Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

I have a lot to get through this round, so I'll get right into it. Instead of going into my main counterarguments, I will list my opponent's claims that haven't been backed up with evidence. Remarks without Evidence "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." This statement needs citation, and the people who believed that the earth was flat (and that the solar system was geocentric) were religious and philosophical figures, not scientists. [1] [10] "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." My opponent used an article from the National Review to help his case that the Environmental Defense Fund is in bed with the federal government, but the article doesn't mention the EDF once. The EDF also receives very little from the government; only 2% of their funds come from it. [2] "However he is using the justice system legally and is following the law by paying penalties by creating an institution without a proper license." There is also no evidence to back this statement up. Creating a school without a NYSED license is illegal, as explained in the previous round. If creating a school is considered creating a completely different institution, there would be no need for NYSED licenses. Ad Populum Fallacy and Climate Change My opponent claims that my opinion on climate change is merely based off of how popular the theory is, yet opens his statement with, "Trump isn't the only one with rising concerns about this issue..." The ad populum fallacy is being employed here; my opponent stated that just because some people agree with Trump, that must mean he is correct. My opponent also stated that most of the climate change research that is funded by the government is biased, and is apart of a liberal agenda. First, let's consider if climate change researchers are simply in it for the profit. This doesn't make sense at all, since there isn't much money to be made from climate change research. The most you can make from the job is $120,000, but most people make about $70,000 (this salary is definitely good, but nothing to brag about). [3] Although the New York Times is biased to the left, that is still not evidence for a liberal agenda. The two links my opponent provided about the EDF support my side of the argument, if anything. If my opponent looked at the About section of the EDF website, there is a pie graph that clearly shows that the organization receives very little from the government. [4] Though the Wikipedia page is neutral, it does list the EDF's accomplishments, and makes no remarks on who funds them. About the legitimacy of the climate change theory itself, the evidence is very concrete. My opponent said the obvious, "... NASA shows the arctic ice sheet growing by billions of tons". Anyone with a basic understanding of science would happen to know that the (seemingly) growing ice sheets is a result of global warming. Before I state my source, I'd like to let my opponent and the audience know that it is indeed credible, and has won countless awards. [5] According to Grist, although more ice is being created in the center of Greenland for example, the ice is clearly melting near the exterior regions. [6] My opponent's own source even contradicts his argument. The website states, "Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice." [7] The note was written on the top of the page, and in a noticeable font. My opponent clearly didn't read his own source. Trump University Con is correct that a ruling hasn't been done yet, but the evidence against Trump is clear. Trump isn't on court due to public opinion, but because of the scandal which I discussed last round. Even if it turned out that Trump was somehow innocent, that doesn't change the fact that he was involved in other scandals like the Taj Mahal casino scandal (this was also discussed last round). My opponent during the last round didn't bother to mention Taj Mahal, and I personally don't blame him due to the lack of evidence for Trump's side of the argument. Trump vs. Bill Mahr and The Onion Although I didn't cite sources supporting the fact that Trump tried to take Bill Mahr to court, and that his cohorts threatened The Onion, these events still clearly happened. The description of these events were described in the previous round, so here's the evidence which can be found with the other citations: [8] [9] Trump may have stated that he is pro-constitution, but his legal actions against Bill Mahr for making a joke about him prove otherwise. As the old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words." Conclusion Before I get to the conclusion itself, my opponent stated how Trump is qualified to be president, but in a legal sense. I never stated once that Trump wasn't legally qualified to become president, as he meets all legal requirements. I clearly defined "unqualified" in Round One, yet my opponent used the word incorrectly. In conclusion, my opponent simply couldn't deny the fact that Trump's scandals are nothing short of criminal activity, and that climate change denial is flat out ridiculous. My opponent's own sources even agreed with me (specifically the EDF and NASA websites)! Regardless, this was still a decent debate, so thank you Con for taking part. Citations [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.edf.org... [3] http://arstechnica.com... [4] https://www.edf.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...(magazine) [6] http://grist.org... [7] http://www.nasa.gov... [8] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... [9] http://lawnewz.com... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org...