The Instigator
zxcvzxcvzxcv
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
MadisonJ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

In order for any American to vote, they must first pass a test on each candidate.

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 1 vote the winner is...
zxcvzxcvzxcv
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 43026
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

Obviously if they don't even know what the candidates claim to stand for, then they should not have any vote!
MadisonJ

Con

A random test? No. A test of intelligence? Yes.

The masses are generally...well, stupid, and this is why I personally dislike democracy. In order to quell the stupidity of the masses a little, there should be a test in place that measures logistical skill and reasoning, general intelligence, and test information surrounding the election. If you score below a certain level, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Voting should be a privilege, not a right. American's feel so entitled, so special, and so smart, that they're actually becoming ignorant, unhealthy, and unmotivated, and those huge flaws in Americans needn't be affecting/downgrading our government and our overall international image.
Debate Round No. 1
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

You missed the point. They need to pass a test ON EACH CANDIDATE. No, they should not be tested on intelligence. If you're stupid but can pass a test on what each candidate stands for, then you should be allowed to vote, because both stupid and smart people are allowed to have an opinion.

The problem is that most people (or at least, many people) don't even know what they are voting for. If they can't pass a test on what each candidate stands for then why should they have a vote? What are they voting for? Nothing! All this does is falsely skew the votes.
MadisonJ

Con

The problem is that the American masses as a whole refuse to apply themselves mentally. Most people who don't know what they're voting for don't care enough to vote, so they're not really a problem. The problem that we have is that the voting population as a whole is stupid. We need smarter voters, not just voters who can have an opinion. If we continue to let stupid people vote we will eventually have a idiotic and emotionally driven mobocracy. The only times that people who didn't knowing what they were voting for might have been a problem were during the Lincoln, Kennedy, and Obama election. Lincoln, because there were most likely southerners who only voted to protect slavery and didn't know another ounce of information about him. Kennedy, because he was Catholic, and i'm sure the many Catholics voted for him without knowing anything else about him. Lastly, Obama, because he's black and there were tons of black people, hispanics, and asians who voted for him for that reason. People will always go for change, and will vote blindly every time change is up for an election, this will happen even with intelligent people. But, we can protect our regular elections from stupidity and wrecklessness by requiring voters to take exams that test general knowledge, logistical skill, reasoning, AND information surrounding the election (which would include the candidates).
Debate Round No. 2
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

Of course, that's why we need this requirement.
MadisonJ

Con

MadisonJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

It seems we are in agreement.
MadisonJ

Con

MadisonJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
zxcvzxcvzxcv

Pro

It seems we are in agreement.
MadisonJ

Con

MadisonJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by zxcvzxcvzxcv 3 years ago
zxcvzxcvzxcv
@erikejr - so you're saying you think if someone wants pro-life and is voting for John President because they think he is pro-life even though he is the opposite of what they were actually voting for, then they should be allowed to vote? NO!

Now if they are taught what is correct, and now they understand that John President is Pro-choice and NOT pro-life and still want to vote for him, that's another story and they should be allowed. As long as they are voting in FULL KNOWLEDGE of what the candidate stands for.

Otherwise you just got another John President voter who would never have voted for him if they knew he wasn't pro-life!
Posted by zxcvzxcvzxcv 3 years ago
zxcvzxcvzxcv
NO I DON'T want people voting based on intelligence! The person who said that didn't even read the question. The test should be ABOUT THE CANDIDATE ONLY, and if you know what the candidates stand for, then you should be allowed an opinion whether you are stupid or smart.

This questions was NEVER about intelligence.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Such tests have historically been biased toward upper class persons. This could prevent poor persons from voting. Intelligence tests would effectively be judging whether an American is fit to think, which is also quite problematic. Simply because I'm autistic for example doesn't mean I'm not worthy or capable of choosing a president. I would have a right to have my voice heard, and such a superficial label is insufficient to remove this right from me.
Posted by ZebramZee 3 years ago
ZebramZee
To me there seems two relevant questions that one must also ask and perhaps you guys want to address during the debate:
1. Is voting legitimate in itself? Should there be leaders at all that are decided through an electoral process and majority vote that are then imposed on the population residing in a certain geographical area? What makes such a process legitimate or illegitimate?
2. Will any such voting test of intelligence, knowledge, etc bias the electoral process towards the election of leaders of a certain political philosophy? For example, if intelligent people only are allowed to vote, do they possess certain biases? Do intelligent people tend to have more hubris and believe they should control and plan society the way they feel fit rather than taking a hands off approach? Any such test may tend to bias the voting population in a certain direction.
Posted by erikejr 3 years ago
erikejr
I believe that if a person does not pass a test that they should still he able to vote because a person doesn't not have to be a politician to be able to vote. although people may not be the smartest they should still be able to vote on what they believe is better. a person has the ability to vote wether they are smart or not. then brings up the case of the mentally challenged. they may not be the smartest so are you saying that they aren't allowed to vote if this would happen may people will have a problems with it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
zxcvzxcvzxcvMadisonJTied
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: F/F