Presidents Should be Natural Born Citizens

Pro has made what I consider to be some pretty wild statements in this past round. Many of which I can not adequately refute because they seem to be assertions with no logical basis. I will highlight the statements that I feel best represent Pros argument as I interpret it, and provide my comments. The first statement is for clarification: “Here I'd like to ask my opponent what they mean from having a different perspective from ours. My opponent treats the US like it's one person with one opinion.” I do not refer to the US like its one person, I refer to it like it is one nation, which it is. By “our perspective” I am referring to a general perspective, representative of the general consensus of the US. It is the role of the US government to determine that consensus by not only listening to the people but also understanding the position our country is in. People have many different opinions, but those opinions generally differ in approach rather then the desired results. Foreign Aid “Even though there are many problems with the US, there are other countries in greater need… Sometimes the US needs to look at which country has the greater need. If there is another country which has a greater need than the US then maybe they should be the top priority at least for the first couple of weeks of the problem which that country faces.” Question for Pro: Do you believe the decisions made by the US should be based on its own self interests before the interests of the rest of the world? By his statement I can only conclude the answer to this question is “no”. Pro seems to think other countries should be our first priority. This point comes down to a simple question: Do you want a President making decisions about what to do with your tax dollars based on your needs, or other countries needs? “How changes to the constitution should be made is not only what's best for the US, but it also needs to be based on what's best for the countries that the US helps.” Question for Pro: Since the US apparently should partly base its Constitution on what’s best for other countries, how many other countries in the world base their laws on what’s best for us? Since the obvious answer to this question is “zero”, there is no logical reason for this conclusion whatsoever. People have a responsibility to take care of themselves first, a nation is no different. “Overall, who gets priority depends on need, and as long as we continue to give foreign aid the constitution needs to bear both in mind.” Who gets priority depends on who the US decides to prioritize. This is the US’s dollars and resources that we are talking about. The US has a right to its own money. War Argument “With regards to my opponent's next paragraph it's better if they were born in that country because they feel the connection to that country which will help them decide on whether or not to go to war.” So Pro is saying that anytime the US goes to war it is better if we are lead by a President who was born in the country we are at war with. Please provide some logical explanation for this statement. “What about Presidents born in the US? They'd be likely to not see that country's point of view and not care about that country just to increase US success.” I am not quite sure what idea Pro has of US Presidents or of people in general. Our government is one of the most sophisticated organizations in the world. Pro is suggesting that we somehow do not understand the other countries point of view and choose war because we do not care about other nations. War is far more complicated then I can possibly explain here, nor should I have to as this is common knowledge. Once again I would ask Pro to provide a logical explanation for this conclusion. “I'd like to ask my opponent why they think that Presidents would be more likely to have compromised motives if they were born in a different country?” Their motives would be compromised if their decisions would not be entirely based on what is best for the US. This is more likely if they were not born in the US. Pro however seems to believe that US interests should not be the US’s first concern. “This is the only situation that I can think of that could have compromised motives, and where being born in a different country could effect decision making? I'd like to ask my opponent what other compromised motives could they possibly have?” Decision making is what I have been arguing since round 1. Foreign aid (in relation to disaster relief as my example clearly showed) and war were just two examples of decisions that a President could be faced with having to make. War is by far the greatest concern. Any other tough decision that involves the welfare of another nation would qualify. “Even in the situation that I suggested if you look at the chances of that, it's all very unlikely. It's unlikely that someone would become President to try and do that. Then it's even more unlikely that they'd win the election. Then even if they did win there would be enough disagreement for them not to make the decision.” This statement demonstrates how my opponent has completely failed to understand let alone refute my argument. The concept of a President having compromised motives does not mean that they would run for office with an agenda to hurt the US. It means that if they were faced with a difficult decision, their decision making may not be based on what is best for the US. Second the question of how likely it is, is barely relevant since my argument is simply saying that if it is more likely that a foreign born President would have compromised motives then a natural born citizen, then Pros changes should not be made. A point Pro still has not addressed. Lastly, the level of disagreement and the decision in the end, are not valid rebuttals because a Presidents job is to lead. He (or she) can not lead if his decisions are being overturned because of his compromised position. Conclusion My opponent has failed to provide a logical basis for nearly all of his round 4 arguments leaving me very little to refute. Pro has challenged my position that a President having compromised motives is bad for the US, and that the US constitution should be based on what’s best for the US. I see very little else that needs to be said.