Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President
Debate Rounds (3)
This will be a second attempt at this debate, since I wasn't specific enough when I started the last one about this issue.
Round 1: Acceptance and Introduction
Round 2: Main Argument
Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusion
My opponent can choose to defend Clinton, Trump, or both candidates.
Many voters are wary about who to vote for, and for good reason. Over the time of their careers, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have spewed out many lies, were involved in a number of scandals, have displayed outrageous public behavior, etc. I hope that at the end of this debate, I can prove to the audience and maybe even my opponent that both candidates are not suitable to become the next president of the United States of America.
Unqualified- not competent or sufficiently knowledgeable to do something.
Hillary Rodham Clinton- a candidate for president of the United States. She is running as a member of the Democratic Party.
Donald John Trump- another candidate for president of the United States. He is running as a member of the Republican Party.
I won't be defending Hillary during this debate, given the fact that she should have already been arrested for her criminal behavior by setting up her own email server, mishandling classified documents (F.B.I. director claiming that she's too stupid to understand that the C stood for classified, email leaks showing that she's in bed with the DNC and other corrupt organization, some of which support terrorists (which would be an act of treason, and therefore will be a disqualifying factor in all of this).
Thus, I will be defending Donald Trump and showing why he is more than qualified to be president of the United States of America.
I wish my opponent the best of luck. May the best man win.
Like Hillary Clinton, Trump's history is also filled with questionable activities. One of these is the foundation of Trump University. As soon at the "university" was created, Trump violated state law as he did not have a NYSED license, which is mandatory for running a school. Lacking a NYSED license is quite a small crime when compared to how the "university" itself functioned. Students who reported having learned nothing from the school, had to pay large amounts of money (one ex-student stated that his wife and himself wasted $20,000, while another person stated that she lost about $60,000).  The woman who had to pay $60,000 filed a lawsuit against Trump University, and has largely been successful; the name of that case is Low v. Trump University, originally called Makaeff v. Trump University. The case isn't over yet, but Judge Curiel already ordered Trump University to reimburse Makaeff with about $800,000. 
Trump University isn't the only scandal Trump was directly involved in. Trump was able to launder money via Trump Taj Mahal, a casino that is closing in about a month, at the expense of workers and investors. The company [Trump Entertainment Resorts] also violated currency transaction requirements, and made other violations during 2003, 2010, and 2012 (the company was warned). The Treasury also stated that Taj Mahal was far from meeting the standards to protect the U.S. financial system "from exploitation from criminals, terrorists, and other bad actors."  If he can scam people currently without harsh penalties, imagine what he would do as president.
Trump's Denial of Climate Change and its Consequences
Although many people are becoming more and more aware of the dangers of climate change, Trump stated that the theory (a well tested theory) of climate change was created by the Chinese to cause disorder and fear. He also threatened to withdraw from the Paris Accord.  If the United States and other countries were to stop making progress against climate change, the consequences will be catastrophic. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, climate change can lead to damage to agriculture, cause heat waves to be even more dangerous, freshwater can possibly get contaminated due to pathogens, damage to infrastructure and transportation, etc.  A few Americans are already being effected by Climate Change, and many leading scientists believe that this can get worse. 
Trump Appears to Dislike the First Amendment
Lastly, Trump has participated in lawsuits against people who wished to make fun of him. He tried to take the comedian Bill Mahr to court, but withdrew later. The Onion made a satirical article about Donald Trump, so Trump's attorneys threatened The Onion with a lawsuit. Little does Trump know, the First Amendment protects the rights of comedians and publications to mock other people, no matter what. 
Thanks again, back to Con!
1. Disqualify him
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
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.
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...
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." https://www.youtube.com...
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.
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.  
"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. 
"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).  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.  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.  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.  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."  The note was written on the top of the page, and in a noticeable font. My opponent clearly didn't read his own source.
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:  
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."
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.
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:
"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.
"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""
In fact, the institution is so corrupt, the Gates and Rocifeller organizations back this
"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:
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.