Argumentary Clinton On Gun Violence

After watching the debate, I would say that Clinton had the stronger argument. She had supported her arguments concerning gun legislation, abortion, and immigration with statistics as well as personal testimonies, which improved her credibility and allowed her character to be relatable and trustworthy.
For example, on the topic of gun legislation, Clinton had related to the masses by conveying her understanding of those who wish to maintain their gun rights. After establishing this trust with the crowd, she had proceeded to refer to the events concerning gun violence as well as the amount of lives destroyed. This had further proved her credibility as well as the depth of concern for gun legislation. She then had proceeded to list the constituents of the legislation she proposed to pass as president as a solution to the extensive gun violence occurring recently. …show more content…
Where Clinton depended on facts and personal testimonials, Trump had thrown in ad hominem fallacies and had avoided answering questioned posed towards him. For example, on the topic of abortion, Trump was asked if he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead of answering the question, he had insisted that the issue would go back to the state level instead of establishing his position on the legality of abortion at the federal level. He had also deflected the question of immigration and his proposed legislation in establishing a wall by attacking Clinton and accusing her of voting for a wall as well. However, after fact checking this information, Trump’s definition of a wall was by any means, broad, seeing as how Clinton voted for legislation that created porous fences that allowed owners to access their land on both sides of the established