Evaluating Arguments on Debarring Illiterates from Voting

The question asks whether individuals who are illiterate should be prevented from casting their votes. Two arguments are presented for consideration.

Analysis of Argument I: Susceptibility to Misguidance

Argument I suggests "Yes, they can be easily misguided." This argument implies that a lack of literacy makes voters unreliable or easily manipulated. However, basing voting eligibility on literacy is a discriminatory practice and contradicts democratic principles of universal suffrage. While concerns about voter manipulation exist, disenfranchising a segment of the population based on their educational status is generally considered unjust and undemocratic.

Analysis of Argument II: Constitutional Right to Vote

Argument II states "No, it is their constitutional right." This argument grounds the right to vote in constitutional law. In most democratic frameworks, the right to vote is considered a fundamental right, often extended to all adult citizens regardless of their educational qualifications. Denying this right solely based on illiteracy would infringe upon constitutional guarantees and the principle of equality.

Conclusion on Argument Strength

Comparing the two arguments:

• Argument I relies on a questionable premise (illiterates are inherently misguided) and proposes a disenfranchising measure. It is considered weak because it undermines fundamental rights and equality.
• Argument II appeals to a recognized legal and ethical principle – the constitutional right to vote. This is a strong basis for opposing the debarment of any citizen group from voting.

Therefore, only Argument II presents a strong case.