The Instigator
Matthew3.14
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Should illiterate or uneducated people be allowed to vote?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
Matthew3.14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,754 times Debate No: 23048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

Matthew3.14

Con

Uneducated or illiterate people should not be allowed to vote. To precisely define the term illiterate and uneducated allow me to clarify: Illiterate refers to the inability to read while uneducated refers to people that have not graduated high school. The logic behind this is to be directed towards an American legal viewpoint.

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
Zaradi

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?
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew3.14

Con

I thank Pro for having this challenge as I know that I win from the fallacious argumentation given.

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.
Zaradi

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew3.14

Con

Note: Preamble is set to be an OUTLINE for the following Amendments. To not follow the outline would be absurd.

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?"
Zaradi

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.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xzcxzcasdasd 5 years ago
xzcxzcasdasd
hey its *Joe*! Hi Joe!
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Throughout*

God I hate auto correct.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
So the main reason why people seem to be voting against me is off arguments that we both dropped throttle the entirety of the debate, and I get blamed for it.

Cool.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Then the arguments must've been pretty sh!tty, no offense.
Posted by Jacket123 5 years ago
Jacket123
Actually, Zaradi, one of other debates in the past at my school involved writing debates against others. Similar to the one here (an evil scheme by my English teacher) and almost everyone actually had much space to add rebuttals as well as supports for arguments using a 475 word limit.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
There's a line between being consice and preventing arguments, and you're on te latter side with this.
Posted by Matthew3.14 5 years ago
Matthew3.14
You'll appreciate it, maybe not others. The whole point of 500 characters was to make arguments as precise and concise as possible, something I need to practice on :) although I think I did a pretty good job on this one.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
If you make a different debate, do more than 500 chaacters. Your future opponent will appreciate it.
Posted by Matthew3.14 5 years ago
Matthew3.14
This is actually kinda amusing. This is my first time on this website for my debate team. They all made me pick a side I disagreed with (Con), but it was funny thinking about points that I made and counterarguments at the same time. I should do this in the future. Hopefully it'll make me a better debator!!

This debate was in my opinion fun and helpful for me.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Roy, you do realize that all of the things you voted off of my opponent never brought up, right?

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.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Writerdave on sources because none of them had them.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: 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 5 years ago
blazeratman
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
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 5 years ago
TUF
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
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 5 years ago
Mestari
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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: 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 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: 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 5 years ago
WriterDave
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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:34 
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 5 years ago
imabench
Matthew3.14ZaradiTied
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 
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