The Instigator
tyounes312
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Are Court cases valid in a historic argument?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 33566
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

tyounes312

Con

The Supreme Court has ruled many ridiculous cases such as Korematsu v. U.S. with regards to rights etc. I believe that one cannot say "Well, the court said this about this in this year," to further their argument about rights. Scott v. Sanford said that slaves weren't citizens, but property!
Ragnar

Pro

Sadly this may be a Catch-22 situation for Con, as his proofs are likely to be historic cases.

I believe one may pull any court case they wish to further their argument, it is up to the other side to find flaws in the case or issues of relevancy to dismiss it.

Rebuttals:
Korematsu v. United States was a legal battle against the constitutionality of Americans of Japanese ancestry being sent to government camps during WWII (1). Dred Scott v. Sandford was a legal ruling to prevent African Americans from suing in federal court, which was heavily influenced behind the scenes by president-elect James Buchanan (2). Both cases are horrible, and are fine examples of the changing nature of how America as a nation interprets the constitution.

The first is comparable to what the Nazis were doing to Jewish people; that it happened to not get as bad, is irrelevant to what the average citizen in either country knew about them being taken away. Thus an argument about rights could be made that 'WWII was a bad time for civil rights,' and legal cases of the time would be valid in supporting that claim.
Debate Round No. 1
tyounes312

Con

Yes, hate to break it but the court doesn't always rule the correct verdict A.K.A. Plessy v. Ferguson where it was upheld that separate but equal facilities are equal. When arguing the Constitutionality of something a court case cannot justify it. One has the right to free speech, but in cases like U.S. v. Schenck and Alger Hiss's trial (yes he was a Communist) freedom of speech was "limited". How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free. The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something.
Ragnar

Pro

I agree that the existence of court rulings, are not alone enough to win most arguments. They make mistakes, and shall continue to make mistakes; this shall be further magnified by time when social norms change away from what they are today.

However there is a big leap between 'even respectable educated people on the supreme court make mistakes,' and 'supreme court rulings have no validity in historic arguments.' Paraphrased from my round 1: arguing about issues in different parts of history, legal proceedings from such times are highly valid. Also of note is which way the different judges voted, a ruling barely passed vs. a ruling unanimously passed.

For example say we wanted to argue about abortion... 40 years ago with a 7-2 vote Roe v. Wade (1) greatly changed the face of the issue, and nearly put an end to coat-hanger abortions; please find any way that legal case would not be valid information on the topic?

Rebuttals:
My opponent stated in round 2 "One has the right to free speech ... How can freedom of speech be limited? Free is free, not semi-free or Quasi-free." I could clap, but then I remembered his round 1 statement "I believe that one cannot say 'Well, the court said this about this in this year,' to further their argument about rights." So freedom of speech should be limited any time people are disagreeing with each other? It should in fact be semi-free or quasi-free?

"The people should go by the Constitution, not the ruling of the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitutionality of something." We as a people often disagree with what the constitution means, that is why there's amendments and so many legal battles over it. Yes mistakes are made, but even those mistakes are valid in historic arguments since they reflect the nature of people in those time periods.

Sources:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
tyounes312

Con

tyounes312 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Pro

Sadly Con could not join us for the final round. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
It's alright. I hope your exam went well.

Since this debate is over, what do you think of my thought process?
Posted by tyounes312 3 years ago
tyounes312
I am sorry! I was studying for the APUSH Exam!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
tyounes312RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
tyounes312RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Do not accept ff.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
tyounes312RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because Con forfeited. Pro's arguments suffered slightly from unanswered rhetorical questions, but regardless, he effectively countered Con's arguments effectively, furthered his case farther than Con did, and laid out his argument in an easy to read format, so he won arguments. Also, only Pro used sources.