The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Enough is enough Congress, give me back my freedoms!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,546 times Debate No: 5882
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (15)

 

Johnicle

Pro

During this election process, I have realized the many flaws in our system. The biggest of which being the loss of freedoms. America is based on three things, guaranteeing us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, I have compiled a list of freedoms that I should have. I have split them into two categories…

Category 1: Freedoms we need NOW.

Seat Belt laws. Enough said.

Guatanamo Bay: NO MORE taking "suspected terrorists" without a trial. It's B.S. that you can take away YEARS of someone's life without a trial. Many people have been released after years of capture with no more than a "sorry, we thought you were a terrorist." GIVE THEM A TRIAL LIKE WE PROMISED.

Privacy: STOP LISTENING TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATIONS. Even if they have nothing to hide and even if they are calls to foreign conversations, we have the right to privacy.

Gambling: The Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 put the nail in the coffin. In 13 states, gambling is illegal online. What does this mean? Well first of all, in the transition over to this new idea, my internet gaming site FROZE my money in their system… I can't even log on right now to get my money out. Furthermore, it has scared several of the secure systems from accepting money from anyone in those states. Why is it that I can't gamble online? Does it affect you if I gamble online? NO! If you think it's stupid, then LET ME be stupid. If it's my ‘pursuit of happiness' then let me have it.

Tattoos: Minors can't get tattoos. This is B.S.

School: I can't leave school if I wanted. I HAVE TO GO. It sounds like prison to me. You have to go and if you leave it's illegal. Not to mention that if you don't do well then your teachers get canned. Therefore eliminating your teacher's freedom.

(so far president bush has an act for taking my freedom. Since most of these thus far are because of him)

Drinking: WTF? Country after Country in Europe allow people to drink at 18. In Switzerland, anyone can drink but you have to be 14 to buy it. They have few to no problems with it and we would have fewer if we let them drink. What do you think is more dangerous? A) Drinking in a bar that is being watched or B) Drinking in some field with NO protection and NO ONE to call (since it's "illegal"). I can die for my country but I can't drink. My mother had a stressful day and she had one drink to calm her stress. I'm in high school. The most stressful time in people's lives and what do we have to calm ourselves? I guess we could cut ourselves because that's legal.

The Requirement to get licenses for EVERYTHING. There are certain things that you should need a license for (like driving). But the increased difficulty of getting gambling licenses and other business licenses has overstepped their grounds. I should be able to sell something without having to spend a bunch of money to get a piece of paper to say that I can sell it.

The Draft… enough said.

Category 2: Freedoms that can be adopted with time and care.

The only one I have to say here is drugs. Certain drugs (like meth) are more like suicide than anything so legalizing this would be generally bad. However, lighter drugs (such as Marijuana) are harmless. If you limit the amount that people can have on them at one time, you will be fine AND you will get massive amounts of tax revenue AND you can give more people their life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These are only some of the freedoms that I know we should have. However, there could very likely be even more. If you know of some more, please put them in the comment section. Not to be used in this debate, but to educate the people around you of what we deserve as American citizens.

There aren't enough swear words in the dictionary to explain my anger towards the government and their lies. It's about time we stop asking for our rights back and demanding them.

America is not free…yet. Join the Campaign to make it free.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like you for posting the argument Johnicle and look forawd to a good debate.
First off i would like to adress you're issues in general. You say that minors should be allowed to drink from a young age, have more freedom of gambling, be allowed get tatoos, leave school early and smoke marijuana. you feel this because you're in your rebbelious teenage years. i am in them too, but realise that not allowing the following is for the greater good of society. On to the issues on a one on one basis:

Seat belt laws: You haven't given a clear stance on the issue, but I assume you're against it. A seatbelt is often the difing factor between a normal life and permenant brain damage.

Guantanamo and privacy: I agree with you on these issues.

Gambling: You say it's someone's 'pursuit of happiness'. But gambling can become a serious addiction and waste of money to the public. Let's also mention casino's. Alot of money circulating in a casino is gangster money. Fuelling gangland through a medium of 'happiness' is just wrong and idiotic.

Tatoo's: Although this isn't a real congress adressed issue, tatooes are often seen as signs of freedom to a teenager. I say parents should govern this.

School: people who drop out of school straight away often regret it. They can't go to college, and have to go to a low-end job in some store or take uo an apprenticeship in things like carpentry. yes, this may suit the person doing so, but they should be educated and have as many doors open to them as possible. As I mentioned before, teens are often rebellious and disagree alot of the times with what they're given. They are some times not in a right state of mind to make the right decisions in the long run.

Drinking: This is a stereotype that Europe has extremely loose alchohol laws. I'm irish, and we have the 18 and older, like birtian, law of alchohol. In france, you must be 16 to purchase beer in a cafe, and all other alchohols require you to be 18 with ID. In Spain, the legal age is 18, bu the law is lax is tourist regions. In Belgium,the netherlands, Italy and Germany you have to be 16 to purchase alchohols with restrictions like below 15%. In Switzerland, liek you mentioned above, the age of drinking is 16 for beer,wine and cider, but achpops and beverages of that genre require the age of 18 or older. I have blown you're theories out of the water completely. Yes, having lower alchohol ages reduces the amount of youths in an unprotected field drinking, but how much would a nation be looked down upon if you could go into an off-lisence at the age of 14 (like you suggested) and get drunk of your face. Children would bring and drink alchohol to school and be drunk in class. In support of this, children drink energy drinks, which makes them hyper and introducing alcohol would put it in the place of an energy drink.

You also say that introducing marijuana would give people more liberty and you'll egt more tax revenue. I will refer to my other example. introducing this would mean you're introducing it amongst teens aswell, so they can come into school stoned off their face. When hooked on a substance such a sMArijuana, a body isn't able to say only x amount a day. The addiction grows, and will pain somebodyy until they get more and more of the drug of back-alleys, which will flourish because they can stockpile marijuana legally and give the excess of it to people with serious addictions. You also comment on tax revenue, but I find it sickening you would disregard someones well being and safety to make some more money and give them more 'freedom' in the form choosing whether or not they want to blow they're money on an addiction that you gain on.

It is not 'nannying' and 'parenting' people by keeping these laws. It is protecting people from the harms that they are vulnerable. Some people aren't educated and don't know when to say when.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

I apologize for not going line by line, but it seems that all of your arguments lie under the same idea and it's the idea where the debate is.

Well, it seems my suspicions have been confirmed. At least one person (and I suspect many more) have forgotten what the point of laws are. Or what the point of government is. You see, government exists NOT to protect us from ourselves, but to protect ourselves from others. "A man's right to swing his fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Therefore you have pointed out very well that these laws help the good of individuals, but you see the choice is not the governments. What's the big deal if I want to blow all of my money in a casino… IT'S MY MONEY AFTER ALL! Furthermore, it's not like I have a family to feed. If I did, THEN the government should say that you have committed a crime (by not feeding your family). Lately, people have seen how one thing COULD lead to something bad, so then they outlaw it since it MIGHT happen again. They become scared, ‘I can't ask them to stop, so I'll try to force them.' And since the government can make justifications towards it, and since the majority of people don't care if they can't gamble online, they get away with outlawing it. Within this debate, all that I ask is that the majority finally stand up for the minority. Even though you don't care that there is a law that prevents people from gambling online, or dropping out of school, or smoking marijuana, or drinking in a place that is finally safe (a bar), doesn't mean that I don't care. I have to ask, is your life going to change because I can do those things? The answer is simply NO! And if it does, THEN the law should come into play to say that your actions obstructed my life.

It is at this time where I would like to point out what the government SHOULD be spending their time and money on. This lies in 2 entities… The first being protect me from anyone that harms my life. This is because when there are people getting drunk in a field or getting held up by a gun in a drug deal, they SHOULD be able to call the cops and not get in trouble (both of these things have happened except the cops were not called because of the law. Nothing like truly protecting the people right?) The second being that they should EDUCATE us that not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle might be stupid, or gambling online might be a waste of money, or perhaps they could even strengthen the system to make sure that the online gaming facilities are secure and FAIR. They could educate us on the dangers of drugs and alcohol and not allow us to come to school drunk or toasted since in life, they couldn't come to their job like that. And if they didn't want to do that, then go ahead and drop out (at a certain age), but not before we educate you on the risks.

I thank you for this debate. But before finishing I would like to say that the only extra freedom that I want is gambling, but ever since them preventing me from gambling online, I have realized that there are several other people out there that need their life, their liberty, THEIR pursuit of happiness. In the end that is what is most important. It doesn't matter if YOU care that you have these freedoms, but PLEASE respect the people around you. It is time that the minority stands up for the majority.

Thank you.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to than johnicle for this interesting debate and hope that the people choose sensibly in their voting. As you can see the bulk of my argument is rebutting his statements, and that is what this argument will be like too.

To start, you say 'You see, government exists NOT to protect us from ourselves, but to protect ourselves from others'. So on that basis, drugs should still be outlawed, because if someone gives you drugs and makes you addicted and it slowly kills you, then it's the government's job to protect you. The government can't stop people speeding, but forcing a seat belt on you makes sure that should they speed, you won't be as harmed. Alchohol can lead to serious disease like lung cancer and people can become dependent on alchohol as a source of happiness rather than their lifes themsleves, turning your base idea on its head.

As for gambling, you say it's the only freedom you want. You say someone should be able to use their money how they wish. Like a very risky, short term investment. But I will match this one argument with this:
- Once people start gambling, they can become addicted. This leads to people spending their whole wages sometimes on gambling alone.
- People aren't educate on the perils of gambling and how much money they can stand to lose. Most times, they barely even have a 1:10 chance of winning. Would you buy a house that had a 10% chance of not collapsing, or stocks with a 90% chance to go down at any one point? No, and the government needs to protect its people by regulating gambling.

The solution seen by many to people in danger of violence through drugs, alchohol or prostitution is legalize it. But this isn't. The government should work on educating people on the dangers of the above, and combating them through police force or neighbourhood schemes. The laws should stay in place, because if we remove them people may be 'free' and one step closer to their 'american dream', it can degrade their lives and often deterioarate someone until they are ging away from their dream.

You close with hsaying we need to respect what people need to do even if I think i'm in a state of happiness. So is it a state of happiness when our liver cancer rates soar, when you cough past half the cafe's you walk past because people are smoking marijuana and such in there? I would say that these laws protect the people, and leave open more windows than they close. Keeping alchohol away from minors is common sense, as it can keep them focused and away from a serious addiction. Yes teens will experiment in alleys and parks and theyre more safe in a establishment doing so, but they're supply will always be limited aswell as the money they can get. The same is for drugs, but on an everyone basis. Drugs like Marijuana, can reduce brain activity and cause heart attacks and strokes. If people starting smoking it without someone to enforce it, people could die. This is complete negligence by the government. You also say that charging tax revenue will justify this, but it appales me that when people are handing 100's upon 100's to fuel their crazed addiction, you're scourging money off them.

All I want to say is this: Legalizing drugs won't change anything. More people will smoke it (mainly the youth) and get the addiction which is hard to come off of. My opponent never mentioned anything about rehab for people who want to get out of their addiction, so they will have no help beyond our current standards, which isn't great. The laws here, such as seat belt laws, are to protect the people on not a level of parenting, but on a level of common sense. I feel gambling should be allowed, but under strict regulations, as it is like a drug. As for alchohol to minors, it is wrong to unleash a drink that damages the brain, is a giver of cancer and is addicting, amongst the uneducated youth.

I'm going to close with this. The government is here to protect its people. The way it does this is by you choosing who it is you want to govern it. Without law, there is no freedom.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Hey John. you have to remember that the more freedom you allow, the more people that will be offended. If someone believes that God helps them through life, not drugs or alchohol, then YOU NEED TO RESPECT THAT!!! You can't waltz around a shopping centre with a joint in you're mouth and drunk off you're face because you believe you have a <right to> when other want to enjoy a peaceful day buying goods. If 60% of a nation believes in a scripture that says gambling is wrong, you can't open casino's like amusement parks bacause it OFFENDS people. I'm not letting religion influence me. I'm in agnostic, but I believe that you need a balance between freedoms and restrictions.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
OMG... YOU ARE THE EXACT REASON I MADE THIS DEBATE. I don't care that you don't want to do it. I don't want to do drugs but I respect someone else's freedom to do so. Alchohol won't be abused by most. And gambling is great entertainment. YOU need to stop being so selfish and realize that other people want something that you may not. HOW WILL IT AFFECT YOU IF YOU ALLOW FOR MY FREEDOM?????????????? Let me be "stupid" and you can refuse to use your freedom. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to use it. But DON'T take away my right that I want to use.
Posted by lalasavannah3218 8 years ago
lalasavannah3218
I am for the "con" I believe we are given theses restictions because we'd do anything we want and get away with it. The drinking age is fine whether it's at I think drinking is ridiculous. It just makes you forget "regrets" and you wake up feeling like crap. I've never touched the stuff and i'm perfectly fine and i've been through alot of crap and God my lord and savior has been there for me the wholleee time! Also, gambling is just stupid and so many people waste their money and their addicted to it like drugs cause it's the only thing that "pleases" them, but will never satisfy. Yeaaa so the con had better spelling and conduct as well.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Yeah i cant register to vote because my cellphone doesn't work where I live, I know it sucks. I understand you're voting, thanks for giving me better conduct. I agree that my spelling was poor.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
when i vote in a debate, I only find it fair to tell you how i voted:

agreed with me before and after
you had better conduct (going line by line)
I had better spelling and grammar and convincing arguments
tie for reliable sources.

If you vote for yourself (for some or non or w/e) now you know how i voted... good debate
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
lol... i don't actually proofread my rounds... but our school has laptops and thus most of my assignments are typed. Therefore, typing is nearly as common as typing for me lately. although I much prefer debates when everyone is in a room together...
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
My apologies. I understand what you mean when you speak of time constraints, as it's the one thing that prevents me from debating more often. That being said, it's all the more reason to give the point to the person that dedicated the time to proofread their rounds.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
KRFournier - English is my first and foremost language, but its my keyboardmanship (the equivalent of penmanship) that is letting me down. I put as much effort as possible into my debating, but have little time to check spelling because I'm on a tight schedule.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
This was part rant, part battle of worldviews. The role of government was stated by both sides but never really substantiated. Pro says government is to protect from external threats, Con says government is also to protect from internal threats--threats to self. Neither side really argued why their view was more appropriate.

That being said, I voted Con for best argument. He did a better job refuting Pro's contentions using actual information, such as the European laws on alcohol. I also gave the conduct vote for Con because Pro was ranting more than debating.

I did give spelling and grammar to Pro. I understand that English is not Con's primary language, but it doesn't change the fact the it was much easier to read Pro than Con.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by peace-maker 8 years ago
peace-maker
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by kimba 8 years ago
kimba
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
JohnicleI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04