Stop voting incumbent
Debate Rounds (3)
1. I think turnover in politics is good
2. It stops nepotism & cronyism
3. Fear of losing an election strikes fear to get something done for the people.
1- Turnover in politics is not inherently good. Perhaps in a chiefly bipartisan system alike to the United State's may be beneficial, but only to improve political variety, which is also not inherently good. Political variety is best when the variety equally represents the people and their wishes, in a democracy. Continually using the United States as an example, Presidents are not allowed to run for office after they did previously. This ensures a fresh flow of candidates in every successful party, promoting this political variety. Instead of voting on presidents for the purpose to have variety, the best choice would be to vote for the president whom will best further the people of the world, but of the mother country primarily interests.
Two can be responded to similarly to one.
3- I agree, but usually this entails promises, and not actual work. If one really wanted to instal a fear of impeachment in the president to coerce him/her to work harder, the simple act of changing impeachment laws to be easier, or very well defined, is a better alternative.
be improved upon, as the bipartisan system can be as well, but that is not the topic. Avoiding voting incumbent is not an
answer to solve any political problems. I already proposed simpler and easier solutions above. Unless you can accurately
explain why my above points are not valid, you cannot prove your rule of thumb is true.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|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: Con wins this because of the point that the increase in diversity of officials isn't inherently a good thing. Pro suggested it was different, and might be better, but really failed to give us a reason to think so. I will also note, and this didn't affect my scoring since Con didn't bring it up, but point #3 is nonsense--if the rule of thumb is DO NOT vote for incumbents, as opposed to "vote for them if they've done something", then Pro never offered a reason why it would make officials be more likely to work for the people. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.