The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
excon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Capitalistslave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 405 times Debate No: 101520
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

The circumstances I propose that non-citizens should be allowed to vote in the US are as follows:
1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here
2) The government has jurisdiction over them.


Rules of debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults, be civil
2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us since I am not using round 1 for argument.
3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments allowed in this round. New information and facts are allowed, if they are brought up in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.

If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to award the point in conduct to the side that did not violate them, or who did so to a lesser degree.

I look forward to this debate, and have fun!
excon

Con

Hello slave:

I'll take you on. I hope I live up to the standards I've seen in other debates.

1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here
2) The government has jurisdiction over them.

First off, I believe in EXPANDING our voter pool, not in reducing it. Plus, I don't disagree with what you said above. But, those statements are TRUE even for citizens, and WE don't have a right to vote. Let's make voting for citizens a right FIRST, and then we can consider spreading it around to others..

That's all I got.

excon
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Rebuttal to opponent's argument:
It seems my opponent mostly agrees with me, but is only concerned about how not all citizens have the right to vote and that needs to be taken care of before we allow non-citizens to vote. I agree that we need to expand voting to all citizens. I know there are some circumstances in which citizens are denied the right to vote, such as if they are prisoners, or in some states, if they are ex-felons. I can't think of another instance where citizens are denied the right to vote.

At any rate, I did have a debate on this before, and I agree we need to extend suffrage to prisoners. Why not do both extending suffrage to all citizens, including prisoners, and to non-citizens?

Main arguments:

1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting.
2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once states, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]


I'll leave it at this for now, since it seems I won't need to do much convincing of my opponent that non-citizens should vote.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
excon

Con

Hello again, slave:

I probably shouldn't have taken up your debate because, as noted, we mostly are in agreement.. However, given the narrow parameters of this debate, or at the very least, your very narrow REASONING for your position, I can only restate the obvious.. If we're gonna GIVE the right to vote to non citizens, we should give it to American citizens FIRST..

Nuff said.

excon

PS> We can talk about our families in the next segment, cause we ain't covering any new ground here..
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

Well, like I said, why not do both? Just because we might want to give suffrage to all citizens first, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for non-citizens.

Please note, that the resolution is not that this is the first thing that should be done. I am not saying we should first grant non-citizens suffrage, but that they should be given it at some point. I don't see why we couldn't grant them the right to vote the same time we grant all citizens the right to vote.
excon

Con

Hello again, slave:

I declare a draw. We AGREE that we should give American citizens the right to vote AT THE SAME TIME we give non-citizens the right to vote..

I'm cool with that..

excon
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

My position was never that we should do this before other things, just that we should do it at some point. If anything, it would mean I win because you agree that we should allow non-citizens to vote at some point.

It would probably have been best for you to not have accepted the debate if you agreed with me.
excon

Con

Hello again, slave:
----------------
The circumstances I propose that non-citizens should be allowed to vote in the US are as follows:
1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here
2) The government has jurisdiction over them.
------------------

I took the debate because, pursuant to your original talking points, I did NOT agree. If anything, you wound up agreeing with me that Americans should get their rights first, if not concomitantly.

I win..

excon
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
excon: ok, in that case, just be sure to waive the last round, or any round you choose. I'd recommend the last round so that the debate is easier to follow.
Posted by excon 9 months ago
excon
Hello again, slave:

It isn't much, I agree.. But, it's enough to counter your argument.. So, I'll stick with it.. Looking forward to your next round.

excon
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
excon: that's ok. You were allowed to use the first round for argument as long as you don't use some other round for argument. I would suggest waiving the final round.

Are you satisfied with what you posted in round 1 though? It seems like very little. If you're not satisfied with it, I would allow you to use all of the rounds for argument, as long as one of the rounds is similar to what you did in round 1, and only provide one argument.
Posted by excon 9 months ago
excon
Hello again, slave:

I think I wasn't supposed to argue in the first round. Sorry.. I'm a newbie and just figuring it out..

excon
Posted by Political.Questioneer 9 months ago
Political.Questioneer
When you claim non-US citizen are you including illegal immigrants?
Posted by GoOrDin 9 months ago
GoOrDin
not Biased or na"ve People***:

ex. muslims & drug users,
Posted by GoOrDin 9 months ago
GoOrDin
yeah. if they are a member of a dignified society, in the USA.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
CapitalistslaveexconTied
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: Both sides argued the Pro position (that non citizens should be able to vote). The only thing they differed on was voting rights for citizens. This was not germane to the resolution, however. Since both argued the Pro side of the resolution, arguments go to Pro by default.