The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Experts Tier Round 1: Should children be able to run for office?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 42484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

This is a Round 1 debate in the Ecperts Tier of the TUF Debate Tournament.

I would like to thank my opponent DudeStop for this debate.

The resolution is:Should children be able to run for, and hold, public office?

I will be arguing the PRO side (that they should be able to run) and DudeStop will be arguing the CON side (that they should not be able to run). We hold a SHARED BOP (which is why the resolution is as a question, not a statement).

For the purpose of this debate...

Public Office - Any elected position within government.

The spirit of this debate should be clear and any attempts to compromise the spirit of the debate with semantics (such as "kids can't hold office, therefore they should not be able to run for office" or other semantics) to bypass the spirit and purpose of the debate shall be considered auto-forfeits.

First round is for acceptance only.

Thank you,
DudeStop

Con

Thank you Pro. I'm looking forward to this debate.

I accept the above terms presented by Pro.

I would also like to add that if anyone is curious about the tournament, they are able to find more information here:
http://www.debate.org...

I am hoping that Pro will enjoy this debate. I also wish her good luck.

I'll stop typing now and allow her to post arguments now:
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro


I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for this debate topic. I will go ahead and dive right into the debate. The definition of child is, “a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority [1]. “ Since we are talking about public offices and law, the “legal age” is what applies for this debate.



=== Pro’s Case ===



1) Age discrimination



Putting a barrier on age is a form of age discrimination. In a short and sweet explanation, is that we all grow, develop and mature at different rates [2]. Because of this, measuring by age is an extremely inaccurate measuring tool for determining one’s maturity and skill levels. I don’t believe my opponent will argue that we all mature at the same rate, so let’s move on.



2) Will of the people



The general public ought to have the voice in their elected leaders. This ties back into the age discrimination, however, if the people evaluate their options, and they choose that person A is the best fit for them, there is no valid reason for the public’s will to be violated simply because of person A’s age. This is an inherent right of the people in a democratic society [3], called full suffrage [4]. Currently, most (if not all) nations, all age discrimination against full suffrage rights, but no rationale is given for this.



3) Negative rights



A quick overview of negative rights, for those that may not be familiar is that negative rights are rights are “…a descriptive term that says the right imposes a negative duty on others – in this case, the duty not to interfere with my right… [5]” These are rights that do not force others to do anything. These are the types of rights recognized by most proponents for liberty. All 10 rights in the Bill of Rights, created by our founding fathers, are negative rights. By telling someone that they cannot run for office, is no different, from a rights standpoint, than telling them that they cannot go to their chosen church, eat their preferred foods, or live with the ones they love.



Depending on your philosophy, it must take a significant amount of rational support to justify violating any negative rights. Some might argue that there is no justification is violating negative rights, even if it would better the society in some other measure (such as the economy or mortality rates). Rich or poor, sick or healthy, the ultimate responsibility of a government is protecting the freedoms of its people, nothing more, nothing less.



I will leave this nice and short so we have space to grow and to make it easier for our readers and voters.



Thank you



[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


[2] http://www.apa.org...


[3] http://www.idea.int...


[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[5] http://www.communityofliberty.org...


DudeStop

Con

Pro:

"I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for this debate topic. I will go ahead and dive right into the debate. The definition of child is, "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority [1]. " Since we are talking about public offices and law, the "legal age" is what applies for this debate."

I reject your thanks, and hand it back to you for suggesting the debate.

"1) Age discrimination

Putting a barrier on age is a form of age discrimination. In a short and sweet explanation, is that we all grow, develop and mature at different rates [2]. Because of this, measuring by age is an extremely inaccurate measuring tool for determining one"s maturity and skill levels. I don"t believe my opponent will argue that we all mature at the same rate, so let"s move on."

We do not in fact mature that quickly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...

It takes guys up to their late 40's or for woman 30's to mature. It would obviously take *ALOT* of maturity to run one of the most powerful Nations in the world.

This argument is also flawed very much. The age of 18 is also when children finish school. So after school, you're educated enough to be an adult. It's not saying you are mature enough, but you passed high school at least. If someone did not finish school, and went on to skipping four years so that one can run a country, their learning would suffer.

"2) Will of the people

The general public ought to have the voice in their elected leaders. This ties back into the age discrimination, however, if the people evaluate their options, and they choose that person A is the best fit for them, there is no valid reason for the public"s will to be violated simply because of person A"s age. This is an inherent right of the people in a democratic society [3], called full suffrage [4]. Currently, most (if not all) nations, all age discrimination against full suffrage rights, but no rationale is given for this."

Pro says in this argument that if the people want a child to be president, or hold some sort of office, then that child ought to hold office. She then ties back to age discrimination, and says no rationale is given for age discrimination.

As we can clearly see in history, when African Americans wanted equal rights eventually the will of the people prevailed. Gay marriage has started to be legalized in some states. The will of the people prevailed. If the people feel a need to allow kids to hold office, then that need will become evident and kids will be able to hold office. We have seen this happen in history. Yet no will exists for this, so it does not happen.

Please point to someone under the age of 18 that is:
From America (Was born in America)
Supported by enough people to be elected (Or at least a good portion of the people)
Actually willing to take the job

Until pro can show a will for this, it goes as a useless argument. I argue that you cannot argue for nonexistent will. Because, it obviously doesn't exist. (Oh and I forgot to say this but Merry Christmas Pro)

"3) Negative rights

A quick overview of negative rights, for those that may not be familiar is that negative rights are rights are ""a descriptive term that says the right imposes a negative duty on others " in this case, the duty not to interfere with my right" [5]" These are rights that do not force others to do anything. These are the types of rights recognized by most proponents for liberty. All 10 rights in the Bill of Rights, created by our founding fathers, are negative rights. By telling someone that they cannot run for office, is no different, from a rights standpoint, than telling them that they cannot go to their chosen church, eat their preferred foods, or live with the ones they love. Depending on your philosophy, it must take a significant amount of rational support to justify violating any negative rights. Some might argue that there is no justification is violating negative rights, even if it would better the society in some other measure (such as the economy or mortality rates). Rich or poor, sick or healthy, the ultimate responsibility of a government is protecting the freedoms of its people, nothing more, nothing less..."

The "People" do not actually earn the rights said in the constitution until the said age of 18. If your logic is true, then children should receive all rights. Meaning everyone would be able to vote. We know that is a poor idea to allow 3 year olds to vote. (Or any immature person for that matter) Not all children are responsible and mature enough to handle the rights, and to give them to just some who are "Mature" enough to handle it would be seen as discrimination. So it would make since to wait until they are 18 to receive all rights. It is when they finish education, so they are considerably "mature" enough.

Arguments:
There is no will for a child to hold office. If one came up, then it would be legalized, as we can see in history. But as we can clearly see, it has not, and probably will not.

http://www.crf-usa.org...

http://www.buzzfeed.com...

http://www.truethevote.org...

^Horrible, rushed, hastily made arguments. You should be able to easily refute them mate^
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for their round. I will start by defending my case.

1) Age Discrimination and maturity

My opponent's source is misleading. We do not reach full maturity until an average of 43. We still have different stages of maturity throughout that process and even as it says, we all still mature at different rates. This is also meaningless in regards to this debate, as we elect based on how we as a people determine how mature someone is (psychologically) rather than how mature science says they are (biologically). These are two different types of maturities. While they are linked, they are not one and the same.

My opponent also addresses that when people are 18, they finish school. This is also not completely accurate, 3% of high school students graduate early [1] and such an age restriction would still hinder them (this doesn't even count the people, like myself, that finished 4 years at age 17 simply because of our birthdays). While 4.6% of people graduate late and 9.4% drop out altogether [2] and such restrictions do not hamper them. The argument for education is not valid through nothing but an age restriction.

2) Will of the People

My opponent makes the bold statement that if it is the will of the people, it would have happened. Such a statement is clearly false. Blacks were not considered equal people (in the US) until 1863 (and even then, they weren't really equal). Does this mean that if you asked in 1843 if Blacks should be equal that they shouldn't? Simply because it hasn't happened yet does not mean by any stretch of logic that the status quo is just.

My opponent then throws out a challenge for an underage people to be elected in America. I'm not sure why he would ask this without first checking it on Google, but here it is...

Brian Zimmerman, was elected mayor of Crabb, TX in 1983 at the age of 11. I will not argue that he was the absolute best mayor ever in the world, though I would argue that he was probably one of the most honest mayors ever. He fought against the town being annexed by Houston, saying, "The mayor isn't there to sit and worry about keeping his job. He's there to do what's best for the people." He tried to incorporate the town (thus keeping it out the hands of Houston), even though doing so would cost him his position (since the state law was that a mayor had to be 18), he was willing to sacrifice his job to do what he thought was best for the town. The people liked him so much, that they re-elected him again in 1985 [3].

3) Negative Rights

My opponent's remarks here have nothing to do with negative rights. He is merely stating that because enough of the people are okay with the violation of rights, then it is okay. Such a mindset is the same that would suggest that if a majority of the people were okay with taking away a women's right to vote, then it is okay. If enough people are okay with blacks not being people anymore, but livestock, that is okay. This is a clear appeal to popularity fallacy.


Unfortunately, my opponent has not presented a case of his own to argue that children should not be able to run, apart from his statements about my arguments. I do remind that the BOP is shared, as per the opening round.

Thank you,

[1] http://hamptonroads.com...
[2] http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

As we go into the final round, I have nothing to refute and can only sum up my arguments. I was planning on bringing up Galton's Ox and the Wisdom of Crowds, but with the forfeit and no arguments presented, the opportunity never arose. But we can still see that the people have the right to choose whomever they feel is best, and every rational being has a right to run and represent should the people want them.

Anyway, I will end this like this and pass it back to my opponent.
DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
I did. But he's got this one in the bag.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
1 hour 40 minutes left. Come on Dude post argument.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Great.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
To keep it more focused, lets just do America. Though rationale and logic don't depend on nationality.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Is this just in America, or around the world.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
She actually suggested it.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
Curious why Ore_Ele agreed to debate this topic, I can't conceive of any possible winning defense for that contention. Best of luck!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Ore_EleDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con leaves Pro's arguments unanswered. con demanded a single example and Pro provided it. i think that Con should have argued the legal issues involved with minors: they cannot enter into contracts, parents are liable for their children, etc. Also scientific studies showing young brains do not tie consequences to actions. Didn't happen.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Ore_EleDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? Forfeiting normal debates is bad enough, but signing up for a tournament just to forfeit? Wow.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Ore_EleDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate forfeits.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Ore_EleDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Two rounds of F/F = Automatic 7 points.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Ore_EleDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, both sides had equal arguments.