The Instigator
xghostwriterxx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Voiceless
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

A non natural born citizen should run for president, with the requirements to be eligible to run.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voiceless
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 66062
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

xghostwriterxx

Pro

This topic is not talking about partnerships, trade, or any of those connections we have with other countries. This is about passion. America is a land of the free, home of the brave- but how are we brave, when we can't stand for what's right? The only reason I haven't stood against the government, is only because of my line of heritage. It's not only me, it's many others too, whom come from different nationalities. If we keep this patriotic land, and open it up to be more diverse, I don't see how there's a problem. Of course you'd need the requirements a president needs to have to run, but you also need the courage to become part of the highest office. I feel that this Constitution only branches this out, solely because they wouldn't want some ignorant, immigrant to become our president. Obviously, that's not what it say directly in the Constitution, but that's what the clause implies. Now, I am born and raised in the U.S. I have no problems with natural born citizens running, but our government is heading nowhere, now. It's not just because of the President, but also the whole Congress itself- better yet, the government entirely. We've made mistakes in this day and age that are extremely hard to get out of, and unfortunately cannot be reversed- such as the extreme amount of money America is in debt with (I believe six trillion dollars). But with the help of these "foreigners" something good might happen, along the lines. Connections with their former countries would bond an ally, making it a win-win situation. And if something good doesn't happen, then it would be easily escaped. You see, loyalty does not come from documented papers. It comes from passion and obsession. This debate wasn't made to go against anyone's opinion, this is yet just an idea I've deeply, intrinsically thought of. If you do not agree, that is utterly and completely fine, because I would truly enjoy what people do think of this. Thank you and have a wonderful, mystical, magical day!
Voiceless

Con

Technically, the requirements to be eligible to run include being a natural born citizen. It would be completely irrational for someone in another country to run up to someone else's government and declare change. It has nothing to do with race, but does require that one has a full loyalty to the country in which they have lived in all their life. You can stand against the government with any type of heritage, but joining it is a different issue. It's like a king or queen being crowned that came from three kingdoms away and has no connection (royal blood) to authority figures. An American that moves to England cannot become the new royalty.
Running for the highest place in office has little to do with courage. It has to do with intelligence, knowledge, and a positive past. No one wants an ignorant natural born citizen in the office either.
A non natural born citizen is going to do less good for a country it hasn't been raised in than someone who has been exposed to the culture and history for every second of their life.
Despite all the debt that America has been swimming in, America is the sixth richest country in the world with a GDP per capita of $47,084 and is one of the most populated countries in the world (1).
They may bond an ally with other countries, but what if it is too close of a bond? We have already had issues with our own natural born citizens betraying their country, but one who has direct ties to another country that happens to have an interesting anti-American attitude would be more likely to cause more problems.
In what way would "if something good doesn't happen, then it would be easily escaped" be logical?
This is the same thing for a president that is natural born.
You are correct when you say that "loyalty does not come from documented papers."
Even natural born citizens have turned on their own countries.
And if someone does not have a country in their blood and has not been exposed to it since the beginning of their life, it would be easier to turn.

Definitions:
GDP per capita: "A measure of the total output of a country that takes the gross domestic product (GDP) and divides it by the number of people in the country. The per capita GDP is especially useful when comparing one country to another because it shows the relative performance of the countries. A rise in per capita GDP signals growth in the economy and tends to translate as an increase in productivity."(2)

(1) http://www.businessinsider.com...
(2) http://www.investopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
xghostwriterxx

Pro

xghostwriterxx forfeited this round.
Voiceless

Con

I forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 2
xghostwriterxx

Pro

xghostwriterxx forfeited this round.
Voiceless

Con

I forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 3
xghostwriterxx

Pro

xghostwriterxx forfeited this round.
Voiceless

Con

If my opponent does not post their last argument, I believe they have lost the debate by default.
Debate Round No. 4
xghostwriterxx

Pro

xghostwriterxx forfeited this round.
Voiceless

Con

Due to my opponent's failure to respond, it is safe to assume that their argument is invalid. A non natural born citizen should not be able to run for president due to the negative outcome they would cause. This, in no way, implies that any particular race nor culture is inferior to American born citizens.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
The so-called "national debt" alone is over $18 TRILLION, & Going Up.
They're not only BANKRUPT, but Way In The Red.
They have virtually ZERO $ for anything whatsoever.
Politicians all over the world are having Very Severe Budget Problems.
Nobody in their right mind would want to run for office,
let alone for a position like the presidency.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
@xghostwriterxx "ELIGIBLE REQUIREMENTS"?

What "eligible requirements?" Did you not learn, in our government controlled educational system, that our Constitution is a "living constitution?"

The "living constitutional" concept, was the child of the former President Woodrow Wilson (father of liberal progressivism). Wilson was a promoter of Social Darwinism ideology, a popular political fad at the turn of the last century, advocating little resistance to constitutional structural change, so the ruling-class in DC can get more power and control embracing a soft tyranny. Wilson stated the following from his book: http://books.google.com....

"Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

Wilson, in his book, also took issue with the individual"s Unalienable Rights, where he went on to say:

"No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."

Clearly, Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the progressive liberal "living constitution," and this cancer is starting to metastasize. Many think we are free, but if DC wants to incarcerate, or freeze your bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.
http://www.amazon.com...

"Eligible requirements" are simply defined by the ruling-class of the day. Over the last hundred years our government slowly changed from a republic to a tyrannical welfare state having open borders. This comes at a cost: http://www.usdebtclock.org...

How long do you think we could continue at this rate of debt increase? Enjoy the party while it last, open the doors so everyone could c
Posted by xghostwriterxx 2 years ago
xghostwriterxx
@Mike_10-4 , I did say with the ELIGIBLE REQUIREMENTS, correct? And sure! Almost on the verge of recession, 6 trillion dollars in debt, working with the Zionists who are polluting the media, and the sieges that they put over mass amount of countries- sure, that's what's best for us. Why think "illegal", once you think of immigrant? I have a bunch of immigrated friends, neighbors, even family members, who have their passport, and finally gained their green card. The problem isn't documents, the problem is the political environment.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Why not have a "non-natural born citizen" or an undocumented immigrant, aka an illegal immigrant, run for president? Today, the ruling-class oligarch in DC refuse to follow the US Constitution, so what difference does it make? It is out of our (us serfs) control. The masterminds in DC knows what is best for us.
Posted by xghostwriterxx 2 years ago
xghostwriterxx
@Conservative101 asdfghjkl, I'm sorry for my terrible typo. I was too hyped with putting my fiiirsstt eveerr DEBATE! ...sorry sir/ma'am, got a little carried away there. But yes, I edited the debate. Thank you for correcting me c: ! Have a great day!
-xghostwriterxx
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Your debate should be "should" be able to run for president, not "can".
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
xghostwriterxxVoicelessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The very setup of this debate ment failure for Pro as Con pointed out, you need to be a natural born US citizen to be president. FF. Con had sources.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
xghostwriterxxVoicelessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Cons counter-arguments were good enough to require response, of which none came, and hence Con wins argument points. Whilst one source was a definition, the other provided good support for Con's arguments, so Con wins sources on that. Con wins conduct for Pro's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
xghostwriterxxVoicelessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture