Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States

Unfortunately however Pro had to resort to attacking myself and my position in the last round more then he did my actual arguments. While Pro is certainly guilty of doing nearly everything he is claiming I have done, despite the incredible temptation, I will spare the readers of a childish back and fourth bickering match and focus on the resolution and how my opponent failed to uphold it. Pro claims on a number of occasions that I dropped or conceded his arguments. What Pro doesn’t seem to realize is that the counter argument I presented attacks the basic premise of all of his arguments. Because of this, there is little reason for me to spend much of my time refuting each individual argument he made, nor is there enough space for me to do so. If my argument stands then all of his arguments are automatically refuted because they are shown to be based on a false premise. Citizenship Pro begins by showing the following quote (which BTW is not my quote, I have no idea where Pro is quoting this quote from): "when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well" Pro refers to my position as absurd. I think this only demonstrates how little Pro understands my position, or what this debate is even about in the first place. The question we are debating is whether immigrants should be eligible to run for President. Pro has defined this privilege as a right which I have accepted. Therefore the subject we are debating is whether immigrants should be granted citizenship with equal rights. My position is Con. The statement above is simply the very statement that Pro has challenged me to defend in this debate, yet he calls me absurd for defending it. Pros entire citizenship argument is nothing more then the position he has taken in this debate. He must support that position, not state it. My syllogism already shows why immigrants should not have equal rights in this one instance so there was no reason for me to individually address this particular point. Pro must refute my syllogism or this point automatically fails. Colonialism & Criminals “The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. ” Cons criminal argument does not in any way refute my syllogism. The criminals Pro is referring to are generally Americans. Yet my syllogism explains why being born in a foreign land may affect decision making for a President. This argument does not apply to the criminals Pro is referring to, therefore it is a subject for a whole other debate and should have nothing to do with this one. The point Pro makes about pre-emptive security is once again the point of this debate. My syllogism shows why pre-emptive security in this case is appropriate. If Pro does not adequately refute it, this argument automatically fails as well. Cons Syllogism Pro continues to claim that he has refuted my syllogism by pointing out that immigrants must be included in the definition of US success, without realizing that immigrants are already included. His argument is implying that ensuring the best possible leadership for everyone somehow leaves out 1/8th of the population. I do not see one ounce of logic in this conclusion. The only productive point I can see about Pros argument here is that naturalized citizens would live a better life if they had equal rights. This is true except that as I already pointed out, the right we are debating would have no significant affect on the quality of life of any of them as so few would ever seriously aspire to achieve this. In the 200+ year history of our nation we have only had 44 Presidents. How many immigrants can this law possibly affect? My case on the other hand focuses on the security of the country. Which argument weighs more, the desire of immigrants to be President, or the security of the entire country (including immigrants)? Pros main point here is insignificant next to mine. 1. Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success Pros only rebuttal is my definition of US success. He does not refute what changes to Presidential requirements should be based on. Point extended. 2. US success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests Pro here is still stuck on my definition of US success and claims I conceded his rebuttal. His rebuttal is the same point made over and over again which I have already shown to be insignificant. Pro does not refute my point however that success requires decisions made based solely on US interests. Point extended. 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate Pro states that I never showed how caring about another nation is dangerous. I did not show it under this point because that is what point 4 was for. The purpose of this point is to establish a very basic fact of human nature which Pro did not refute. Point extended. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. My syllogism so far has shown how people who originate from a foreign land are more likely to have a loyalty or personal connection to another nation. In the last round I made an argument which showed why having a personal connection in a responsibility such as President is a conflict of interest. Pro however tries to turn my example to claim that because a natural born citizen can have a conflict of interest, that this somehow proves that the chances are equal. How does Pro conclude this? Pro gives no logical support for a completely illogical conclusion. For Pro to show that the chances are equal he would have to explain how, or why, perhaps in a syllogism similar to what I provided, but instead all he does is simply state this. Pro provided no valid argument to refute my point therefore my point must be accepted. The chances are not equal. Point extended. Pro states that he already showed how people will know if a candidate is an exceptional one and claims that I dropped his argument. In the last round I gave an entire paragraph response to Pros statement which showed that Presidents win more so with good campaigns then actual abilities. Pro should read it. Pro asks “Should we stop people whose fathers had been President because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? ” Pros question is about restricting people from running based a particular scenario. Restricting immigrants in the writing of the constitution does not set the same precedent as limiting possible scenarios over 200 years later. My position, which was clarified in a pm chat with Pro prior to the debate, and made in my syllogism since round 2 is based on making changes to the constitution, which Pro has clearly accepted. Pros statement would be a change that would set a very dangerous precedent in America and thus, would not increase the likelihood of US success. So to Pro: the answer is No. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success. Since Pro has provided no adequate rebuttal to any of my main points, this conclusion still stands. Syllogism Concluded According to the arguments made in this debate: Changes to the constitution should be based on increasing the likelihood of US success, Pro is arguing for a change to the constitution, yet his change will not increase the likelihood of US success. Therefore this change should not be made. None of Pros arguments were able to negate this. Conclusion While there were some contentions I did not individually refute I have already made it clear why it was not necessary. My argument begins with the very basic concept of what changes to the constitution should be based on and Pro never refuted it. From there it is quite impossible for Pro to win this debate without negating my argument and I have clearly shown why he has not. The resolution is negated.