Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

"It was widely accepted (") This statement needs citation"" If you need a source to prove at one point we believed the earth was flat and that we lived in a geocentric solar system, then here: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... "My opponent used an article"" False. I used the National review to prove my point that the scientific studies behind climate change are biased and un scientific. Not the E.D.F. "However he is using "" There is also no "" My opponent is misconstruing my argument. Abiding by court order, showing up in court and abiding by the legal system is following the law. Trump is ordered to pay reparations. He pays the reparations (which my opponent even says in his opening: "The case isn't over yet""So yes, my statement is correct. He is following the law. "My opponent claims"" That"s not Ad Populum. I was merely building context to the climate change debacle. Obviously, there are plenty of people on both sides of this issue. Bringing this obviousness to light isn"t ad populum. It"s building context. That"s not falacious. It"s reasonable. "My opponent also stated that most of the climate change"" My opponent has dismissed the evidence I have used, as I have shown that independent researchers have proven it"s about control of policy. Read my previous quote again from National Review. My opponent said that I was arguing about what people are paid in the lab. Straw man. I"m arguing that there"s biased motives that affect policy, which the National Review clearly illustrates. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com... "Although the New York Times is biased"" You just admitted it was biased. My point that I was literally arguing is that NY Times is biased. NY Times isn"t a credible source in proving climate change. The NY times isn"t a scientific journal and a left wing journalist writing an opinion piece about an anecdote, as poetic as it may be, isn"t a good foundation of an argument when talking about hard scientific data. My opponent just admitted my point. "The two "" The "about" section that I cited from the E.D.F. shows that the E.D.F. openly admit that they take money from biased institutions to fund their "research." Again, the E.D.F. isn"t an independent, unbiased institution that conducts science. In fact, none of my opponent"s evidence is anything scientific. He hasn"t cited one scientific journal, and yet, he"s talking about an issue within the scientific community. This is where my opponent falls extremely short. He did not provide scientific evidence for his extreme claims. Every bit of evidence you have brought forth are unsubstantial, biased, and unscientific. " If my opponent looked at the About section of the EDF"" That wasn"t my original claim. "Though the Wikipedia page is neutral"" Tax documents: https://www.edf.org... In fact, the institution is so corrupt, the Gates and Rocifeller organizations back this http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org... Thus, biased. "NASA shows the arctic ice sheet growing by billions of tons". Anyone with a basic understanding of science would happen to know that"" I did read my own source. My point is, and they even admitted this in the very study, is that they were unable to predict such record high increase of the arctic ice sheet. This flies in the face of mainstream scientists and activists such as Bill Nye and other lobbyists who say that the ice is melting at alarming rates, and claim that the polar bear population is decreasing due to melting ice sheets. Bill Nye in his own words: More reports of doomsday events: http://www.dw.com... Either the earth is heating up and we"re losing the ice sheets, or they are growing in record numbers that nobody predicted. The science doesn"t work both ways. In fact, we clearly see this on OTHER PLANETS THAT HAVE GLOBAL WARMING that it doesn"t work both ways. Take Venus for example: https://en.wikipedia.org... In fact, my opponent"s own sources assert that the ice is all going away. My evidence I put forth is illustrating an example as to why people like Mr. Trump are skeptical of this entire thing. My point is this: It"s difficult to buy into the theory that the earth is heating up due to man-made CO2 when the arctic ice sheets that cover a big portion of the globe are the biggest it has ever been in centuries, pre dating human co2 production. This means that 1: Maybe, just maybe, the data that people are asserting isn"t accurate due to bias (as I have shown). Or 2: We don"t know enough about what is going on to make major policy changes that will economically affect everyone, especially the poor. The same scientists can"t even predict hurricane weather patterns accurately, but we trust a consensus about an alleged rising global climate? These are reasonable claims, and to say a president is unqualified because of said reasonable claims is outlandish, to say the least. "Con is correct that a ruling hasn't been done yet, but the evidence"" Given the limited characters, I cannot refute every single argument my opponent brings up. Like the Trump University incident, he abided by the law and followed court order and due process. Yes, the business had to pay heavy money for money laundering, and reparations were made and they admitted their mal practices. They also legally filed bankruptcy, a legal alternative afforded to every business. Trump at least admitted and faced his charges with full recompense. That"s honesty, and when Corporations get so big, there are many moving parts where oversight is distributed amongst bigger bodies of people. In big corporations, bad situations will happen. What counts is how the leaders deal with it, and Trump dealt with every legal precedence with full compliance. "Although I didn't cite sources supporting the fact that Trump tried to take Bill Mahr to court", My opponent admits his mistake yet again. "and that his cohorts threatened The Onion, these events still clearly happened." You specifically said that Trump filed a lawsuit. Your evidence provides a hyperlink on "lawsuit," but only links back to the article. The only thing Trump has done was tweet about Bill. That"s not a lawsuit. The truth is, he never filed a lawsuit like my opponent claims. "Trump may have stated that he"" Again, there were no legal actions, and you"re accusing a man of something he never did and that you never proved. "Before I get to the conclusion.." Your definition is only fit for one person; You. The legal meaning is the only valid meaning. Telling us to accept your opinions because theyre your opinions is laziness. "In conclusion, my opponent simply couldn't deny"" Straw man. My argument has always been that even though he has been in criminal activities, he ended up complying with the law. Where my opponent ultimately fell short was his lack of objectivity. He used the scientific community as a consensus instead of an objective method to prove Global warming. He used sources riddled with confirmation bias, and a corrupt institution---where on their own tax forms---screams biased funding. And lastly, he asserts his personal feelings and opinions as to what qualifies and disqualifies as a presidential candidate with no parallel thought or linking tissue to the very document that binds us all; the Constitution. My opponent only left you with his subjective opinions on the matter of Trump, and unfortunately, you need more than subjectivity to convince us if someone is qualified or not for the presidency. The constitution's definition of qualifications greatly outweighs my opponent's personal standards. Thank you for your time.