BULLETS DONT FLY WITHOUT SUPPLY!!!!
Men above the age of 28 should not be allowed to vote.
Women have husband's and children that could be drafted. Would losing a child not be a huge consequence of war? I think that is a huge consequence that absolutely would affect the thought process behind voting. I'm not going to vote for my son's or husband to die.
Can we get another argument besides the draft? That's been destroyed by quite a bit of discussion...
Well, since I could never have been drafted, looks like I have no voice in politics either, lol.
@joshjanes16 in a situation where the ability to get full rights of citizenship it would be a decision you would have to make. However I'm pretty sure you filled out a selective service card so you definitely could have been drafted. Theoretically you still could.
it's the selective service now, not even a draft
@whdavis83 like I said in the debate even with a volunteer military they are not volunteering at anything close to the same rates. Regardless a draft is a complete possibility and it only effects one gender. If women can be drafted then it's a different issue but they cannot.
So what about the families left behind while a member of the military goes off to war? How are they not paying for the consequences of their vote when an entire member of their family will be taken away from them, at least temporarily with the very real option of permanently?
And so women cannot be drafted so they cannot pay for the price of their voteYet they participate in this economy, seek healthcare, fall under general safety laws, drive on roads and are affected by legislation passed by the law makers they vote forSo why is only one small part of their vote the one that matters?
So is it wrong for a woman to hold an elected position as well?
@insomniamama1 nope. Even before women's suffrage women could be elected to public office and were.
By this logic, men over 34, some disabled persons, single male parents, anyone with a deferment, and others who can not or will not be drafted should not vote. Also, did he seriously imply that Vietnam was the last large war?
@tweettweet216 out of curiosity what was the last big war?
Marrying for money is not upward mobility based on equality. Furthermore, if one can not name three female scientists, then one is lacking an education.
@tweettweet216 I'd encourage you to start asking random people to name 3 female scientist. First I would recommend you come to terms with how lacking most people are in education.
Who voted for me. Expected a complete blowout against me.
@jonpowell26 By default you get one vote. We have resident judges that can be used to actually access the merits of the arguments. They do a very good job of judging objectively. @gigi @ninadabit @sarahmiller @alikapadia12 @alidia (If you guys have a chance)
@jonpowell26 Is this because you think you didn't do a good job or because the statement was absurd (i.e. people were afraid to take a less popular position)? Because voting on QallOut is anonymous so if someone wanted to supported you they could have without necessarily revealing their identity. You did have a difficult position to defend but your main argument seems to have been rebutted from a number of different perspectives. Would you agree or you feel that you did a better job after watching the debate? Happy to debate you too but I think that @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance did an excellent job
@gigi the biggest issue I had was simply my equipment. I had to go out and get an android tablet at the last second because I waited to long and my desktop was not compatible. That was my fault 100%. Other than that I still do not see how my my point was rebutted. He said things but I rebutted them. I countered every one of the moral axioms he brought up. While I don't actually agree that women should not vote it is still an injustice that the two genders are completely given two radically different roles for the same privilege.
@jonpowell26 That's unfortunate, sorry about that! We have dedicated tech page https://www.qallout.com/debate/test-room to use in the future.I only watched half the debate and by reading the comments I thought that your argument was rebutted. Again very difficult position to defend and well done to be courageous enough to do it :-)I believe that voting rights are given to citizens irrespective of their gender or roles given that government decisions are primarily focused on taking care of the citizens affairs like healthcare, education, defense etc. Are you suggesting otherwise? Government has a different role? Or voting rights be given to individuals based on their role and which roles would these be?
@gigi I see the government as a basic unified weapon of the people to secure their liberty. The original role of the fed was not to build roads and schools, it was to protect the people on different fronts mainly with the end means being aggression. Yes now the fed controls in one way or another every aspect of our lives but that was not the intent of the founders, it's contrary. This expirement was set up to work one way with a preset outcome to maximize liberty. We changed the equation radically and still for some reason expect the same outcome and act confused that we are not getting it. To me the contributors should be steering the ship, that being said that was not the topic of the debate so I just made the argument that went against the moral parameters he put forward. Regardless of pre-conceived notions you can not justify giving one gender the sole responsibility to be conscripted if both genders get to vote on what the conscripts do. It is impossible to moralize that.