How would I refute this sentence please?

Mike Smith should not be a presidential candidate.After all, he has never held office.

To refute means to prove wrong by argument or evidence.

Start with something like "Mike Smith should be a presidential candidate because..."

Then, finish it with some evidence for why he should be a presidential candidate.

The more logical approach would be -

Mike Smith's lack of political experience might be a detriment to his success as a presidential candidate.

To refute the statement "Mike Smith should not be a presidential candidate because he has never held office," you can follow these steps:

1. Identify the argument: The argument presented is that because Mike Smith has never held office, he should not be a presidential candidate.

2. Analyze the argument: Assess the logic behind the statement and consider its validity. Does holding previous office experience automatically disqualify someone from being a presidential candidate? Evaluate the strength of the reasoning and any potential biases.

3. Present counterarguments: Use the following points to counter the original statement:

a. Ability to bring fresh perspectives: Mike Smith's lack of prior political experience could be viewed as an advantage, as he may bring fresh ideas and approaches that are not influenced or tied to traditional political systems. This could lead to innovative solutions to longstanding issues.

b. Competence and leadership skills: Holding office does not guarantee competence or effective leadership. Candidates can possess transferable skills, such as successful leadership in other domains, that could make them equally or even more capable than those with prior political experience.

c. Broad representation of the population: By allowing individuals without prior political experience to become presidential candidates, the electoral process becomes more inclusive and representative of the diverse population. This can lead to greater engagement and participation from those who feel alienated by the current political system.

d. Focus on character and values: Instead of solely considering prior political experience, the emphasis can be placed on the candidate's character, values, and integrity. These qualities can be evaluated through their past achievements, community involvement, or their ability to inspire and connect with people.

4. Support your counterarguments: Reinforce the counterarguments with evidence, examples, or logical reasoning. Draw upon historical or contemporary instances where candidates without political experience have successfully held the highest office and made significant contributions to their nations.

5. Conclude with a balanced perspective: Acknowledge that holding previous political office can provide valuable experience. However, emphasize that lack of prior office experience does not automatically disqualify a candidate and can bring unique advantages to the presidential race.