The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Prowala
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The qualifications of presidency (age, place of birth, etc.) should be lifted.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,372 times Debate No: 423
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (11)

 

policydebategod

Pro

America is built on the basis of its people being allowed to vote on who it sees fit to lead but the founding fathers made an error when applyig limits. These limits make it so that the American people can not choose who they see fit. It also takes away the right to lead by citizens. Many foreigners would like to run for president but are barred for the position. Also, age, if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to. In the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running.
Prowala

Con

Prowala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

I cannot respond to a forfeited roumd. If you want to come back you'll have to work hard[er]...........................................................................
Prowala

Con

Prowala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
Okay policydebategod I got your request for a debate and declined it because I am not going to go three rounds with you about something I can settle now. In terms of my last comment I do apologize how it came out what I meant was there have been great changes that have allowed for the current selection of choices, but you are right more needs to be done. So let me make it clear things still need work you are right and I did not mean it how it came out. Things still need to change but this election is an indication that society is continuing to move in that direction, as it should.

*In terms of the "destroy us from within" that was a strong phrase and I should have chosen differently. I am not saying foreigners shouldn't be trusted nor are the current governors that don't do a good job so don't try to portray me in that light. I think Arnold has done great in California but that doesn't change the fact that it is better for a president to be born in the United States.

*Lastly it takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be president, which is why we have other branches of government one can start in.

In the future if you want to debate me don't have the title be "your are an idiot because" if you want an actual debate feel free to challenge me.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
RepublicanView is an idiot and not b/c hes a republican. I was not saying he would win I said that he should have the freedom and sp should the American people.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
although I disagree with the PRO , the con never debated so I must go with the PRO
Posted by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
Were not a melting pot...we used to be...now were a salad...
Posted by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
*First of all the fact that only native born American citizen's from the United States can be elected is a matter of national security and it makes sense because it is the United States of America. It angers me to no end that in places like China, Russia, and others it is understood why the president needs to born in the country. For some reason it is questioned here do you want someone elected who could have ideas to destroy us from within? Now I understand that we are a melting pot and that is fine but our president should be born in America and work his way up to prove his qualifications. Just because we are a melting pot does not mean we should be open arms about everything especially the highest power one can have. I know you will point to bush, but while his actions may not be what you like he does not have a motive to destroy he nation from the shadows even if you disagree with his war on terror methods.

Secondly in terms of age we want people with experience and understanding that is gained through being governor, senator, or vice-president. Someone young would not know what to do with the position i.e. younger than 30 (which I think is how old you must be to run for president) is unfit.

Lastly this election we have someone of color, a women, and different ethnicities running so there is no need to make big changes. I understand that doesn't change the past but it sets and change for the future. The one point I will agree is the money aspect, which is why campaign finance reform is in debates.
Posted by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
The younger canidate can run for congress or the senate first so when he/she is old enough they have more experience and a better chance for election
Posted by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
Dude, that is just unconstitutional and should not even be considered because there are already enough loopholes in the system. We don't need to set the precedent now for more idiocy.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeKHaole 9 years ago
DeKHaole
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by ojmartinez25 9 years ago
ojmartinez25
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
policydebategodProwalaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tavadon 9 years ago
Tavadon
policydebategodProwalaTied
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