Instigator / Pro
15
1485
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#55

US voters should have to pass a citizenship test in order to be able to vote, but only for Senate and Presidential candidates

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

I believe and shall be arguing in favor of the idea that US voters should have to pass a citizenship test in order to be able to vote, but only for Senate and Presidential candidates. This means that other elections on the county and district levels would not require voters to have passed a citizenship in order for them to cast ballots, for reasons detailed in the arguments section. First round acceptance only, Conclusions in the final rounds

Every single angle Bench proved the resolution true I turned against him

Earth is a fallacious voter, plain and simple. Haters will hate and I will still debate. This was a flawless performance by me, couldn't have been done better to be quite frank.

-->
@Earth

there is no way on earth your interpretation is logically sound. Even if it's feasible he didn't remotely prove it should be enacted that people have to do it. I disproved it entirely in R2 which you clearly never read.

The truth is vote me for arguments, not sources and if you want to know why I've won ask me.

I am the world's best debater and judge in one.

-->
@David
@Tejretics
@the_bat_man

Both votes have been deleted.

The_bat_man, please, provide a reasonable explanation for the votes, because as Tejretics mentioned, you have an obligation to the participants to explain why you judged the debate in the way you did.

-->
@DebateArt.com

I agree with Virtuoso, it might be useful for you to remove thebatman's vote.

-->
@the_bat_man

"Why should I have to explain why I voted what I did? I just did because I thought I should have. I don't need to explain. Isn't that the whole point of voting?"

You're not really "voting," you're *judging* the debate. You have an obligation to the debaters to explain why you judged the debate in the way you did.

-->
@Imabench

I edited the other comment, it isn't just spam.

-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
@David
@Imabench

Why should I have to explain why I voted what I did? I just did because I thought I should have. I don't need to explain. Isn't that the whole point of voting?

@Virtuoso Asking the admin to remove my vote just because I didn't give a reason and you (probably) don't agree with it is completely the opposite of voting. Heck, I could've given everything to Pro for absolutely no reason at all other than that I can vote. I could've voted for Hillary Clinton even though I support Donald Trump just because I wanted to. Do you recognize how I'm not complaining about your so-called "counter vote" even though I think it was a dumb idea and had no base at all? You were allowed to vote that way because you can.

-->
@Imabench

filler

The voting criteria for source points is 'Better Sources' not 'The Most Sources'.... If source points were awarded for who used more of them, then people would just post 8 links that all say the same thing for the same argument.

-->
@David

How about you explain why you gave sources to Pro?

I gave sources to RationalMadman because he/she used the fewest .coms

The Madman and the Batman have found an alliance.

Can we avoid the counter-vote bombing thing? Its just gonna lead to people getting groups of friends together to always vote on each others debates which itself opens up an even bigger can of worms.

-->
@DebateArt.com
@the_bat_man

Fair enough. @Batman - please explain your vote

For now, my counter vote stays.

-->
@David
@the_bat_man

Fair point, let's ask the_bat_man if he'd be willing to add a proper explanation for the vote ( which I'd have to manually add to his vote ) before we revoke it.

-->
@DebateArt.com

He doesn't really explain why he gives sources to con. IMO a good vote should be one that actually gives feedback to both debaters. I don't think you need to type out a 5 paragraph essay, but simply saying "sources to con" is not enough.

-->
@David

What's wrong with the bat_man's vote? Sorry if I am missing something here.

-->
@DebateArt.com

Any chance you can remove the_bat_man's vote and my vote so I can vote properly?

-->
@Imabench

good fight, may the best debater win ;)

-->
@RationalMadman

I can avoid bringing up entirely new arguments in the final round, so that wont be an issue. Im just asking if you would want to convert the final round into a round for additional arguments + conclusions, rather then sticking mostly to conclusions

-->
@Imabench

I don't think my start was screwy but I also think you are right in what I've conceded (I don't even understand the point in not conceding that your resolution would be best applied if enacted to the Senate and Presidential elections).

If you bring new points in the last round I may be forced to bring new things to rebuke them and will justify doing so. I can't really justify bringing new points in the last round because you won't get to reply to it and I will be the bad guy in the eyes of voters.

-->
@RationalMadman

If you want to convert the last round into an additional argument round I'm fine with it. We both got off to a bit of a screwy start, we can use the last round for additional space if you prefer

I also forgot to cite my 17th amendment source. Will do so in R3

I say Round 1 meaning Round 2 and Round 2 meaning Round 3.

I will specify this in my Round 3, it was a mistake.

I guess I was wrong. I will do it soon, do not worry.

I'll do my round in 26 hours.