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
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
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

-->
@Alec

reason for decision

What is an RFD?

-->
@Alec

==================================================================
>Reported vote: Alec // Moderator action: Removed<

2 points to Con (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con's source count was comparable. Con cited mostly reliable sources, whereas Pro cited less reliable sources.

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is too generic and could be copy/pasted into virtually any debate.
==================================================================

-->
@Imabench

It's drafterman or zeichen.

-->
@Imabench

All reports are completely anonymous. We don’t even know who’s reporting it, which imo is a good thing.

Ok fr I wanna know who is reporting the votes cause it sure as fuck aint me

-->
@blamonkey

==================================================================
>Reported vote: blamonkey // Moderator action: NOT removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12q7jqJmC0HxbXtnbqozU6mWKCYXi5J0HFYftzY_kaFA/edit?usp=sharing The summary and rfd together constitute 9 pages. The rfd is at the bottom of the document, but some advice is sprinkled throughout the summary if you are interested. PM me for any questions/clarifications.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter extensively discusses most of the main arguments and counterarguments made in the debate, and explains why those led to Con winning the debate. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================

-->
@blamonkey

There's no true morality. American law ethos displays the irrational moral code of the American people. I did make it clear why it matters.

Thanks for the RFD.

-->
@bsh1

You may as well just assess every vote that gets made on this site, lol

ok that's not true I reported one vote that wasn't against me, or two. but barely any relative.

I didn't report any vote on the Shabshoral debate.

It's not me, I only report votes against me and to be clear this doesn't mean all votes against me.

Who the hell reported logical's vote? He damn near wrote an entire essay for his RFD

-->
@Logical-Master

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Logical-Master // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points for argument

>Reason for Decision: RFD: https://shrib.com/#Q3RpDXG4Hd7hs0ZfZDQU
Good job to both debaters!

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and counterarguments, assess the strength of these arguments, and weighs them to produce a result. This meets the basic standard of sufficiency for argument points.
************************************************************************

-->
@Imabench

You don't seem to grasp how objectively wrong Earth's vote is. He literally misses entire arguments made by me that decimated your case.

-->
@Earth

Pretty hard yeah..... He seems to be really desperate to win this debate, since he didn't complain nearly as much about the people who voted against him in the Ron Paul/Gary Johnson debate he lost to ShabShoral

Is Rational STILL after me?

-->
@RationalMadman

The criteria for an insufficient vote on arguments are:

1) The voter needs to reference specific arguments/counterarguments from both sides
2) The voter needs to analyze and explain why those specific issues that were won by one side were enough to win that side the debate, in terms of the relative strength of arguments/importance of those issues

These aren't criteria for a "good" RFD or a sound one. These are simply the criteria for *bare minimum* sufficiency. I'm sure bsh1 would be happy to have a site discussion on allowing debaters to opt in to higher standards or some alternative solution if the community wishes for a higher standard, but for now, the standard is pretty liberal, and it seems to me that Earth's vote meets that standard, to a degree that none of the removed votes do.

-->
@bsh1

if you actually applied this fairly, Earth's vote is beyond unacceptable.

-->
@ethang5

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ethang5 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Though pro asserted that his was not a literacy test, for all purposes it was. Pro wanted to exclude citizens based on intelligence/knowledge rather than citizenship. This is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional. Intelligence can never be used as a valid standard for eligibility to vote. Con showed, using various quotes from the constitution, how such a law would violate provisions set there-in. His was the better argument.

>Reason for Mod Action: (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. (a) The voter directly intervenes regarding the issue of a literacy test and uses their own personal opinion to sway their vote (e.g. "this is . . . unfair," "it is unconstitutional," "intelligence can never be used as a valid standard for eligibility to vote"). (b) The voter tries to explain why they're voting for Con without explaining why they're not voting for Pro. That requires examining Pro's arguments or examining the burden of proof in this debate, which the voter has not done. (c) The voter fails to analyze any counterarguments in the debate or do any weighing analysis. (2) The voter fails to explain why they awarded sources points at all, awarding the points without any reference to them in their RFD.
************************************************************************

-->
@Imabench

Re: "Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs....."

And there's the rub. Two smart people can have different priorities and are therefore perfectly capable of voting down either side of the ticket, so what good does eliminating stupid people do for Presidential/Senatorial elections other than silence their voices? This is where either more discussion about the mechanics of smart-voter voting tendencies is needed or where you need to abandon the smart-voter paradigm and assimilate the loyalty argument since I don't see anything in the resolution that requires you to limit yourself to smart/stupid voters.

Re: "Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"

You'd probably need to abandon the More informed voters -> More informed decisions logic. CON's point about flat earthers is a pretty hard counter. As we just discussed, a generally informed voter can justify voting down either end of the ticket due to having different priorities. You'd either need to push for a test which accounts for a LOT MORE than basic knowledge (which would then open the door for a debate about elitism and potential corruption, but at the same time could be handled depending on evidence you provided in regards to the downward spiraling state of the country) or just assimilate CON's loyalty counter-argument.

-->
@JCEurovision96

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JCEurovision96 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct; 1 point to Con on spelling

>Reason for Decision: This debate presented very considerable arguments for both parties on the question of whether Americans shall pass citizenship tests for suffrage, applicable only in Senate and Presidential elections. Despite having elaborate sources, the Proposition made more compelling arguments than the Opposition because the latter didn't acknowledge, failed to rephrase on his own idea, or just forfeited to dodge himself from the question, which he did on my debate on Abercrombie & Fitch's shirtless models. The Proposition also made conclusions which clarified the stated argument. Therefore, I give points to the Proposition on arguments and conduct, Opposition to spelling and grammar, and both on resources.

>Reason for Mod Action: This RFD has several problems. (1) The voter failed to voter reference specific arguments and/or counter-arguments from both sides. (2) The voter failed to do any weighing analysis. (3) The voter failed to justify (in any sense) the points he awarded for S/G and conduct. For the record, a debater's activity in other debates is not relevant to a vote on this debate; though it was not immediately clear what bearing the other debate that was mentioned had on this RFD, if any. Ultimately, this vote is insufficient because it is overly vague and lacks any real analytical reflection on what transpired in the debate itself.
************************************************************************

-->
@Imabench

stop pretending that anyone who voted for you has read the debate past round 1 (Round 2 is round 1 of debating) in fact JC didn't read it at all and is salty over me wrecking him in a clothing debate.

-->
@JCEurovision96

I appreciate the vote, but you might wanna explain why you allocated conduct points in your reasoning or just leave it at tied, otherwise your vote might end up getting deleted.

-->
@Logical-Master

"There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions"

Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs.....

"how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates"

Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"...... Where along that line of reasoning would you have preferred I elaborate on?

-->
@Imabench

I don't think that's the natural conclusion to make. I mean yeah, on its face, it's one of the things that seems like common sense (why wouldn't smart voters be able to pick the best candidates?), but when you think about----not so much.Take the most recent Presidential election for example. There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions. Smart voter A will say "I want Trump" and smart voter B will say "I want Hillary." Because of the lack of development on the mechanics for how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates, CON is able to retort with "You cannot test people for knowledge, justify it as wanting intelligent leaders and then say you have filtered out disloyal or sinister voters and leaders at all. I hope I have made this crystal clear." More discussion on the mechanics and how precisely they produce better leaders was what your case really needed, IMO. Or better yet, no need to even restrict yourself to the smart/stupid paradigm. Going by the resolution alone, I don't think you even need to get into that. If CON wants to test for loyalty, you can say "You know what? I agree! Lets make a test that is centered around loyalty!"

Smarter politicians could just as easily say let's make human farms as it's efficient for the homeless. There's more to a great leader (loyalty) than knowledge.

-->
@Logical-Master

Solid vote, thanks for the RFD! I just have one question regarding it.... When you say in your analysis that ""PRO never develops the idea of how exactly voters who answered citizenship questions correctly would result in the country having better leaders"" What do you mean regarding the word 'exactly'

The very first argument I make in round 1 begins with how citizenship tests would weed out the very stupidest of voters from being able to vote based on how ignorant they are about critical basic facts..... So wouldn't it be natural to conclude that a voter base being less ignorant of how the government and how the world works would lead to the remaining voters electing leaders with better understanding of how the country and the world works (aka better politicians)?

-->
@Logical-Master

Tyvm for the high quality vote.

IMO:

I think more to the question would be if only a citizen of a country should be allowed to vote or not. To that question, I say, "Yes, only a citizen." Why should non-citizens have a say in the governance of a country?

A citizenship test would educate a person on HOW the system and country work, but it would not educate the person on the candidate's moral fiber and the issues at hand.

I don't think a literacy test should disbar a person from voting, but I do feel that a sound mind and, in some circumstances, a knowledge of (some of) the issues should be a requirement.

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Tejretics
@blamonkey

will truly appreciate more votes on this debate.

I am the type of person who will admit if I lost and improve based upon it but in this debate I do not deserve the L. Please consider what Earth has ignored in my R3 (really my r2 as R1 didn't exist in the debate)

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Earth // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: This was a very well done debate and both parties had solid rounds. The debate was about whether or not Americans should have to pass a citizenship/civics test to be able to vote in Presidential and Senate Elections.
Arguments: Imabench contends that a lot of American voters are alarmingly ignorant about basic science and American civics/history and a simply citizenship test can weed out these voters in said elections, until they get their act together. RM, in his second round, says that such a test flies in the face of established American values and that using citizen tests in such a matter is akin to the literacy tests that America used to have that were shown to be illegal. RM drops Imabench's argument that the test should be limited to Presidential and Senate elections. Imabench responds by saying that uninformed voters are likely to vote in bad or poor politicians. RM would later drop any arguments relating to the Literacy Test bit or whether or not voting tests go against American values. I simply don't feel that RM truly addressed Imabench's arguments. Imabench proven that said citizenship tests, when used properly are not unconstitutional or illegal or run counter to American values RM says that the 15th amendment states that literacy tests are illegal/unconstitutional, but Imabench, earlier in the debate said that the Supreme Court ruled that Literacy Tests could be legal and constitutionally kosher if the tests were applied equally and without malice. As such, Imabench did a better job fulfilling his BoP. Arguments go to Imabench

Sources, Conduct and S/G: tied.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter points out specific arguments, impacts them, and weighs those impacts.
************************************************************************

Debates without character limits are annoying.

I'll try my best to get to this.

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: the_bat_man// Mod action: Removed<

2 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: I object. If Earth wanted judges he/she should have set up the debate as a judge panel process.

[*Reason for removal*] Vote fails to properly explain his vote.
************************************************************************

-->
@DebateArt.com

Hello, would appreciate if you could remove the_bat_man's vote, it has no explanation whatsoever for why points were awarded. Thanks.

-->
@Earth

go ahead, post it

post pms i am not a fucking privacy advocate I support government surveillance and have exposed PMs on this site itself. Nothing should be private in the utopian society.

Goddamn, what I miss? o_O

-->
@RationalMadman

Do you want me to post our PMs? I did go over it.

-->
@the_bat_man

Check your DMs please

-->
@Earth

we didn't go over this because only I went over it, you ignored it.

-->
@RationalMadman

We went over this. I did not.

-->
@Earth

you ignored my entire r3 debate in your rfd

-->
@the_bat_man

Imabench should not have to select judges to have good voters.

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

I revoted and kept my vote the same way. I meant Imabench in the explanation.

Earth’s vote is perfectly fine. RM is so arrogant he can’t stanf the thought of him losin a debate.

People don't like to vote because reading long-ass debates and writing their thoughts doesn't reward them enough and then theres always an asshole that gets pissy when they vote the "wrong" way.

I addressed Bench's arguments entirely in R2 pure liar

THIS IS AN UTTER JOKE THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DON'T DEBATE BECAUSE OF VOTERS LIKE EARTH.

No worries, let them vote with errors, that is their own burden to live with.

Earth you DID NOT READ THE DEBATE I AM TELLING YOU YOU ONLY READ ROUND ONE AND BENCH'S R2 REALLY WHAT A JOKE