>>74285897
Your position is easy as fuck to defend m8. With just bringing personal freedom and individualism, you are set to go.

>>74286084
Like, say something about democracy being about electing someone based on his merits and not based on status?

Assuming members of the same family as being nepotistic, thus bringing them into office is discriminatory is roughly the same as not electing someone due to his beliefs or race right?

The thing is my opponent would make the first case/argument so i have to prepare rebuttals.

>>74286564
It is simple. You cant judge someone by blood ties. The same way that you dont arrest a kid if his parent commits murder. Breaking the principle of inocence/ betoing domeone just for their background is just another form of arbitrary discrimination,like not letting the poor or woman vote. Do you see were I am going?

>>74287168
But a lot of corps have policies that won't allow employers to employ people from their family. Even if the family member is genuinely the best candidate.

>>74287914
And?That doesnt make the policies fair. It is just another form of discrimination

>>74287168
Yes, i see. But since my opponent would make the first case, i'm trying to figure out ways to rebutt her possible arguments.

Say that her argument was that same family members receive privileges because of their connections and thus they are not at equal with the rest of the candidates.

>>74287914
Isn't employing and electing two different things? When you employ someone you are sure to be biased but in an election, said family member in office won't have a voice and the people would decide.

>>74288163
There is a law and a justice power brand for that. You shouldbt delagate the jobs of branches to other bodies. If there is corruption,there should be judges and other institutions taking care of it. It is just unfair to discriminate just because.

>>74287914
Because the hiring decision is in the hands of the family. In government, that's in the hands of the voters.

Anti-nepotism policies have no place in elective government as you're artificially restricting choice and denying the will of the people.

>>74288101
>>74288261
The point is that discrimination based on blood ties exists and are legal is some form.

>>74288394
Should an ancient president still have power over the government? Because in the case of a married couple who both were elected, the second to be president will surely be influenced by his/her spouse.
In the US, you have a maximum of 8 years for someone to be at the head of the state, this could be bypassed by a proxy spouse president.

>>74288388
By the way thank you so much for the help. I might just not get absolutely BTFO this morning. Adios spainbro

>>74285897
What are some possible arguments your opponent would make?

>>74290079
You are welcome bro