The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Platypus666
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

The President Needs to be Born in American

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 14 votes the winner is...
Platypus666
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,765 times Debate No: 23662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (14)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

The President of the United States needs to be born in America.

Con will make the case that the president does not need to be born in America.

3 Rounds

First Round acceptance only

Go.
Platypus666

Con

First debate!
I'm completely stoned.
I accept this challenge on the grounds that arguments will not be limited to a purely legal bases, since Pro did not specify.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

The Constitution

As my opponent has requested, we will discuss this on a legal basis. The Constitution clearly states that you must be born in the United States in order to be the president.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. [1]

So legally, the Constitution states that the President must be born in the United States and be a resident for 14 years. This is the law. Now, I don't know how you want to debate this "legally" outside of the Constitution.

Supreme Law of the Land

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land meaning that it trumps all other laws. The Supremacy Clause states that this law, the President being born in the United States, trumps all other laws on the matter. [2]

Constitutional Amendment

There were a few attempts to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency but it was shot down. The most recent attempt came in 2003 and was known as the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment. The amendment gained very little support and died in Congress.

Without the amendment the Constitution still stands as the the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore the President has to be born in the United States.

The Resolution

You stated that we must only debate the legality of this. Since we cannot argue outside of the law I am posting the law here and reminding you that you must argue only the legality of the resolution. Since the law is technically on my side you must then provide legal evidence that the President should not be born in the United States to be eligible. Now, due to this we cannot debate ideals but the law only.

I plant my flag here behind the law. I am curious to see how you will shake me from this position using only legality.

Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Platypus666

Con

Intro

I'm sorry that pro misunderstood by term. I said--as you can clearly read--that the debate would NOT be based solely on a legal basis. However, that doesn't mean legal arguments can't be used so I accept his case. But he should provide a case for why a legal reason is important enough to dictate the outcome of the resolution.

Legal Argument

Pro made it quite clear what the constitution says and how that takes precedent in our law. He showed that there have been attempts to over-turn it but they have failed. However, I see, that in this, he has dismissed his own case by revealing that it is indeed legally possible to overturn that law. This means it is not entirely binding. There is no legal, "need" for the president to be natural-born since it is a most basic principle of our government that it can be fundamentally changed. As long as there is a possibility of it changing, it is not a complete requirement.

Reality Argument

This argument involves the possibility of things actually occurring. There is a popular controversy over whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or not. Indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate right now if it weren't for this fact. And of course, there would be no such controversy if there weren't at least some possibility that it could be true. Someone born outside the United States could theoretically achieve appointment to the office of president if they kept the fact hidden or manipulated the power structure they oversee to keep them from befalling the legal consequences of it. Thus there is no "need", in reality, for the president to be born in the US.

Moral Argument

Most importantly, there is no practical function of this law which requires the president to be natural-born. The men who wrote the constitution had many racist inclinations and this is the only reason the law exists. A person's place of birth says nothing inherent about their ability to lead a nation or how they will lead it. Thus, there is no moral "need" for the president to be born in the US.

Conclusion

I have presented solid cases for all reasonable interpretations of what a "need" might dictate. Pro will need to disprove all of them to claim the resolution.

WEED WEED WEED JUST KEEP SMOKIN THAT WEED :D
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I fear I have botched this debate.

I was doing my argument from a tablet device and seem to have misread the opening resolution line.

I apologize for this mistake.

I hope that we can let this lie as a tie and redo it since I am now on a computer but I will fully understand if I take a loss here.

I made an honest mistake and feel bad for ruining the debate.

My apologies.
Platypus666

Con

SMOKE WEED
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
I don't know why Pro couldn't have still continued the debate as normal, actually. He could have made his case in the round he forfeited. I'm going to change my vote from tied to arguments for Con.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Question to people evening votes - pro screwed up. Deserves the loss. I might be sympathetic if his arguments were half way decent... But they weren't.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
What is up with you and weed
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
WEeEEDDDD!!!!!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
omg stop with the damn weed!
Posted by Platypus666 5 years ago
Platypus666
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Fuuuh... I misread the legality part on my tablet... Damn font size.

Hmmm...
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Platypus: "arguments will not be limited to a purely legal bases"

CP: "You stated that we must only debate the legality of this."

CP is a muppet?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
The last line of Con's argument is so convincing I see no way anyone could ever vote for Pro. Round 3 will be pointless.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
Noob is no noob.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Spelling goes to Con for Pro's spelling error in the title. American is not a country. On arguments, it is through no fault of Con's that Pro misread her round and thus Con ought to be granted the win as her refutations were never challenged by Con.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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: No reason for tie to be granted: Platypus won whilst remaining comical.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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: I don't know why Pro couldn't have still continued the debate as normal, actually. He could have made his case in the round he forfeited. I'm going to change my vote from tied to arguments for Con.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Tsk tsk CP. Botching a debate. For shame.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Votes should be even. Con needs to stop with the weed. Anyways, I don't see why Pro gave up - his legal arguments were perfectly legit. Undisputed proof compared to con's speculation on where Obama was born and her claim that anything can be changed in the future (although the resolution seems to imply current-times)
Vote Placed by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were poor. Cons arguments were slightly less poor. Conduct point for forfeit. As Batman, I second the motion that we should all smoke weed.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 5 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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 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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for forfeit. However, the term "not limited to" does not necessarily apply solely to either side. In essence, as long as one of the sides presented a non-legal argument, then Con's objection of this debate "not solely being set of legal precedent" would have been accomplished. With this aside, Pro had a much more stronger case, citing the Constitution as his proof. Con tried to negate by saying the Constitution could be changed, but providing no valid reason as to why. Win: Pro
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Honourable concession
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ConservativePoliticoPlatypus666Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie, Con did not negate.