https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m en-us 2019-01-18 14:48:41 UTC 2019-01-18 15:29:00 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322134386 I am for the requirements for federally elected/appointed positions because I feel the requirements are fair such as age requirement and if you are a natural born U.S. citizen. I believe that you don't need any formal education in politics and law but if you have a good understanding about it and have good intentions for the country. ]]> 2019-01-18 14:50:17 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322134386 https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322134427 I am against the requirements for the federally elected because one does not need any form of education nor work experience to become a political leader.  As a consequence, there is a chance that ignorant people become elected. Nowhere does it mention in the constitution that the people running for office need years of law school. In fact, numerous amount of Americans meet the requirements to become the President of the United States. Based on the article, it mentions how the President only needs at least 35 years of age, 14 years of consecutive residency, and be a natural born citizen. This makes it so that many Americans, ignorant or informed, have the chance to become President which could be dangerous.]]> 2019-01-18 14:50:22 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322134427 https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322148941 Evidence for my claim.]]> 2019-01-18 15:19:31 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322148941 https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322150111 Evidence for my claim. The requirements are too minimal. One does not need anything else. Ignorant people are not worthy of having the power stated in the Constitution. 

]]> 2019-01-18 15:21:38 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322150111 https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322155415 I believe that Chris won the debate. He provided excellent evidence and ideas in relation to making regulations for officials stricter. Furthermore, he went in depth on various topics in mentioning the electoral college, and addressing the various comments on topics such as wealth in elections as well as schooling. However, he did have some minor flaws in that he could have better explained his evidence. When reviewing that evidence, it still becomes clear in proving his point that people with certain experiences do better. Overall, he worked on utilizing strong evidence. On the other hand, Gabriel presented less evidence with more opinion. This results in a lack of foundation for the basis of his claims.]]> 2019-01-18 15:25:02 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322155415 https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322155824 I believe Chris won the debate. While there are minor flaws, overall he provided more compelling evidence and an argument that wasn't solely based off of his opinion. He successfully rebutted the arguments of Neet, Gabe and I and was able to convince me that the requirements for elected officials must be stricter. However, it would have been nice if both opponents went into depth about Senators and Representatives and other elected officials like that.]]> 2019-01-18 15:25:08 UTC https://padlet.com/raz4370pway/6yvrqwfzwf3m/wish/322155824