The Instigator
Julius_Caesar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robert_Santurri
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Voting should be allowed to those who pass a specialized government test.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
Robert_Santurri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,389 times Debate No: 5798
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

Julius_Caesar

Pro

First, may I say i appreciate whoever challenges me in my debate.
Secondly, allow my to specify on my debate topic. I speak of a specialized government test, (for the sake of time i hope my opponent will agree to call it it SgT) by this I mean a test created by the us government or state government, that simply tests your politcal knowledge. All people who try to register to vote must take this exam. For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge.) However, lets suppose a 15 year-old tries to keep up-to-date with presidential debates. He would take the standardized exam, and assuming he passes, would be able to vote regardless of his age. To sum up my opening argument, i will simply state that, a citizen of the United States of America of any age may vote as long as they pass a "SgT" provided by the United States Government.

I wish my opponent luck, and i apologize, for i have not debated in a long while!!!
Thank you!
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for creating such an interesting and creative case topic. I hope we will be able to have a very entertaining three round debate.

First off, my opponent has given neither no definitions nor contentions. This makes this first round a bit difficult as my opponent failed to define Specialized Government Test.

Now my opponent wants the US/State Gov't to create a specialized test that voters must pass every election cycle I assume in order to be able to vote. Now this test will essentially "test your political knowledge" according to my opponent.

But I must first ask what is political knowledge in this case? To simply say political knowledge is the wide spectrum that is politics is a huge mistake. Is my opponent talking current events, 1700-1900's, Magna Carta days? My opponent also failed to state what kind of questions will be put on such a test.

My opponent also fails to see the logic that they are intelligent racists out there who can pass such tests and still vote for McCain because Obama is half black. This solves nothing except making very busy and poor people unable to vote.
My opponent also wants fifteen year olds have the right to vote, which is essentially another debate in itself.
Now I will begin to point out the many flaws in my opponent proposal:

1.) Everyone 18 or above should have the right to vote in this country. Just because Person A may be more intelligent then Person B does not mean that Person B should not be able to vote. Millions of women and minorities fought for years to get the 15th and 19th amendment.
The 15th amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The 19th amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2.) Someone who is fifteen does not usually have the correct experience in order to vote. What my opponent is proposing here is highly flawed. Fifteen year olds should have the right to vote? When I was 15, I thought I was knowledgeable in politics but things have changed greatly from the age of fifteen to my current age of seventeen/almost eighteen. Not only that, but voting is a sign of being an adult in society and a sign that you have the right as a citizen to decide who in your opinion should run the country. Many if not most fifteen year olds also would just vote along with their parents.

3.) My opponent does not obviously know the government. After watching the government screw up highly important thing after thing for years, my opponent now wants to put my right to vote in the government hands? I think the government response to Hurricane Katrina alone should put the scare of keeping your right to vote out of the government hands.

4.) This leads me to my next point, abuse and corruption. Corruption and Abuse especially in election season is highly known through things like voter fraud. Making such tests would open the door for a political party or certain people abuse the system in order to disenfranchise millions of voters. For example, you took the test but the government never received it or it was incorrectly graded. Then what? Then you can't vote because of the government.

5.) This leads me to my next point, human error. Who will correct such tests? This goes along with abuse and corruption. Not only that but if someone marks your paper wrong incorrectly and you can't vote because of them? There are no such machines to do such a thing my opponent is proposing. Human error is a reality, and will occur if such a plan is implemented.

6.) Once again, my opponent did not even define "political knowledge." What does a President Do? What does a Vice President Do? Who is the current President? If you make test questions like that, why bother making tests in the first place? People who watch the news or pick up a newspaper know such things. Now what if my opponent makes the questions even tougher. Say your put into a room when you take your SATs and your asked who was the 25th president and what was his middle name? Things like that? My opponent has failed to see the many flaws in his plans.

7.) One other thing that bothered me with my opponent case. This line right here:
"For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge.)"

The Presidential debates? You learn NOTHING new from the debates as they are basically a forum where the candidates can put their stump speeches into condensed forms. The debates also happen much later into the election cycle. By then, as long as you watch the TV (as the election coverage is 24/7 now) or pick up a newspaper then you know who is for what.

I wouldn't want someone to vote for race as much as anyone but as a American that person has the right to make his vote against Obama because he is half black.

Final Points:
My opponent made no definitions or contentions.

My opponent failed to define what such a test would include questions wise along with the definition of "political knowledge."

I have refuted all of my opponent points and pointed out the many flaws in his plan.

Watch the first video; the man speaking is John Lewis of Georgia who was a leader during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. John is speaking about the right to vote.

This is more in depth information on the first video.
http://johnlewis.house.gov...

The second video is Rep Rahm Emanuel of Chicago Illinois talking about the same thing.

What my opponent proposes is also a modern day literary test but in voter political knowledge that will disenfranchise many non-whites and the poor as I stated above.

In closing, I just want to make it clear I am not trying to deflect from the objective of this debate by posting these videos or calling my opponent racist. I am not, I am just pointing out how the right to vote is one of the most precious things of all. Let us keep it that way and let us not pass this flawed plan.

I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to read my argument and hope you enjoyed reading it. Along with that, I strongly urge you to vote CON.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
Julius_Caesar

Pro

Julius_Caesar forfeited this round.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would just like to take this time to ask that the readers/voters extend my whole argument as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time.

My opponent has forfeited this round and I do hope he will return for Round 3 so we shall be able to continue this debate. If he does, I ask that you do remember his forfeit in this round.

Once again, as my opponent has made no arguments in the second round due to a forfeit I simply ask if the reader would extend my entire argument down.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I strongly urge you to vote CON.

- Robert
Debate Round No. 2
Julius_Caesar

Pro

Julius_Caesar forfeited this round.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to thank everyone for reading this debate thus far.

I ask that all my arguments from Round 1 as I asked be extended down as my opponent has refuted neither.

I ask when you go to vote that you remember that my opponent has forfeited Round 2 and 3 of this debate along with everything else I posted earlier.

So since my opponent has forfeited more then half of the debate, has refuted none of my points, and everything else I hope it is a easy vote across the board for CON.

Thank you, and please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kmb708 8 years ago
kmb708
Haha, Thanks MarineCorps. One step at a time though :) Right now I'm actually using my position in many student organizations to try to make national election days official "no class" days. I don't think it would take too much my university to implement 1 day off into the class scheduling every 4 years... And maybe this way students would have a little more incentive to educate theirselves and vote accordingly... Just a thought.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Kmb. You are awesome. Enough said. Lets join forces and make this happen. Ha
Posted by kmb708 8 years ago
kmb708
MarineCorpsConservative: thank you for your service to our country & I like your idea. One problem I foresee is that a test lacking multiple choice or T/F also lacks the ability to yield a definite right or wrong answer. When people try to communicate their own thoughts, even the simplest answer has the potential to become ambiguous. Then we might have to give partial credit for answers that are "almost" right; in which case the point system would become very complicated as we would have to operationalize the tests/answers on a standard system and apply value to something that was previously arbitrary. That is why the test needs a finite zero and definitive answering parameters.

My solution is a test partially based on IQ and partially based on political knowledge. The test would be short and have multiple choice & T/F, for example: A question might ask what is McCain's position on immigration laws? The multiple choice answers would include McCain's actual stance on this (increase security, build a fence), as well as opposing views and some completely random answers. If a potential voter cannot discern his desired candidate's views, they do not belong at the polls. They are not benefiting society.

Recently, a respected public figure was speaking on the radio criticizing all the hype surrounding the "Rock the Vote" & "Vote or Die" campaigns that gear up every election year aimed at the "MTV" generation (that would include me by the way). His concern was that there is a wealth of knowledge at the fingertips of this generation as well as the rest of the public, yet it takes P.Diddy (or whatever abbreviated name he goes by now) at a rap concert making it look cool to get the people registered to vote. If that's what it takes, then those people likely don't have the slightest concern about our society or the knowledge to make a well-informed vote. So while these campaigns might register large numbers, how effective will the outcome of those numbers be?
Posted by johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
I would have to agree with the con on this. I think there are way too many negatives and it would just not work for so many reasons, however, I PERSONALLY think that there are more blacks that WILL vote for Obama because of his race than there are whites who WILL NOT vote for Obama because of his race. Argue if you'd like but you probably know deep down that you can't disagree. Unless you figure in the fact that only 13% of the country's population is Black and there may be a higher TOTAL NUMBER of whites voting this way. I also have a lot of black friends most from the Military and all stand up men and women. But if you got them all together I would bet my life that 4 of 5 of them are racist in some way. Because of so many terrible things that happened to there family members years before they were ever born, SOME blacks think they should treat me today like I was the person who oppressed his people 150 years ago. I didn't have anything to do with slavery or racism back then so why should I be associated or blamed for it now? Is it because I'm white? There are places in St. Louis that a white person CANNOT GO! I'm not talking about bars or restaurants, I'm talking about entire sections of the city, such as "NORTH COUNTY" or "THE EAST SIDE." There is almost no way a white person would come out of some of those places alive, or at least in the same shape and with the same things they went in with. Name a white neighborhood responsible for robbing, raping, or killing a black person just for driving through. Just so you all know, this is not hearsay, I've been in this exact situation and if it weren't for door locks and blasting through about a dozen stop lights my girlfriend and I wouldn't be alive.

Sorry this was longer than I thought. Maybe I should just turn it into a debate all it's own???
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
"MarineCorpsConservative,
The problems comes down to who is administering the results for the tests. There is just too much chance for corruption. Ideally we would have a completely informed electorate. But this isn't an ideal world, is it? The next best thing is to allow everyone their right to vote (excluding felons and non-citizens of course)."

Jblake hits the nail on the head. Corruption is already a huge problem in Gov't. To really put your right to vote in the Gov't hands is not only dangerous but crazy.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
MarineCorpsConservative,
The problems comes down to who is administering the results for the tests. There is just too much chance for corruption. Ideally we would have a completely informed electorate. But this isn't an ideal world, is it? The next best thing is to allow everyone their right to vote (excluding felons and non-citizens of course).
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Your refering to a segment by Howard Stern I believe?

Besides, those segments only show the truly horrible portions and not all the people who answer the questions correctly.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
I love it. I think that a specialized government test would be great. There was a segment on the radio the other day where the interviewer went out and took John McCains views and swapped them with Obamas. It went something like this:

Interviewer: What do you think about Senator Obamas choice for Vice President, Sarah Palin? Do you think she was a good choice?

Interviewee: Oh yes I think Obama made a smart choice by picking Palin. She will do a great job.

Now that right there shows that people are just not voting for the right reasons. I am not racist at all. I have a lot of friends that are of different ethnicities but the people being interviewed were black. I think the test should be plain and simple. People should write down (no multiple choice) at least 5 of their candidates political views. Simple. Now what is so hard about that?
Posted by A.Roche 8 years ago
A.Roche
An interesting debate; I understand the pro's concern about voter ignorance, as does Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Adviser, he says that voters should be educated about politics and the issues it affects, so that they can make a more informed and intelligent decision.

Despite this, I believe that the pro's contention is too extreme; having a test would, quite simply, be undemocratic.

Source of Zbigniew Brzezinski's view: HARDtalk, BBC
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Julius_CaesarRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Julius_CaesarRobert_SanturriTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Julius_CaesarRobert_SanturriTied
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:07