The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
mrmatt505
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Remove the qualifications for president

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,292 times Debate No: 596
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (16)

 

policydebategod

Pro

America is built on the basis of its people being allowed to vote on who it sees fit to lead but the founding fathers made an error when applyig limits. These limits make it so that the American people can not choose who they see fit. It also takes away the right to lead by citizens. Many foreigners would like to run for president but are barred for the position. Also, age, if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to. In the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running.
mrmatt505

Con

I thank you for your challenge and I graciously accept. The topic of this debate is intriguing and I have found myself pondering the issue as to why we have restrictions on who can be president of the United States. I have come to the final conclusion that it is best that we have these restrictions for a multitude of reasons.

First, the topic clearly states to remove the qualifications for the office of presidency. For this I have two responses. There must be limits on any area of governance or all structures of that area will be thrown into chaos. The reason being is because we already find loopholes in our government and hypothetically, under the topic, we could have a president who doesn't even speak English to become president because that person has only lived in the United States for less that one year. My second response is that there are plenty of other positions that a foreigner can take without reprisal. In all honesty, the situation you have set up would lead to parallel situations such that an Asian person by decent could become president of the Black Student Union at a school when that person is not affiliated with black heritage. I use this example because we have an after school club that has taken on that name.

Second, the populace of America would not be ready and would not except somebody who does not share the same culture as they do which is a reason to reject your position. Every person carries with them a certain sense of nationalism and if we were to have a president that was not of this nation, nationalism would weaken and it has been empirically proven that nationalism is one of the few bonds that holds a country strongly together.

Third, the age limit is a reasonable restriction because a person that has ascertained the age of thirty-five will be more likely to show better qualities of leadership, wisdom and experience. Although young people such as you and myself can be potential material at our ages, we do not carry with us the experiences that would make us great leaders. We would not have the time to have obtained wisdom. Knowledge yes, but wisdom comes with age. I am not by any means saying that all of the presidents we have had have been completely competent in their position. Look at John Quincy Adams. He was an excellent Secretary of defense, but he did not show the qualities of a good president Despite his lack of abilities, he was still able to hold the country together with his experiences and natural wisdom that did come with age.

Fourth, most presidents have been over the age of fifty years old, so in reality, the presidential restrictions help establish a foundational age for people to consider being president rather than them becoming president at thirty-five.

Fifth, the majority of the American populace would have trouble looking up to someone who was younger than 75% of the population. I know that when I am 50, I most likely won't want someone who is 25 leading the country.

Sixth, almost all presidents have some prior political experience before becoming president and it is the age restriction that makes that possible. Instead of going from law school to president, a person must wait patiently and make a name for him/herself via the position of governor, representative, or senator.

With these six reasons I hope that it becomes obvious why we can not allow the qualifications for president to be removed.

Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

- There must be limits on any area of governance or all structures of that area will be thrown into chaos. The reason being is because we already find loopholes in our government and hypothetically, under the topic, we could have a president who doesn't even speak English to become president because that person has only lived in the United States for less that one year.
+ That should be the American people's decision, we are competent enough to choose our leadrs. This is just a way to control the presidency likes blacks, women, non landowners, protestants. There will not be chaos if the president is a 34 year old, Canadian born, American raised candidate. Arnold Swarzenegger, the California governor, cannot run for president.
- My second response is that there are plenty of other positions that a foreigner can take without reprisal. In all honesty, the situation you have set up would lead to parallel situations such that an Asian person by decent could become president of the Black Student Union at a school when that person is not affiliated with black heritage. I use this example because we have an after school club that has taken on that name.
+ If the Asian is qualified enough to the black people he should be allowed to be leader of the Black Student Union. Arnold Swarzenegger, the California governor, cannot run for president.

- Second, the populace of America would not be ready and would not except somebody who does not share the same culture as they do which is a reason to reject your position. Every person carries with them a certain sense of nationalism and if we were to have a president that was not of this nation, nationalism would weaken and it has been empirically proven that nationalism is one of the few bonds that holds a country strongly together.
+ Is this why a black, Muslim is not in the lead for democratic nomination? The American people should reject or elect any candidate they choose not based on some racist, sexist, classist's personal preference for president.

- Third, the age limit is a reasonable restriction because a person that has ascertained the age of thirty-five will be more likely to show better qualities of leadership, wisdom and experience. Although young people such as you and myself can be potential material at our ages, we do not carry with us the experiences that would make us great leaders. We would not have the time to have obtained wisdom. Knowledge yes, but wisdom comes with age. I am not by any means saying that all of the presidents we have had have been completely competent in their position. Look at John Quincy Adams. He was an excellent Secretary of defense, but he did not show the qualities of a good president Despite his lack of abilities, he was still able to hold the country together with his experiences and natural wisdom that did come with age.
+ You wont tell me why the American people are not competent enough to decide their own leader? Young people can run the office just as well? Why cant a 34 year old be in office?

- Fourth, most presidents have been over the age of fifty years old, so in reality, the presidential restrictions help establish a foundational age for people to consider being president rather than them becoming president at thirty-five.
+ OBVIOUSLY!!! You just said: the age restriction helps set an age. This age restriction is not good but a hinderance to the youthfdul America. More of America ia under 50 than over 50. We should be able to elect a president that we want.

- Fifth, the majority of the American populace would have trouble looking up to someone who was younger than 75% of the population. I know that when I am 50, I most likely won't want someone who is 25 leading the country.
+ That is your issue. Dont vote for him. And if they wont look up to him then they wont vote for him. You just proved that the American people are competent enoughto pick their own president. I win this debate!!!
+ That is your issue. Dont vote for him. And if they wont look up to him then they wont vote for him. You just proved that the American people are competent enoughto pick their own president. I win this debate!!!
+ That is your issue. Dont vote for him. And if they wont look up to him then they wont vote for him. You just proved that the American people are competent enoughto pick their own president. I win this debate!!!
+ A 25 year old is more than capable of leading the country. They can drink, drive, vote, die for this counrty, and make laws but cannot be our leader. Why are we excluding our own citizens? It doesnt make sense.

- Sixth, almost all presidents have some prior political experience before becoming president and it is the age restriction that makes that possible. Instead of going from law school to president, a person must wait patiently and make a name for him/herself via the position of governor, representative, or senator.
+ This isa bad thing. What if a candidate will die of AIDS is running as the AIDS candidate. He wont be around to wait this lopng. The people that America find capable are unable to be our leader. America is more than competent to choose our leader.
mrmatt505

Con

It is up to the people and yes we are competent to choose our president. But, with the increase of rash action in our society it is easy to falter and make the wrong decision. Also, if we allowed for 18 years olds to run for president, we could see the political realm flooded with inexperienced people who are still semi-"wet behind the ears".

Next with the Asian and Black Student Union debate, that would completely undermine the essence of a Black Student Union because you would be allowing people with other heritage and background into a club that is oriented on certain backgrounds where people of the same ethnicity can get together without have other people involved.

And, we could have a leader who was good for another country flaunt his political capital here and he could easily turn out to be the wrong choice. Also, this same person could claim nationalism and patriotism for America but his morals and agenda could lie with another regime. It is easy to put on a show and win support.

Next, your argument about 34-year-olds is denied because of my previous argument stating that it will be those that are in their teens and twenties who will flood the presidential campaign and it is also rejected because we haven't had but maybe a few presidents under the age of 50.

And, I see that you believe strongly that you win this debate because you have struck "fools gold" in one of my arguments and I know that you are trying to capitalize on the idea that America has the competence to vote for the right candidate. (you express this with your anaphora.) I believe that America is capable of making competent decisions and that is clearly the reason why we haven't repealed this article of the constitution. We are not "excluding our citizens" just because they have to wait to take office. It is better to have 2 quality candidates who know what they are doing than to have 10 candidates who are still learning how that government/politics works.

Next, Under Article II Section I of the constitution it states that there are other, powerful avenues that practically anyone can pursue in politics and that presidency and vice-presidency are the only exclusive ones because they wield the most power. Clearly we do not want to withdraw these restrictions.

And, the person with AIDS can still leave his impact on America without being president and also that same person will most likely be seen as weak because of his disease and will therefore not be taken seriously or be voted for.

Next, by repealing something out of the constitution, you would be violating what was previously set down and you would be setting a new precedent to disregard the constitution which is the backbone of our society. It would be detrimental to repeal this because of mild discontent.

Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

- It is up to the people and yes we are competent to choose our president. But, with the increase of rash action in our society it is easy to falter and make the wrong decision. Also, if we allowed for 18 years olds to run for president, we could see the political realm flooded with inexperienced people who are still semi-"wet behind the ears".
+ People make the "wrong decision" for president constantly. The qualifications were determined by peole who also wanted it to be only white, protestant, male, landowners. The founding father had their own idea of a president and we should be allowed to have our own.

- Next with the Asian and Black Student Union debate, that would completely undermine the essence of a Black Student Union because you would be allowing people with other heritage and background into a club that is oriented on certain backgrounds where people of the same ethnicity can get together without have other people involved.
+ The American people are competent enough to vote for their own leader, that is what democracy is. This is unfair. Also, you are exaggerating. Imagine, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a good governor, who would make a great president. It is not all Iraqis running for president.
- And, we could have a leader who was good for another country flaunt his political capital here and he could easily turn out to be the wrong choice. Also, this same person could claim nationalism and patriotism for America but his morals and agenda could lie with another regime. It is easy to put on a show and win support.
+ It is not easy to win a political campaign. Ask any of the candidates running now.

- Next, your argument about 34-year-olds is denied because of my previous argument stating that it will be those that are in their teens and twenties who will flood the presidential campaign and it is also rejected because we haven't had but maybe a few presidents under the age of 50.
+ Because this is the status quo does not make it good. Why are old people, a misrepresentation of Anmerican people, good?

- And, I see that you believe strongly that you win this debate because you have struck "fools gold" in one of my arguments and I know that you are trying to capitalize on the idea that America has the competence to vote for the right candidate. (you express this with your anaphora.) I believe that America is capable of making competent decisions and that is clearly the reason why we haven't repealed this article of the constitution. We are not "excluding our citizens" just because they have to wait to take office. It is better to have 2 quality candidates who know what they are doing than to have 10 candidates who are still learning how that government/politics works.
+ This is your opinion. I think 10 candidates who are inexperienced would get their due from the American vote and the 2 "qualifying" candidates are still in the 10. Also, any 35 year old person who was born in America can be voted president. The qualifications are not even acceptable just unnecessarily discriminatory.

- Next, Under Article II Section I of the constitution it states that there are other, powerful avenues that practically anyone can pursue in politics and that presidency and vice-presidency are the only exclusive ones because they wield the most power. Clearly we do not want to withdraw these restrictions.
+ This debate is about running for PRESIDENT, which honest hard working citizens cant do.

- And, the person with AIDS can still leave his impact on America without being president and also that same person will most likely be seen as weak because of his disease and will therefore not be taken seriously or be voted for.
+ This is speculation. The candidate cannot be a president.

- Next, by repealing something out of the constitution, you would be violating what was previously set down and you would be setting a new precedent to disregard the constitution which is the backbone of our society. It would be detrimental to repeal this because of mild discontent.
+ We repealed that blacks, women cant run votepresident/ vote. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to destroy the constitution.

Thanks again!
mrmatt505

Con

You contradicted yourself from your second speech to your third one.
2nd Speech - "That should be the American people's decision, we are competent enough to choose our leadrs."
3rd Speech - "People make the "wrong decision" for president constantly."

Debate is not about living in a paradox world where you can contend two different things and still be right. I am calling you out on that.

But, the Judicial Branch was allotted the right during Marbury vs. Madison of Judicial Review meaning that the Judicial Branch can deem something constitutional or not. Because the constitution talks about "man", the judicial branch deemed it a universal term for all ethnicity and both sexes. Under Article II Section I is sets down specific parameters that must be followed whereas the parameters that you speak of were never specified.

Yes it is hard to win a debate, that is why a lot of people lie as is and the lying will just get worse if we repeal this part of the constitution.

I agree with Kels1123, 35 isn't old.

And, you did not answer my argument about how a plethora of people would flood the campaigns not allowing for quality people. That went uncontested.

Next, honest, hardworking citizens DO run for president.

In reality, we cannot out step the limits of the constitution because that would set a new precedent for worse limits in the future. You did not answer this argument which means that I win the debate on constitutionality.
Next, some people would contend that Arnold is not a good governor.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by clsmooth 8 years ago
clsmooth
For the second time, I totally agree with pdg, but he contradicted himself, as his opponent demonstrated.
Posted by gack1224 8 years ago
gack1224
While 35 might not be old, let voters decide the level of maturity and value of ideas of a person running. So what if they have little experience when they've proven that their ideas and plans can work in the real world while promoting great ideals? Let the voters decide if an 18-year-old is an idiot, not the law assuming that they are. That's ageist and it is becoming increasingly false that "with age comes experience/better decision-making skills".
Posted by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
policydebategood , 35 is not old ... Just had to correct you on that. There are reasons that a person under 35 can't be President. With age comes experience. I do not want the President of our country to not have any experience under their belt besides high school and maybe college. AS for them being a Natural born American citizen I agree with that 100% .. For example my husband loves America , He was born in Scotland and has his green card and will be a citizen in March and fights for the US army , however he will always have a love for Scotland ... What if he was President and Scotland and another country were fighting , Although he may want to do what is right for America and only America , he may be biased to help Scotland .. because he will always have a love for Scotland as well .. he would pick the US first over anything , but if say Scotland decided to fight for its independence from England , he would have a hard time picking a side not based on his love for the country he was born in ...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 7 years ago
mrmatt505
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chob 8 years ago
Chob
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by ireallylovetsa 8 years ago
ireallylovetsa
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by DeKHaole 8 years ago
DeKHaole
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Vulcan 8 years ago
Vulcan
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by lowreeder 8 years ago
lowreeder
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 8 years ago
PreacherFred
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mrpresident 8 years ago
mrpresident
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 8 years ago
clsmooth
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 8 years ago
wheelhouse3
policydebategodmrmatt505Tied
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:03