The Instigator
cbass28
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Should a qualified muslim canidate be elected president

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 6 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 8850
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

cbass28

Pro

I would have no problem voting for a muslim presidential canidate if i agreed with them. I will let my opponent start.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Quickly rounding up some definitions before the debate begins:

Should - implying a morally binding duty or obligation

qualified - having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like.

Muslim - of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.

and, a stipulation on 'president'; for the purposes of this debate, we are discussing the President of the United States.

Now that we have clear definitions in place, allow me to clarify the burden for my opponent:

By asking if a qualified muslim candidate should be elected, the PRO must prove that, if said muslim candidate has all the experience, qualities, accomplishments, etc. that we are morally obligated to vote for him or her (meaning that we would have to perform the action of voting for him or her, and that we would have no real choice in the matter, since we're morally bound).

My burden, therefore, is to prove that, even if a candidate is qualified for the position, we are under no morally binding obligation to vote for him or her; NOT to prove that we shouldn't vote for the candidate at all.

Normally, I would make my case at this point, but, seeing as my opponent has crafted a 5-round debate, and we will very likely run out of things to say before round 5, I will simply leave my opening statements as they are, and allow my opponent to begin arguing (as he is both the PRO and the Instigator in today's debate).

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
cbass28

Pro

I conceade on the grounds that i cant prove their is a obligation for a voter to vote for a muslim. I should have made the title clearer. I will make a debate titled would you vote for a muslim presidentail canidate if they where qualified and you agreed with their policies. I will take a pro stance if my opponent wants to debate that, then i can send it to him
Cody_Franklin

Con

Well, I suppose that I don't even have to actually argue this topic then; PRO has openly conceded the debate to me; in the future, let this be a lesson that you have to be very specific with the way you word a topic.

This is especially true for the topic that you're trying to get across; because your new topic is 'would you vote for a qualified muslim candidate if you agreed with his/her policies'; obviously, if one agrees with the candidate's policies, and the candidate is qualified, there's no ground for CON to say that one should not vote for that candidate.

Oh, and again, because my opponent conceded, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
cbass28

Pro

cbass28 forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Again, the debate was conceded by PRO; therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
cbass28

Pro

cbass28 forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Pro concedes; vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
cbass28

Pro

cbass28 forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Concession -> Default CON -> I win.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Semantic arguments are justified if the meaning is genuinely unclear or if the instigator attempts a strategy of "winning by definition." Winning by definition involves unusual definitions, like "abortion is murder," murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong. In this case, I think Pro's meaning was clear, even though he certainly messed up the resolution. The resolution should have been something like "A Muslim candidate for President should not be rejected solely on religious grounds." Pro could have argued the semantics, calling upon the implicit meaning and arguing that "should" does not mean a moral obligation in this context. But he didn't.

That said, Pro made no rebuttal and lost conduct by forfeiting, so it was a clear win for Con.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Conduct: Pro forfeited, Con argued semantics. TIE.
Arguments: CON. Pro conceded.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
He never specified what he meant, and he conceded - should be a no-brainer.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
In accepting this debate, did you know what he meant by his resolution?
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Cody_Franklin nailed it
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Also, remember that we have that 'gays in the military' debate to finish.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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