The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
BrighamYoungConservative
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,143 times Debate No: 37285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Pro

I would like to challenge BrighamYoungConservative on whether Martin Luther King JR had a positive impact on this country. Seeing as how he seems not believe so.

Definitions we will be discussing.

Nation - United States of America

Martin Luther King Jr - Famous equal rights activist whom most of us know and love

Positive impact on this nation - Did the actions of Dr King impact this country and offer progression to us as a society.

First round acceptance

Second round build your case

Third round rebuttals and crystallizing your points.
BrighamYoungConservative

Con

First of all His name wasn't Martin Luther. It was Michael. His father changed his name and his son's name. He never legally changed his name and he lived and died as Michael King. While working on his dissertation for his doctoral degree at Boston University, he heavily plagiarized from another author who had done research on a subject similar to King's. An academic committee later found that over half of King's work was plagiarized, yet would not revoke his doctorate. As King was dead by this time, the committee ruled that revoking the title would serve no purpose. King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech was also not his own. He stole it from a sermon by Archibald Carey, a popular black preacher in the 1950's.

King was under FBI surveillance until he died due to his ties with communist organizations throughout the country. King accepted money from the organizations to fund his movements. In return, King had to appoint communist leaders to run certain districts of his SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference), who then could project their communist ideas to larger audiences. One of King's closest friends, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, wrote a book in 1989 in which he talked about King's obsession with white prostitutes, Often hiring two to three prostitutes at a time and occasionally he would brutally beat them. King would also use church donations to have drunken sex parties, yet he was married with four children.

It makes me ill hearing prominent Americans such as Mitt Romney and Scott Walker praising Michael Kings work. Had they the slightest clue what this man has really done, they would not be so enthusiastic about MLK day. Perhaps it is time for Americans to face the facts about this fraud.

Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

My adversary has already breached conduct, as the first round was only for acceptance. I will however continue and provide my own case as stated in the debate outlines.


So as stated in the outline of this debate, we are going to examine if Martin Luther King JR, had a positive impact on this country. Did he offer progression. I will now offer some contentions to support this.


Contention 1

His personal sacrifice

Martin Luther King JR or Michael King was born January 15, 1929. Later his farther decided to change his name to the name of a great German reformer in the 16th century(Martin Luther). King was actively involved in Civil rights movements all throughout his career. Blacks at this time were suffering severe discrimination and King was hated by a lot of people. Even in the face of hatred, he still preached equality and change in this nation. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 because of this. In 1948 he Graduated from Morehouse College and enters Crozer Theological Seminary. He was ordained to the Baptist ministry on February 25, 1948 at the early age of 19. In 1955 he received his Doctorate of Philosophy in Systematic Theology from Boston University.

His entire life was dedicated to the ministry and equality. The most memorable march was the protest and march in Washington on August 28, 1963. A quarter of whom were white. Kings speeches had started to have a drastic change on this nation and even some white people began to realize that a change was necessary. It was here he delivered his famous speech "I have a dream". This speech rattled the foundations on which America was grounded and from that moment changes started to occur.

Without his personal sacrifice to the ministry and the equal rights movement that he dedicated his life to, all of the changes that occurred because of that may not have ever happened. It was primarily that speech, that shook America up. It was one of the most powerful speeches ever delivered and to this day, still holds that title.


Contention 2

The impact of the equal rights movement.


Because of the stand he took and the sacrifice that King gave, we now see the effects of this today. Even in corporate America you can not hire or deny work because of someones skin color. Often time if someone says something racist, it can ruin their career. We as a Nation have embraced the hope of equality and continue to run with it.

When he gave the "I have a dream" speech, the echo of that speech extended throughout time. It is became more than just skin color but helped us understand not to discriminate against people because of religion, sexual orientation, and any other reason you can think of. It helped this nation embrace tolerance which is something it was greatly lacking before hand.



In Closing.

We can clearly see the positive impact DR King has had on this nation. He has helped changed this nation for the better, and it is because of his sacrifice that equality is as accepted as it is today.




http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://www.nps.gov...
http://www.nobelprize.org...
BrighamYoungConservative

Con

Since this debate is about Micheal Kings inpact on America, I will focus my argument on that.

I believe the rules and regulations that Micheal King advocated for (mainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are not only unconstitutional, but a threat to our personal liberty. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

First I will offer some direct rebuttals. Prior to this, everything that my adversary posted in the first round, he has admitting to using snopes as a source. This is not credible nor acceptable.

Hypothetically if he wanted to have sex with hookers or multiple women, it is a non factor in this debate. It just shows he is as much a human as the rest of us. It still does not take away from the fact that he brought about reform in America that was much needed.


Rebuttal 1


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

My adversary is saying the civil rights act breaches the freedoms because it allows the government a say in whom we can or can not hire. This is true in a sense, but it also stops discrimination. It guarantees African Americans the same job chances we have, it promises the same pay. This is a promise that is embedded in the constitution itself. When our forefathers wrote of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that was not directly for Caucasians only.

What DR King stood up for was equality as a whole. That all races, religions, and people of different sexual orientations would be treated equally. He was not a modern black rights activist that didn't give a damn about anyone but his own race. He sincerely loved everyone, and believed in what he was fighting for. That is why we he gave his speech, "I have a dream" it was as powerful as it was. It was not just words that he was speaking, but he was demonstrating and expressing what he sincerely thought and believed was an issue that plagued our nation.

Since then we have made great advances in accepting people regardless of sex, religion, and sexual orientation. While most people may not agree with some of the issues politically, it is because of Dr King that we have all learned a lesson in loving each other and giving everyone an equal chance. This echos in the work place itself.


Rebuttal 2

Economic prosperity


Take this for example.

Pretend this movement didn't occur and we could discriminate against whom we wanted to hire.

There is a job offering in a local law firm. There are two applicants who submitted and application. The owner of the firm is extremely racist and can not stand black people. He believes he can pick and chose whom he wants to hire

Applicant A - A white male whom is around 22 years of age. He has never had a job and is attending a local community college.

Applicant B - This is an African American whom has had a great job history. He worked his way through his bachelors degree. He attended college maintained a 3.5 gpa, while never missing a day of full time work. He put himself through college because his family could not support him.

If you allowed discrimination, not only would it promote and encourage a lack of education but it would damage the company economically. New generations would see that because of their race , they would not need to put work or effort into getting a job, but cold be rewarded because of their gender or race. Not only that, if they were to award the person whom is under qualified this high level position, in most cases he would not know how to handle the job. So it could severely damage the company.

It is the companies right to hire whom they see fit, this is still active today. What the equal rights act does, is promise that when they make that decision there are factors that do not play a role in it. Such as race, gender, and religion. In both cases however it is entirely obvious that discrimination is the worst choice that could be made. It hurts the company and offers the wrong message to people whom are hunting jobs.


In Closing

I am quite happy that Michael King stood up for what he believed in. I am also thankful that he was a better man than I ever could hope to be. Because of his sacrifice, we can truly uphold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and offer it to all races, genders, and religions. This is the land of the free, and because of his sacrifice, everyone has a shot at being free.

BrighamYoungConservative

Con

I am not saying that I would discriminate based on race if I were to hire an employee. That is not what this debate is about. I believe that the policies that Mr. King shoved down the throats of many Americans did nothing to promote racial harmony. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.


You claim to be a Libertarian but you debate like a Marxist. Do you seriously believe that the Civil Rights Act did anything for economic prosperity? If anything the Civil Rights Act hurt business with scores of burdensome regulations and frivolous lawsuits. Racial equality can not be achieved through government regulation. Equality is earned and there is nothing congress or even the supreme court can do to grant equality with the wave of a pen.


I personally believe discrimination based on race or gender is wrong and I bet most people would agree with me on that, but I will fight to the death to preserve property rights and the right to refuse service.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@BYC: It's so easy to blame your poor performance on the voters, but that doesn't make it right.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Martin Luther King Jr. isn't the problem, BYU! It's people like you that are!!!
Posted by BrighamYoungConservative 3 years ago
BrighamYoungConservative
This isn't fair. People are just voting for you because they like MLK. It has nothing to do with debate performance.
Posted by ScientificBeack 3 years ago
ScientificBeack
This is going to be so fun.

inb4 rage rage rage
*HULK SMASH*

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!!1!!11
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
MikalBrighamYoungConservativeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was very organized in his debate, I though found it that Con had a better convincing argument. I do have to say, Con needs to put Reliable sources, and cite his info, For I did not see any sources from Con that I could link to. Con, please provide sources next time. I did not vote down Con because he did not fallow the rules. I'm not sure If Con fully read the rules, or read them carefully, this happens to me too sometimes.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
MikalBrighamYoungConservativeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving conduct to Pro for Con making an argument in an acceptance-only round. Sources to Pro since he did, in fact, cite several, and Con cited none. I have seen elsewhere that he cited Snopes for all of these claims, and the Snopes page he cites claims that they are all either false or overblown.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
MikalBrighamYoungConservativeTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con quoted verbatim from a Snopes article, which, ironically, clarifies some points of the claims he made. In any case, this is plagiarism.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
MikalBrighamYoungConservativeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con broke a rule immediately in R1. Pro gets conduct because of this. S&G was pretty much the same. Neither used sources. Arguments: Con's argument was that Martin Luther King was bad because of things he did advocate. Affirmative Action wasn't his invention. The government created Affirmative Action after MLKs death. This was much of Con's argument, blaming MLK for what we did, and Pro could have used that in his argument. Even without that, all of his arguments went rather on touched in the end. He had a broad argument with details that his point.