The Instigator
mbelliardo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should there be more regultions on who is allowed to vote?

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 1 vote the winner is...
LatentDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 29714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

mbelliardo

Pro

Every person should know BASIC US Government, BASIC US History, have a BASIC Education, and have a BASIC idea what each US Presidential Candidate is FOR and AGAINST. They should be in school and/or employed. They should speak English. And they should not have any felony. I strongly believe that EVERYONE should NOT be allowed to vote.

Voter Criteria:

#1: You must speak English
#2: You must have NOT committed any felony
#3: You must be employed and/or in school
#4: You must pass a 20 question test on basic US Government
#5: You must pass a 20 question test on basic US History
#6: You must pass a 10 question test on what your candidate has voted FOR or AGAINST. Something that is an unbiased factual data about that canddate in question.

...etc
LatentDebater

Con

The BOP is on you, pro.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
mbelliardo

Pro

Ok. Thank you for accepting. This is my first time using this website so bear with me. So, what are you against for the argument I posted? And why?
LatentDebater

Con

A president's rule affects everyone, even criminals.

I would definitely allow criminals to vote (but don't want to asssert this).

If we leave criminals out, and instead look at ex-felons and innocents only I see no reason to ban any one of them from voting since they have every right to do it.

Let's ignore criminals for this debate as it's only over whether or not MORE regulations than current are needed in the country I assume is USA.
Debate Round No. 2
mbelliardo

Pro

Yes, this debate is regarding USA. If you feel more comfortable leaving criminal votes out of this debate, then that's fine. I just mentioned it because I do not believe that people who commit murder, rape, arson, robbery, fraud, treason, kidnapping, etc. should have the right to contribute a vote that ultimately affects law abiding citizens. Due to the fact that people who have had a felony have a track record of ignoring laws.
LatentDebater

Con

If a person is freed, they are considered fully functional citizens of the nation as opposed to felons.

Under current law felons are banned from voting and thus if you assert MORE regulations you assert that a man who is freed should not be freed which goes against the entire purpose of a justice system.
Debate Round No. 3
mbelliardo

Pro

I can post another debate about criminals voting if you would like, but let's just knock it out of this debate in order to address the rest of my argument instead of getting tunnel vision.
LatentDebater

Con

I have rebutted all contentions.

Pro has been annihilated.
Debate Round No. 4
mbelliardo

Pro

If you did, you must have been talking to yourself because I don't see anywhere in ANY of your short responses where you contest:

You must speak English.
You must be employed and/or in school.
You must pass a test o basic US Government, US History, and a selection of unbiased factual data on what your candidate is FOR and AGAINST.

So, what are you talking about? The only thing you tried to argue, you requested to leave it out of this debate. So, I started another debate to argue the topic of felons voting.

So, for you to believe that "Pro is annihilated", is unsupported entirely. Either you don't have your head screwed on right or you are trying to be funny. In both cases, Con has made no progress in this debate. If you don't want to participate in this debate, then why did you accept? All you are doing is wasting my time. So, respond like an educated adult and make a good argument and maybe we can learn something from our two points of view.

Thank You
LatentDebater

Con

I shall paste my rebuttal fom previous rounds and then move along:

A president's rule affects everyone, even criminals.

I would definitely allow criminals to vote (but don't want to asssert this).

If we leave criminals out, and instead look at ex-felons and innocents only I see no reason to ban any one of them from voting since they have every right to do it.

If a person is freed, they are considered fully functional citizens of the nation as opposed to felons.

Under current law felons are banned from voting and thus if you assert MORE regulations you assert that a man who is freed should not be freed which goes against the entire purpose of a justice system.

Thank you good bye and farewell.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
I believe the major reason Democrats are against having to speak English is because without out the Mexican vote, Obama wouldn't have scored ANY states.
Posted by mbelliardo 4 years ago
mbelliardo
And people still take his side. I'm seriously starting to lose faith in people. Rational people are hard to come by nowadays.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
I have found that on average, liberals are more likely not take these debates seriously. They shunt aside good arguments and focus on one issue. I also have three debates pending but not finished, otherwise my vote is yours mbelliardo.
Posted by mbelliardo 4 years ago
mbelliardo
I agree with you Likespeace. I should have put this in the debate, and I was going to. Yet, right after I posted my last comment, I realized it was the 5th round already. I will re-post this argument and make better use of each round. Yet, I still do not feel that LatentDebater had a good argument.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "we shouldn't let some Joe Schmo casting votes when he/she has no clue on what the person they are voting for represents and how their actions will affect EVERYONE, including the intelligent people that voted for the other guy."

You wrote a great argument in the comments. It's too bad you didn't put it in the debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro/Instigator seemed not to realize "The BOP is on you, pro." Pro stated their positions, and Con stated his contrary positions. Pro did not support his positions with evidence and/or arguments. For example--

> "#6: You must pass a 10 question test on what your candidate has voted FOR or AGAINST. Something that is an unbiased factual data about that canddate in question."

A simple argument for his position could've been that an uninformed electorate is more likely to make poor voting positions. A simple argument against could've been, there may be only a few issues which really matter to a particular voter and so their positions on "ten" issues are irrelevant.
Posted by mbelliardo 4 years ago
mbelliardo
Thank you. And if Con is so keen on EVERYONE voting, why can't you VOTE on this debate? Oh, that's right, people make regulations and put limitations on things for a reason. Not saying you should not vote, just saying that it is a good idea to have said person complete 3 debates first. Due, to the fact that this would help mitigate someone opening many profiles and ruthlessly effect debate.org's debating system in a negative way. It also helps weed out the Joe Schmo's, although that obviously is flawed due to the fact that I'm arguing with LatentDebater. As for voting for the US President, we shouldn't let some Joe Schmo casting votes when he/she has no clue on what the person they are voting for represents and how their actions will affect EVERYONE, including the intelligent people that voted for the other guy. Yet, the well informed intelligent persons vote is effectively taken away with every idiot that votes. That of which, screws up the effectiveness of voting entirely. Not to mention that idiots outnumber intelligent people in the US by a substantial amount.

For example:
If you and a group of people had to cast a vote for the new Commissioner of Baseball. And you and the rest of the people in the group are all in MLB.

Voters#1-10:
Are well informed about the candidates intent and beliefs. Voters#1-10 have a basic idea on how MLB is run and the history of MLB. And you put your blood sweat and tears into baseball.

Voters#11-31:
Are ill informed and know nothing of importance about the candidates. Tey have no idea how MLB is run nor the history of MLB. And the majority of the baseball games they are sitting on their butt collecting your paychecks.

Although this example is not perfect, it's purpose is just to prove my point. Voters#1 through 10 should be the only voters allowed to vote. Yet, their votes counted for nothing due to the fact they were outnumbered by Voters#11 through 31. To me, this is NOT logically fair or effective.
Posted by ConservativeAmerican 4 years ago
ConservativeAmerican
If I could vote yet I would vote mbelliardo, he definitely put forward a more logical argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
mbelliardoLatentDebaterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD in comments. I also award conduct to Con due to the comments--"you don't have your head screwed " and "respond like an educated adult".