Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

I admire my opponent's candor in attempting to show reasons why Trump isn't qualified to run for president. While some of his actions are questionable (some of which I agree with), they aren't grounds for any form of disqualification. Even though he listed some semi concerning issues, the issues he listed do not; 1. Disqualify him and 2. Hold legitimacy in terms of his sources and the weight of the allegations. I'll go through my opponent's claims one by one and show you how they categorically fail my opponent's own standards as well as proper debating standards. 1. Trump's Denial of Climate Change and its Consequences Trump isn't the only one with rising concerns about this issue, and just because you aren't convinced of the evidence that scientists put forward doesn't mean it disqualifies you from the presidential race. In his source, Reuters claims that Trump is against 300 scientists that warn of climate change. Sorry, but science isn't a consensus (My opponent employs the ad populum fallacy here: https://en.wikipedia.org...). It was widely accepted at one time that we lived in a geocentric solar system. It was widely accepted by scientists at one time that the earth was flat. Asserting that the majority of scientists agree on an issue isn't science. In fact, it's antithetical to the scientific process. It isn't about polling. It's about the truth. There are many angles I can address the climate change debacle, but I'll only give you the main reasons why Mr. Trump and other conservatives are skeptical. A. In 2013, In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.Mr. Cook"s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers""0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent""had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work http://www.climaterealists.org.nz... B. According to the National Review, most climate research is endorsed by our federal government and left wing foundations. This leads to contaminated papers riddled with confirmation bias, and no study---even listed in my opponent's sources, are independant studies; They are all backed by biased, left wing agendas. For example, NY Times is an extremely biased left wing news outlet and not a scientific journal which only smears Trump and endorses Hiliary (literally with money). Another source my opponent use is the EDF, which is a nonprofit organization that receives millions from our own federal government and biased left wing institutions. http://www.nationalreview.com... Thus, I will ask my opponent to give non biased sources to support his global warming claim. His evidence that he uses to discredit Trump is an ad populum fallacy, an unscientific left wing biased media outlet, and a corrupt non profit organization trafficking millions in funds from our own government and various politically motivated institutions. https://www.edf.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Oh, and to throw a wrench in my opponent's climate change denial problem, NASA shows the arctic ice sheet growing by billions of tons: http://www.nasa.gov... 2. Trump's University I agree with this one to an extent. Trump participated in mal practices. However he is using the justice system legally and is following the law by paying penalties by creating an institution without a proper license. However, this doesn't disqualify a candidate for office; it's merely a reason to subjectively cast your vote as to how you see fit. Furthermore, no ruling has yet been done, so even though he has to pay 800,000 in reimbursements, it's better and more rational to not jump to conclusions until due process has been fulfilled. If you settle for anything less, then you're subjecting this man to the court of public opinion, which my opponent is suggesting you do. 3. Trump Appears to Dislike the First Amendment My opponent uses the situation with Bill Mahar to assert that Trump is anti first amendment. He brings forth no evidence of the lawsuit in which he accuses Trump. My opponent states, "He tried to take the comedian Bill Mahr to court, but withdrew later." O.k. Where is your evidence for this claim? My opponent only cited the first amendment, but never gave any source to Trump's action to a lawsuit which proves he's anti first amendment. Trump is actually very pro constitution. He has been quoted on record saying that he is a firm believer in the constitution, and that 1st and 2nd ammendment rights are extremely important. He believes that human rights pre exist the government. http://thefederalist.com... In his words: " I see the constitution as set in stone, and it's one of the great documents of all time." In conclusion, my opponent hasn't produced a convincing argument, let alone showed objective data that proves Trump should be disqualified for the presidency. Most of his sources are politically biased sources riddled in ad nosium smear campaigns against trump, while openly endorsing his opposition.My opponent, according to his sources, thinks consensus on climate change (ad populum), and questioning the biased funding that institutions that HE HIMSELF CITED somehow disqualifies Trump. Furthermore, my opponent failed to produce evidence that solidified his claims about Trump's alleged lawsuits against Mahar that he later backed out. If he can't show us the court order, then there is no legitimacy to my opponent's outrageous claim that Trump is Anti- 1st amendment. Furthermore, my opponent never listed anything that shows Trump is an unqualified candidate. In fact, he's more than qualified. The requirements are as follows: 1. US constitution Article 1 Section II: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." 2. US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. Does Trump's University lawsuit, unsubstantiated "anti 1st ammendment claim", and climate change skepticism match what the constitution demands? No. It doesn't. Everything my opponent listed are drawn out in lazy assertions backed by outlets that participate in political bias, namely against Trump, and isn't anything reflective of what is actually disqualifying, which my opponent assured us he would prove substantially. Trump is qualified.