a Trump offered a total of 99 campaign promises
1.    of the 99, 20 [20%] have been completely fulfilled
2.    of the 99, 11 [10%] have been fulfilled with compromises
3.    of the 99, 27 [27%] are in process
4.    of the 99, 26 [26%] are in process, stalled
5.    of the 99, 16 [16%] are broken [however, the President is still 287 days until inauguration of a second term, if re-elected.
 
 Take note that 30% of Trump’s first term promises are complete, and an additional 27% are still in process to be fulfilled. That is more than half of promises,[5] refuting my opponent’s claim that his campaign was “entire[ly] negative.”
 
II.b Trump accomplishments 
Further, let’s take a look at Trump’s accomplishments since taking office from a successful campaign compared with the related accomplishments of the last seven Democrat presidents:
1.    Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.[6]
2.    Truman could have dealt with North Korea directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn’t.[7]
3.    Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and he could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn’t.[8]
4.    Johnson could have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn’t.[9]
5.    Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn’t.[10]
6.    Clinton could have made a better deal with North Korea, at least by meeting with them, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter didn’t, but he didn’t.[11]
7.    Obama could have recovered our economy by more than just breaking even, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn’t.[12] If one still insists Obama recovered the economy
 
So, again, just how negative was Trump’s campaign? Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign, but my opponent’s arguments have failed to impress that Trump’s was an “entire[ly] negative” campaign.
 
III Animosity against Trump by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign
One of the most vicious of Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Trump during her 2016 campaign went beyond Trump, while obviously including him, was effected by her famous claim in a New York fundraiser, September 9, 2016, “half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables.”[13] The article included a comment reminiscent of this debate’s title: “Memo to candidates: Stoop generalizing and psychoanalyzing your opponents’ supporters. It never works out for you.”[14]
 
The Atlantic published an article in the summer of 2017, looking back at the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 which was titled: “What’s Wrong with Democrats,” and subtitled: “If the party cares about winning, it needs to learn how to appeal to the white working class.”[15] Yes, indeed. You know, that “deplorable” class.
 
“…liberals’ fears were softened by a widely shared belief: that the candidacy of Donald Trump would shatter the Republican Party… His trail of wreckage would force a painful reckoning… the narrowness of its coalition, the cloistered cluelessness of its elites… After a season of Trump’s destruction, the party would lie in rubble.
“On November 8, that prophesy was realized, true in every regard, except that it described the Democrats.”[16]
 
“And as[Clinton] finally wriggled out of the primary to face Trump, the [campaign]strategy was still evolving, producing dramatic tactical shifts — from embracing disaffected Republicans to firing up liberals, from previewing an uplifting closing stretch to savaging Trump with an unprecedented television ad barrage.[17]
 
Savaging? Well, that’s telling, but there’s more:
The article highlights the fact that the Democrats, in late fall of 2015, were considering using “…Trump as more than a tool to destroy Bush. In fact, Mook took him so seriously that his team’s internal, if informal, guidance was to hold fire on Trump during the primary and resist the urge to distribute any of the opposition research the Democrats were scrambling to amass against him.”[18]
 
Weren’t the Democrats surprised when their strategy completely fell apart as Trump bested Bush, and everybody else in the Republican primary campaign.    
 
“…Clinton’s campaign—a multimillion-dollar effort with the most talented operatives and innovative tech available—had a problem explaining what she stood for.”[19] Little wonder. She referred to herself as “a little wonky” in her presidential campaign strategy.[20]
 
Wonky, like, Donald Trump says he's qualified to be president because of his business record. A few days ago, he said, quote, 'I'm going to do for the country what I did for my business.' So let's take a look at what he has done. He's written a lot of books about business -- they all seem to end at Chapter 11."[21]
 
Wonky, like, "We know that happened for at least a few years -- he paid (no taxes), or close to it. Or maybe he isn't as rich as he claims or that he hasn't given away as much to charity as he brags about. Whatever the reason, Americans deserve to know -- before you cast your votes this November."[22]
 
Wonky, like, "He has no real strategy for creating jobs, just a string of empty promises. But then maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose most famous words are, 'You're fired.'"
 
Wonky, like, Hillary Clinton. as previously quoted: “…had a problem explaining what she stood for.”A deer in the headlights tends to do that.
 
 



[2]ibid


[14]ibid


[16]ibid


[18]ibid


[22]ibid


Published:
My opponent says that "I don't have any credible citations" despite the fact the everyone, (and I'm generalizing whenever I say the word everyone) has heard this man make negative comment after negative comment while campaigning.

Strike #1: Can we agree that Trump told his supports to "Knock The Crap Out of Protestors" at some of his rallies?...I'll wait...…..Now, is that a negative comment or a positive comment?...Do I really need to sit here and provide a source for something that "everyone" is aware of?

You mentioning that presidential candidates make promises has nothing to do with running a quote-on-quote negative campaign. Heck Yeah! Every politician makes broken promises, and we all are aware of that. My opponent is fully locked in on numerical statistics of what Trump has done and not done, but that's not the issue. The issue is that he consistently used negative rhetoric throughout his presidential campaign, and it can't be denied no matter how much you try to deny it. 

If someone Googled the term Trump's negative campaign rhetoric right now, then an entire page of his comments will fill up the screen...All of this stuff about Kennedy, Truman, Johnson and Carter is nothing more than Filibuster for what they could have done or what they didn't do.

My opponent goes on say "So, again, just how negative was Trump’s campaign?"...Well, didn't he blatantly say that "people who illegally crossed the border were rapists and murders??...I guess America is full of saints and angles..."

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."...Hmmm, but my opponent continues to ask how negative was Trump's campaign...May I ask; do I really need to source these comments?

Yes, Hilary Clinton said negative things as well, but as you've said time & time again..."Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign." Did you not say that? If you didn't say that, then I'll gladly guide you to that particular comment. On the other hand, If you agree that you made the statement, then you've just destroyed your very own "argument."...As you can see, my opponent has found himself in another Catch 22 situation & I rest my case.

As far as Hilary Clinton, you said that "a multimillion-dollar effort with the most talented operatives and innovative tech available—had a problem explaining what she stood for.”[19] Little wonder. She referred to herself as “a little wonky” in her presidential campaign strategy." My reply: H. Clinton shot her own self in the foot by neglecting her voter base. She totally neglected the Black vote by not offering a single tangible benefit and thought that she could walk out on stage with Beyoncé/Jay Z and still get the Black vote...and that most definitely put the nail in her coffin. 

In conclusion, my opponent said that "the Democrats were surprised when their strategy completely fell apart as Trump bested Bush, and everybody else in the Republican primary campaign"...

I've never claimed to be the smartest fish in the pond but president's are surely SELECTED and not elected.  Bush & the other republican candidates never stood a chance to begin with.  
Round 3
Published:

I Trump campaign promises & accomplishments:
 
I.a My opponent’s round 2 rebuttal to my request for citation of Trump’s negative campaigning, and specifically by her claim in round 1 that “Trump’s entire platform was based on negativity”claimed “everyone has heard this man make negative comment after negative comment while campaigning.”Fine. She acknowledges that “everyone” is a generalization. But generalization is not the issue. What I contend is that there is no offered source for the claim, “Trump’s entire platformwas based on negativity,” implying that there was no positive campaign statements regarding what Trump would do for the country if elected President.
 
I.b I have already demonstrated in my round 2, arguments of Trump’s 99 campaign promises [argument I.a] and current level of keeping those promises by percentage, and a brief listing of his accomplishments, just in terms of the lack of action by the past seven Democrat presidents which Trump has enacted [argument II.b]. This demonstrates that Trump has not only euphemistically promised a chicken in every pot, but with 200-plus days remaining in his first term, by the percentages given in my round 2, I.a argument, Trump has delivered chickens 57% of the time. That’s an entirely negative campaign? 
 
I.c My opponent argues that all presidents make promises that are broken. I make no argument. My opponent argues that examples of Trump’s negative campaigning can be easily googled. I make no argument. My opponent argues that I said, “Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign.” I make no argument; I did say that. What I argue in response is the my opponent claimed that Trump’s “entire platform was based on negativity.”Must we really need to define “entire,” or is that also a generality? Sorry, that ship has sailed. The dock is empty. 
 
I.d “Entire” stands as delivered by my opponent, and I will demand citation of a credible source for her claim. After all, this debate’s contrary position is entirely based on that claim, so it better have legitimate citation. No, I will not accept an unsubstantiated claim by Cartoon News Network, MessNBC, or any other outlet that has been campaigning for Trump’s removal ever since he was elected. God knows they have tried since 2015 to derail his primary, nomination, and election victories.[1] They have tried to have him removed from office by a whore’s dismissed claims, by her lawyer, by Russia, Russia, Russia, by Bob Mueller’s investigation and report, and by Impeachment. He’s still in the Oval, still succeeding in keeping promises. 
 
I.e My opponent claims that I have “destroyed[my] very own argument”by acknowledging that I said, “Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign.”
No, I categorically reject the claim. My opponent needs to re-think the notion that “some” carries the same heavy weight as “entire.” Words mean things and have consequences, just like elections.
 
II Hillary Clinton: A shot in the foot through a glass darkly

II.a Since my opponent is will to admit that Hillary Clinton“shot her own self in the foot by neglecting her voter base,”I am perfectly willing to agree with her. The net result was a glass ceiling, figuratively broken and shattered in a dark election night.
 
III Select is just elect with an ‘s’
 
III.a Well, “surely,” as my opponent concluded, or not, that makes a nice sound bite, but not such a convincing reality. The Constitution has a word about that, and it is sure: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows”[2][ bold added for emphasis]
 
 
 
 

Published:
First and foremost, I'd like to let my opponent know that I'm male and not female.

Now that I've deconstructed my opponent's argument with factual information, he seems to have a problem with generalization. I've used the general terms "everyone" and "entire" in my arguments and my opponent is trying to play semantics when he knows exactly that I'm not speaking for everyone. 

I've used direct quotes from Trump's campaign that a large percentage of the population has already heard, but my opponent wants me to source every single thing. Nope, I won't do that because these are well-known quotes that can easily be found with a simple Google/Bing search. 

At this point, it's clear to see that my opponent is fanboy of Donald Trump...In the description, he said that "Historic evidence will demonstrate that a negative campaign is rarely a successful campaign."...My reply: I've already proved that a negative campaign (can) be successful and Trump's presidency epitomizes this notion to the fullest.

Let me refresh everyone's memory of Trumps negative campaign comments that I've documented and here is my opponent's reply verbatim...I'm going to highlight his response to my factual statements...My opponent argues that all presidents make promises that are broken. I make no argument. My opponent argues that examples of Trump’s negative campaigning can be easily googled. I make no argument. My opponent argues that I said, “Some negativity is part of every presidential campaign.” I make no argument...…...As you can see, I've provided factual quotes from Trump's campaign and my opponent agrees with them.

My question at this point in time is that, "since you're agreeing with the evidence, then why are continuing to argue otherwise?" As you can see, my opponent has no argument at this time because he has destroyed his entire case by agreeing with me.

Oh!...You Thought That I Forgot!

In the further unraveling of my opponent's argument, I've given two other examples of how a negative campaign can be successful. I used President Reagan's campaign as well as Vice President's Joe Biden's current presidential campaign...Yes, factual information was introduced, which is why my opponent has never gave a single response. He's aware that his (entire) case has fell apart because he won't be able to dispute documented facts

Added:
--> @fauxlaw
You're welcome.
#5
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks for voting
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @mairj23
Perhaps if my opponent would fill something in on the profile, instead of accepting and reflecting "unknown," gender and other items would not be in question, yeah? I was merely generalizing and non-misogynous
Instigator
#3
Added:
It also worked in 2016 even though it had nothing to do with truth.
#2
Added:
It worked in 1964 against Goldwater.
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
1. Voters hate rigged primaries
Pro opens up with the 1952 case of the democratic party throwing out democracy, and the negative results they received in the actual election. It’s a good history lesson, explaining where the superdelegate system comes from.
2. Clinton
Interesting case that attempts to impeach Bill lead to Hillary being a front runner.
Pro later uses a hilariously bad example of her insulting half of all Trump supporters (Side note: not seeing it mentioned, but this is tied closely to the Kermit the Frog is Hitler thing…), and a stream of insults to show that Clinton ran a more ugly campaign than Trump.
3. Obama
With talk of mudslinging, I missed how negative campaigning by the other side resulted in his presidency.
4. Trump
Pro demonstrates major mudslinging from the other side (note: I still don’t think he was serious when he started). Key point in this being raising top of mind awareness for the Trump brand.
Con counters that Trump is the epitome of negative campaigning.
Pro gets a little off track with the defense of broken promises angle (the issue as it pertains to this debate is not kept or not, it’s negative to begin with or not). His current accomplishments are nice, but again seeming to drift off topic.
Con deflects: “he consistently used negative rhetoric throughout his presidential campaign, and it can't be denied no matter how much you try to deny it.” Which when compared to the Clinton campaign, doesn’t imply that Trump was not the cleaner campaign (even if our memories suggest otherwise, there’s nothing in this debate to support that notion).
5. Reagan
Con brings up Reagan's campaign, and claims against his or her own evidence that Reagan gave drugs to American children.
6. Biden
Con asserts that Biden is trying to destroy the black community with drug opposition and that his children are convicted drug addicts.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. The main analysis is over in R2, due to con choosing to drop almost everything because of a dislike for making warranted arguments instead of empty assertions. With this insistence, “his (entire) case has fell apart because he won't be able to dispute documented facts.”
I am of course not convinced Trump ran a clean campaign, but the various pieces of evidence support that the democratic party loses when it tries to fight dirty.
Sources:
Pro supported his statements, even ones that would otherwise seem doubtful (Clinton being the front runner due to the previous impeachment), whereas con was outright opposed to truth.