Marco Rubio should be the next president of the United States.

I will begin by rendering what my opponent must achieve in order to win this debate. Then I will provide a response to his opening contentions. Finally, I will provide my own arguments as to why Rubio should not be the next president, and will continue these in the rounds to come. My opponent must defend the following syllogism: P1: If Marco Rubio possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria, he should be the next president. P2: Marco Rubio possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria. C: Therefore, Marco Rubio should be the next president. The burden, of course, is not only in defining those criteria, but in establishing why those would make one fit for the presidency and how that would differentiate Mr. Rubio from, say, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lee, Mr. Bush, or any other possible contenders for either the GOP primary, or if we want to be daring, the Democratic primary. My opponent must be able to establish his points beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he cannot win this debate. Pro begins by stating that "Rubio is a moderate senator willing to see views from both sides. " There are a few problems with this initial assertion. First, what is "moderate? " Is that not relative depending either on his possible opponents or based on the views of the populace? Is this not attemping to establish objectivity with a subjective term? I, for instance, wouldn't consider Rubio a moderate. For instance, he doesn't believe in man-made climate change in spite of the whirlwind of scientific data, doesn't support abortion rights, is for massive tax cuts, signed the Norquist pledge, refused to raise the debt ceiling--which would send the global economy into shambles--supporting Florida's voter suppression tactics, is against gay marriage, "doesn't know" how old the Earth is, is a co-sponsor of the Blunt-Rubio amendment which would allow employers to deny birth control to their female employees, etc. That doesn't sound very moderate to me. [1]At the same time, Pro has not demonstrated to us why, even if Rubio could be considered a moderate--to anyone--this would make him uniquely qualified to be the president. Jeb Bush, by many metrics, is more moderate than Mr. Rubio. Why would my opponent choose Mr. Rubio over Mr. Bush? My opponent then claims that Rubio is "willing to see views from both sides. " First, he hasn't provided us with any examples. Second, he hasn't explained why this would qualify someone from president. Third, he hasn't explaiend why this quality is unique to Rubio such that we should consider him over another possible contender. 1. . http://tinyurl.com...Pro then states that "Also he is one of the few Republicans that thinks immigration laws should be less strict. " First, Pro must be able to connect this point to why Rubio should be president. Indeed, he appears to be much more reasonable on immigration reform than many others in his party. However, there are Democrats who are even MORE reasonable on this. At the same time, there are Republicans who have backed off immigration reform and have attacked Rubio for supporting what they called "amnesty. " Second, Rubio showed quite a lack of conviction when it came to immigration reform which caused him to seem like he was, at best, pandering to his base in the process. For instance, back in October 2013, a spokesman of his said, "a series of individual bills" on immigration reform could be a better way to approach the issues than a comprehensive bill. He called it "more realistic. " Bear in mind that this was FOUR MONTHS after the bill he had help to create had passed the Senate. This was a major flip-flop on his end and demonstrates that he cares more about appealing to his base than about doing what he once thought was the right thing. [2]Rubio also, at one point, threatened to vote against his own bill if Senator Leahy's amendment had gone through, which would have allowed same-sex rights--that is, the government would need to recognize same-sex marriages if one spouse was an American. [3] This not only demonstrates, again, a lack of commitment to actual immigration reform and appealing to his base, but his firm opposition to equality for gay Americans which should be guaranteed under the 14th amendment.2. . http://tinyurl.com...3. . http://tinyurl.com...My opponent then claims that "he would be the first Hispanic president. " This is true. However, surely my opponent is not suggesting that merely being Hispanic qualifies someone for being the next president of the United States. He needs to connect this point to why Rubio should be president. For instance, Julian Castro is also Hispanic. Why shouldn't he be president instead of Rubio? I will now, briefly, offer my own case since I'm running low on characters. C1) Rubio is against same-sex marriage. Marco Rubio has stated that he opposes same-sex marriage, and that society "shouldn't tolerate it. " [4] He called it a "less-than-ideal family structure. " However, he must be wholy ignorant of the research, which has demonstrated conclusively that gay parents are just as qualified as straight parents [5][6], a view which even the American Psychological Association has endorsed [7]. In fact, Abbie Goldberg, a psychological at Clark University, argues that gay couples may be BETTER parents. She said, "[gay couples] tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents. " [8] Rubio has not only supported discrimination against gay couples, but is at odds with the American public. For instance, about 59 percent of the American people believe that gay couples should have the right to mary. [9]4. . http://tinyurl.com...5. . http://tinyurl.com...6. . http://tinyurl.com...7. . http://tinyurl.com...8. . http://tinyurl.com...9. . http://tinyurl.com...C2) Rubio panders to his base regularly and demonstrates a lack of convictionI demonstrated this earlier with his flip-flops on immigration reform. C3) Rubio is either ignorant of science, or doesn't careFirst I pointed out his mistakes on gay couples raising families. Next, though he eventually clarified his position [10], he was once asked hold old the Earth was, and responded "I'm not a scientist, man. " [11] He immediately mentioned the Bible in his answer--which, by the way, isn't scientific--and attempted to downplay the science, though the science on this subject is pretty unequivocal. This is another example of Rubio pandering to his base. The most recent Rubio controversy had to do with climate change. He denies that humans are causing climate change, even though 97.1 percent of findings and papers on the subject from actual scientists conclude that human beings are contributing to climate change [13]. I think this is an important issue to address, as climate change is one of the most significant threats to our way of life and our economy, and Rubio isn't even willing to accept the facts of it. 10. . http://tinyurl.com...;11. . http://tinyurl.com...12. . http://tinyurl.com...13. . http://tinyurl.com...C4) Rubio is an economic extremistRubio boasted that he refused to raise the debt ceiling [14], even though not lifting it would have catastrophic effects on the economy [15]. The WSJ called this "brinkmanship. " I call it pandering to his base (again). He also was one of 18 GOP Senators to vote against a bill ending the government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling[16]. 14. . http://tinyurl.com...15. . http://tinyurl.com...16. . http://tinyurl.com...ConclusionThere are more issues that I hope to touch on, but unfortunately I run low on character space, so I will bring those arguments up in later rounds.