CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
8
Yes, they should be elected No, they shouldn't be elected
Debate Score:13
Arguments:10
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, they should be elected (4)
 
 No, they shouldn't be elected (6)

Debate Creator

Maggieroxx(19) pic



That judges should be elected

I am debating in about a week and our topic is 'That judges should be elected'. We are currently sitting here scratching our head. So if anyone could help that would be great.

Yes, they should be elected

Side Score: 5
VS.

No, they shouldn't be elected

Side Score: 8
2 points

Yeah....they are experienced when they are appointed alright. They are experienced at all the beauracratic BS., political ass kissing and money motivated decision making that you would expect out of any experienced lawyer. After all..they are almost entirely lawyers. Being appointed makes them virtually impervious to any consequences even if they repeatedly make bad decisions. They always have connections and personal affiliations that they have cultivated to get to where they are at and protect them once they are there. If they were elected, they would be beholden to the constituents that elected them.

Side: Yes, they should be elected
1 point

so your saying electing judges would be unfair because they won't be as qualified or intelligent as the ones we have now. well thats untrue because in order to even be elected to become a judge you would have to at least have a bachelor degree in law and have had a minimun of eight year practising law. so they will be qualified and its not like some one who wanted to be a judge would go through all those years of study just to corrupt the system. And having judges elected won't make such as huge differance because they're already judges that are being elected in the magistrate and county courts and its not creating and distruption so why not extend it and allow federal judges to be elected too.

Side: Yes, they should be elected
1 point

I think judges should be judged in one of those dog competitions

Side: Yes, they should be elected
0 points

People with less qualifications could have an amazing life, with a good pay job.

Side: Yes, they should be elected
Maggieroxx(19) Disputed
1 point

If they are elected they are immediately a judge - no matter what precious experience. But it takes years to move up in the ranks to get appointed a judge - so you can be sure their experienced. If they arn't expirienced how do you know they will give a fair result.

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected
3 points

I would hope that you're debating the negative, because this could go rather one-way.

Firstly you have the problem of re-election (after a first election and then serving a certain time in position). There are many cases in which a judge is required to serve an incredibly long period of time with the same court case. This could easily move over the date set where he/she in required to undergo a re-election. This would be causing many problems and would definitely cause disruption in the legal system.

You also have the problem of bias and popularity in the legal system. Judges play vital roles in our judicial system, and their appointing into their role is one of the reasons why this political system is able to work more easily without biased opinions. An election scheme would create nothing short of controversy. Instating an election scheme for judges runs the risk of turning the system into a popularity contest, where political and social opinions would be all that would matter.

Finally, we have the problem of who will be voting for the specific judges. If it is a fully public opinion then we run the risk of appointing the wrong, unworthy or least-qualified judge, due to the noted limited levels of knowledge in the public opinion in terms of politics. The problem of a full government opinion is the risk of losing control and again political bias coming into play. Political Opinion

These are important things to consider, and would most likely turn up in your debate.

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected
2 points

Hey Maggie and other Create Debate people =)

I am really struggling with my speech. I am second speaker and it is only just over 2 minutes. I am talk about how the public shouldn't be making the decisions - as they might just elect someone from popularity or they could even donkey vote. I'm talking about how at the moment when judges are appointed it is working fine. They have to move up the ranks meaning they are experienced and knowledgeable. But seeing Maggie is talking about how an election would be corrupt and their could be bias or even bribery as well as how the campaigns are a waste of time and money and can be very distracting I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY!!! Anyway any more contributions would be WONDERFUL <3 Even if you wanted to rebutt that would great so I could think of a rebuttal for you rebuttal =D Thank you!!!

Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen. As my 1st speaker has made crystal clear, Judges should not be elected. Before I begin my points, I will sweep away some of the misleading comments stated by the negative team.

I shall now explain some more reasons why judges shouldn’t be elected. First of all, if judges were elected it would mean that it was the public’s decision. We would be choosing who represented our judicial system. Now I think that we should all have a say, but when it comes to our judges, what do we know? I would much rather have official authorities decide, seeing that they would have much more knowledge than you or I. I mean I’m sure everyone in this room has heard of the donkey vote. What if people started doing this when it came to voting for our judges? There wouldn’t be any control over whether the right man got the position or whether it was just your average bloke, dared to campaign.

On top of this, there would be so many people that would not care about what qualifications the candidate had; it would all just become a popularity competition. You never know, we might just end up getting a whole lot of good looking judges getting elected all at once. But what is this doing for our society? Do you really want a judge that might have great hair, but is a terrible decision maker? Personally, I would prefer a fair and just judge that I could trust to make good decisions for our country.

Now my second point is about how at the moment judges have to be appointed, and honestly, this is going very well. Why change a system that is working perfectly? At the moment, to become a judge you have to move up the ranks, slowly gaining more and more experience and knowledge before you become an official judge. Whereas if you were elected, you might not have any experience at all and all of a sudden you could be elected. Do we really want our judges just to be any old guy who was dared to campaign to suddenly become a judge? No, we want our judges to be appointed after years of experience, so we can be sure only the very best candidates actually become judges.

Now I am sure that my first speaker and I have proven without a doubt that judges should not be elected.

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected
0 points

Any help would be great. any constructive criticism would be great :)

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected
1 point

Most judges elected would most likely be men. So at the moment women are represented at the courts alongside with men. By having both genders as judges it means there will be less sexist decisions.

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected
0 points

these are some great points you guys stated. i have a debate about this coming up and i am the opposition meaning i am against them being elected. if you guys have any links to news articles speaking on this topic or if you have other points i would really appreciate it.

thanks

Side: No, they shouldn't be elected