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

Many of my arguments have been dropped.Let's review.Opening syllogism of what my opponent must prove: -dropped Rubio panders to his base and demonstrates a lack of conviction-dropped-The fact that moderate is (1) subjective and (2) there is reason to think that Rubio isn't in fact moderate-dropped my arguments on this, though he briefly addressed why he believes Rubio is moderate-How any of these qualities--even if his moderate--mean that he should be elected president-dropped-How any of these qualities make Rubio and not any other person who bears either some or all of these qualities qualified to the next president-dropped-Arguments regarding immigration reform and Rubio's flip-flops-dropped-Argument that, even if Rubio would be the first Hispanic president, that this doesn't provide us any real reason to support him over, say, Julian Castro-dropped-Rubio is either ignorant of science or doesn't care-dropped-Rubio is either ignorant of the research being same-sex relationships or doesn't care-dropped-Actions regarding the debt ceiling and the shutdown-dropped; my adversary has only commented that it is "good to be an extremist" and that "Obama doesn't care about the economy," both of which are unfounded assertions on his part I will now address his arguments. Bear in mind, though, that Pro bears the burden of proof. Therefore, he must be able to defend his opening claims, connect them to why Rubio ought to be president, and refute my points.Pro states that "Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic these days. It's ok for some people to be against it."Pro completely ignores the statistic I provided showing that about 59 percent of the country supports same-sex marriage. How does that bear out the notion that it's, as he says, a "controversial issue?" He completely ignored the argument I provided that this is an issue of equality and equal protection under the 14th amendment, one that Rubio has paid a blind eye to in order to pander to his base--in much the same way he has with immigration reform.Pro states, "And dude, the fact that he is an economic extremist is good."This is, of course, a bare-assertion fallacy. He cannot demonstrate that this is true, cannot demonstrate why, contrary to the research and the data I have provided, Rubio would oppose raising the debt ceiling--which demonstrates a great deal of brinksmanship and betrays an ignorance over how the economy actually works--AND he cannot now defend his contradiction. He claimed early, and goes on to claim again, that Rubio is a "moderate." Now he's admitting that he's an economic extremist. Which is he? Rubio cannot be concurrently a moderate and an economic extremist. Pro states, "Obama hadn't cared about the economy enough in the last few years!" I think Pro was attempting to use this as his justification for why Rubio would be justified being an "economic extremist." However, not only is this bare-assertion fallacy on his part completely irrelevant, but factually inaccurate. As the person with the burden of proof, Pro must be able to demonstrate his claims beyond a reasonable doubt. And while I have provided evidence for my positions, he has provided none for his. At the same time, this claim about the president "not caring about the economy" is ludicrous and in fact particularly interesting. It's interesting because the Republicans, Rubio included, have been blocking him every chance they've had virtually each and every time he's tried to implement a measure to fix the economy. On top of it all, by voting against the debt ceiling and contributing to the government shutdown, it is much more likely that Rubio, not Obama, doesn't care about the economy. Pro's claims are flat-out wrong.Pro states, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a liberal socialist who has no regard for the economy and is trying to take away my hard earned cash."There are a number of claims here. First, a socialist is someone who believes in government-run business--completely. Obama is not a socialist. Heck, there are socialists who look to Obama and are absolutley astounded at how conservative he is--caving on tax cuts, implemeting the GOP healthcare plan, caving on the public option, not prosecuting Wall Street bankers, etc. Second, virtually everyone is a socialist if you believe in something as basic as public police or fire forces, or even the Pentagon. Those are government-run businesses, and therefore socialistic.Third, he claims that Obama is "trying to take away [his] hard earned cash." Of course, he is speaking of taxation. Let's bear in mind, of course, the plethora of tax cuts implemented by Obama--18 small business cuts, extending all of the Bush tax cuts in August 2011 when the Republicans threatened not to lift the debt limit (which is how the sequester was born), making about 95 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent, etc. Next, we need to acknowledge why Pro's claim is nonsensical. In order to have a government, we need to collect taxes. That's called the social contract, and it's been written about extensively in the philosophical literature. No matter how you frame it, the government is going to need to collect taxes. It's merely a matter of how much. Rubio, I can assure you, would cut taxes. In fact, Rubio, in endorsing the Romney-Ryan ticket, endorsed higher taxes for Americans earning under $250,000 and lower axes for Americans earning above $250,000. How is that right?Then, of course, we also know that this is argument from Pro is irrelevant as to his case that Rubio should be president.Pro states, "And about what moderate means? Moderate means that he is willing to compromise with the democrats. He worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado, who is a democrat. Rubio is willing to compromise, so he's electable."There are a number of potential bare-assertion fallacies in this piece, but first I will syllogize both of Pro's arguments.P1: If Rubio has compromisd with the Democrats, he is a moderate.P2: Rubio worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado. C: Therefore, Rubio is a moderate.Of course, he has provided us with no reason to buy this argument--having already admitted that Rubio is an economic extremist--and no examples of compromises that Rubio has made with Bennett that would qualify him as a moderate. Most important, my opponet has not connected the dots. Even if Rubio could be considerated a moderate, why would this matter? Why does this mean he ought to be president?He goes on to provide what I think is a possible, though by no means conclusive, answer to this question. His argument is effectively the following:P1: If Rubio is willing to compromise, he is electable.P2: Rubio is willing to compromise.C: Rubio is electable.So he suggests that willingness to compromise--by the way, I'm still looking for him to address the debt ceiling negotiations or Rubio's flip-flops on immigration reform--makes Rubio electable and therefore he should be the next president. Not only is this a bare-assertion fallacy--I'd love to see some poll numbers suggesting that Rubio in fact is electable--but this doesn't bear out the case. If (x) is electable, it does not follow that (x) should be president. He needs to expand on his case.Pro poses a question: "By the way, who will the Dems run that can also be electable?"Of course, this is irrelevant to our resolution, but I will address it anyway. Here's his answer: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, possibly Joe Biden, and quite a few others.