The Instigator
Lookingatissues
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jakelittle135
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should being a member of a group diqualify a person for a position

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 72479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Lookingatissues

Pro

There are certain organizations which people may have belonged to that automatically inform people about their political philosophies and prejudices such as belonging to and representing the NAACP,ACLU, or the KKK. Yet in the past members of these organizations have held positions in which unbiased opinions from those holding such positions were expected to be unbiased in rendering their decisions effecting the public.
Isn't it, when allowing persons who have belonged, to and in some cases represented certain organizations, to hold certain positions in government who's decisions effects the lives of all citizens similar to handing a box of matches to a known arsonist and expecting that he wouldn't use them to set fires.
jakelittle135

Con

It's the right of every person to be judged or considered for a position regardless of their political beliefs. This is a fundamental belief that is commonly interpreted and upheld by Supreme Court Justices often. My first and only argument for this round is that no person should be discriminated by based on their personal beliefs; this also just happened to be the very first amendment in our Constitution. Regardless of any possible outcomes of future events or decisions, each person, who is qualified for a position, should be awarded just as much consideration as the next person.
Debate Round No. 1
Lookingatissues

Pro

Lookingatissues forfeited this round.
jakelittle135

Con

jakelittle135 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lookingatissues

Pro

Lookingatissues comment to
The question asked ,"Should being a member of a group disqualify a person for a position." I remember an old -time radio show which started out asking the question,
" who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men....." While we can't possibly know what evils lurk in the hearts of men we can rest assured that if some person had been a member of a group with certain exclusive objectives that if that person were later on, granted a position weighting the correctness of that groups objectives after leaving that group that they could be unbias in their opinions.
The statue in front of the Supreme Court building is of a statue of a lady wearing a blind fold... Holding a scale .."The scales that she holds and the ....blindfold represent .....the impartiality with which justice is served"
The statue representing justice to all that stands before the Supreme Court building may represent the concept that the unbiased renderings of justice to all will be given by the Supreme Court justices but to allow Justices to decide cases who's motivations are suspect doesn't offer assurance to anyone that the justice's decisions would be impartial to all. Justice delivered by such Supreme Court justices who have belonged to or represented certain groups, doesn't do much for the concept that the justice decisions will be Impartial.
jakelittle135

Con

You are correct; no one knows what evil humans possess in their hearts but the opposite applies. No one can know what goodness men have either. Since it's impossible to truly know who is good, who is evil, who will become good, and who will become evil, it is the right of any given individual who is qualified for any given age to be granted equal consideration as any person. It's immoral and crewd to assume that because of a person's past, or current involvement, that they cannot remain unbias and proffesional at all times. Any professional person who understands their duties in a position that requires unbias judgement will remain unbias. Have faith in the good inside humans.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
Round three... Lookingattheissues responding to con's comments ....4-05-2015
There are so many quotes that suggest how to judge a person's character that are a quite accurate measure of a person and permit others to determine who a person really is over their public persona. such quotes as:
Ye shall know them by their fruits....St. Matthew 7:16
paraphrased ...."By their works ye shall know them..." or
Their....."Action speaks louder than words...."
"you can judge a person by the company they keep"
Do you suggest that a person who has been a integral part of such organizations as the NAACP, the ACLU, the KKK, could , like turning a light switch, switch off their personal emotions and attachments that caused them to become affiliated with these organizations in the first place. Would you then think that such a person ,after having been afiliated with these Special interest groups could then if , for instance later be seated on the supreme court as a Justice arbitrating either in favor or against one of these special interest organizations that they were personally affiliated with could render a unbias opinion. The public is supposed to believe that a supreme court justice could, this would mean that you also are convinced that because they have become supreme court justices that they are beyond all the other prejudices that all other mere humans are subject to.
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
d by jakelittle135 22 hours ago
jakelittle135
d by jakelittle135 22 hours ago
jakelittle135
"You posted,"I think that's the wrong debate, mate." Subject,"Should being a member of a group disqualify a person for a position..."
While the topic about government officials shouldn't be allowed to seal their records or their papers and Supreme Court justices being able to set on the bench when they have been representatives of special interest organizations previously have a common tie in that their ability to properly function in their positions, the public has to know all about these public officials past conduct and association connections.
Posted by jakelittle135 2 years ago
jakelittle135
I think that's the wrong debate, mate.
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
Posted by jakelittle135 26 minutes ago
jakelittle135
So what kind of position exactly?...." I take the position that if a politician asks the public to trust him, Sealing their records and papers from the public doesn't instill confidence in them that they have nothing to hide and can be trusted. No elected official should be able to seal any information about their past conduct while in elected office should be sealed from the voters. when reviewing the politicians past records and papers it should be done by a bi partisan committee to make sure nothing is censored/ deleted, under the guise of "national security"
Posted by jakelittle135 2 years ago
jakelittle135
So what kind of position exactly?
Posted by Lookingatissues 2 years ago
Lookingatissues
The question asked ,"Should being a member of a group disqualify a person for a position." I remember an old -time radio show which started out asking the question,
" who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men....." While we can't possibly know what evils lurk in the hearts of men we can rest assured that if some person had been a member of a group with certain exclusive objectives that if that person were later on, granted a position weighting the correctness of that groups objectives after leaving that group that they could be unbias in their opinions.
The statue in front of the Supreme Court building is of a statue of a lady wearing a blind fold... Holding a scale .."The scales that she holds and the ....blindfold represent .....the impartiality with which justice is served"
The statue representing justice to all that stands before the Supreme Court building may represent the concept that the unbiased renderings of justice to all will be given by the Supreme Court justices but to allow Justices to decide cases who's motivations are suspect doesn't offer assurance to anyone that the justice's decisions would be impartial to all. Justice delivered by such Supreme Court justices who have belonged to or represented certain groups, doesn't do much for the concept that the justice decisions will be Impartial.
Posted by PM1066 2 years ago
PM1066
Word limit?
No votes have been placed for this debate.