Should illiterate or uneducated people be allowed to vote?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Matthew3.14
| Started: | 4/21/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 5,293 times | Debate No: | 23048 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)
 Con There are 3 arguments for this: 1. People that cannot read show an inability to make the right judgement because of their education. 2. Voting is to give the best for your country. To not be educated would pose a problem for this. 3. Voting is a priviledge given to those who want to make a positive impact for their country. Those who cannot even make a positive intellectual impact should not have this priviledge  Pro 500 characters? Really? I'll make it short then. I have two arguments: 1. The right to vote is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, which allows us free speech and a voice on who runs our government. 2. Denying the few their rights to vote would lead us down a slippery slope to total totalitarianism, as once we repress some people's rights, what stops us from repressing a few more, and a few more, and a few more? |
 |
|
Con Rebuttal to 1st argument: Free speech is a proponent of an outline in the Preamble of the Constitution "promote the general welfare." People without education are limited in knowledge when voting for the common good. 1st Amendment isn't applicable here because it does not fit the Preamble outline. 2nd argument is not a true support, but rather a result. Thus being as flawed as the 1st support. Pro Defending my first argument: 1. This isn't true at all. The First Amendment is an addition to the Consitution as a part of the Bill of Rights, not as a proponent of the Preamble. 2. Even if, restricting the rights of a good size of our population isn't for the general welfare. Extend my first argument. He only says that my second argument is a result, but it's saying if we negate, then totalitarianism. So it's still a reason to affirm and allow voting rights. He concedes this. Extend. |
 |
|
Con Support for CON: The fact that our country is in an economic depression and others shows an example of how my 1st support works for citizens to not vote for the right things. Pro supports me by showing how this is brought about by the good size of the population being uneducated (#2). Question: Does not allowing people to harm the country be viewed as a path for "totalitarianism?" Pro Notice how he saves his main arguments for the last round. Abusive argumentation is abusive. His "support" doesn't really prove anything. Answer: Restricting people's rights to vote falls into the slippery slope of totalitarianism. So yes. To his note, this is false as well. The preamble existed before the BoR. It couldn't have been an outline to something that didn't exist. My arguments can be extended. I'm best fulfilling the BOP. Vote pro. |
 |
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Writerdave on sources because none of them had them.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote. Firstly, CON had many viable, though arguable arguments which pro dropped, hence conceded man of CONs arguments. Pro essentially did not argue, and used weak fatalistic slippery slope args. THE SYSTEM WONT FAIL. Also I do nto believe the right to vote was the 1st amendment, but idk. CON at least tried to refute pro, PRO did not refute con, hence I think con deserves my vote. So, PROs statement I am best at fulfilling the BOP is false.
Vote Placed by blazeratman 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, wish there wasn't the 500 character limit, it really could have been a better debate without that. Pro gets the conduct point because Con got tied up with the preamble...someone needs a history lesson...and that kind of threw the debate off track, combined with the lack of characters made the debate messy. However, both made pretty convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and upheld his BOP. The thing I had a problem with, was that the debate was about what should or shouldn't be, not what is. I gave conduct to Con for this reason, as I feel like it is indeed a slipper slope argument. What Con should have done was argue the value and reason for it being in the constitution. I understand the debate was limited in character (don't know why the pro would do that!) So I understand it being hard to make a case and fit all of it into 500 c's.
Vote Placed by Mestari 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: The only arguments about whether or not the illiterate and uneducated "should" be allowed to vote were the Con's and Zaradi's slippery slope argument. I don't see any reason to actually buy that suppressing voting privileges would cause totalitarianism though; it's more of a "what if" scenario.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con made three arguments in R1. Pro conceded all of them. Pro made two counter arguments. The right to vote was never a subject of the first amendment (it's the 15th and 19th amendments), and if it were it would only mean the resolution required an amendment. The slippery slope argument is not convincing, as Pro did not give adequate reasons why the system would degenerate. the resolution should fail, but Pro didn't make the case.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's 1st amendment argument was not an argument that the uneducated SHOULD be allowed to vote, only that they ARE. His slippery slope argument did give his position some support. However, Con's three initial arguments went unaddressed, so arguments to Con. Con loses all other points for not citing sources, misspellings, and raising a new argument in the last round.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| Matthew3.14 | Zaradi | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: there were illiterate people who voted for many of our founding fathers and first presidents, it worked great back then and the con did not show why it would be any different today. Arguments to the Pro
God I hate auto correct.
Cool.
This debate was in my opinion fun and helpful for me.
Moreover, the only reason I didn't respond to his arguments (that he never extended across, meaning he dropped them as well) is because the character limit was 500, and I was too busy defending my own.