"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"
He goes over the main points of the debate questioning whether or not literacy tests go against American values and whether or not literacy tests are illegal, which were basically 100% of your arguments by the time we hit round 3.... By pointing to Supreme Court cases indicating that literacy tests can be upheld as constitutional, the debate at that point just became a pseudo-argument about what is or isn't considered morally American, where I just borrowed a page from Bluesteel's book to argue that it at least isnt anti-American.