The Instigator
Mharman
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Overnight
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

First Amendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Overnight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 344 times Debate No: 96374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Mharman

Pro

The 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing. It allows me to say whatever I want to say, without worrying about the government silencing me for criticizing it. This is true freedom, an American ideal.
Overnight

Con

I accept this debate. Just to be clear, what I argue does not necessarily reflect my personal opinions.
Thanks for this debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Mharman

Pro

OK, then. Continue with your argument.
Overnight

Con

Since my opponent has made no arguments past his/her opening statement, I will start with my contentions.
I am going to debate with the point of view that a case for a repeal of the first amendment IS plausible, it does not actually reflect my personal beliefs, though. Other than that, thanks for this debate!

First, I would like to pose a fascinating question, What is a constitution?
Is it simply a manifest of subtle legal provisions, or a whole greater than the sum of its many parts?

For my opponent, it is inconceivable that the 1st Amendment be repealed, since it represents the American ideal of freedom. Article V of the Constitution gives a detailed description as to how the it would be amended, also listing two elements that could never be. The 1st Amendment isn't one of them, opening the door for this discussion.

I am in no way undermining the ideals of this nation that are inextricably woven into the fabric of the constitution, however I must say that depending on the interpretation of the Constitution as a whole, it certainly is possible. I would also like to say that the 1st Amendment has also become a cultural norm as we live in the 21st century.

As a proud citizen of the United States, I feel thoroughly safe in the fact that I will not be arrested or harmed for even debating this, for example. But that is not due to the 1st Amendment's assurance that I'm safe. Many of the world's most repressive orders have included just as liberal freedoms the 1st amendment gives, however there sure were accounts of people being arrested and/or harassed because of it. My sense of security (and probably most people's) comes from the nation's society and culture, which shows continual respect towards the practical freedom of expression. Now, I am almost certain that my opponent will counter by saying that I am wrong, and the culture only works BECAUSE of the 1st Amendment. He/she may also say that without the Freedom of expression, the culture would not consist of respect towards that amendment. To counter, I will argue that today, our actions as the United States (The only country I am arguing for) are constantly under scrutiny by the international community. Take Amnesty International as an example. If we were to ignore the freedom of speech, with or without the 1st amendment, we would still be held to the same standards set forth by the U.N and the rest of the International community.

I thank my opponent for this round, and i look forward to my final rebuttal/conclusion.
Debate Round No. 2
Mharman

Pro

In the first paragraph, he says that I have made no further arguments past my opening statement. That is true. He didn't make an argument in Round 1, so I didn't make one in Round 2 to make things balanced. This isn't really important, but I thought I might point it out anyways.

In the next few paragraphs, he gives arguments on whether it *could* be banned, but this debate is about whether it *should* be banned. Also, it is not inconceivable to me that the First Amendment be repealed, as I am aware that it could happen under the U.S. Constitution.

In the biggest paragraph is where the good part of this debate is. Now, the culture does not work because of the First Amendment, it works because all people feel the desire to speak. The founding fathers knew this, and added the First Amendment to the Constitution as an assurance. Yes, most of society would respect the right of free speech without the First Amendment. But the key word there is "most". Some people wouldn't care, and some already don't care. In the second half of the third sentence in the big paragraph, my opponent says "However, there sure were accounts of people being arrested and/or harassed because of it." This sentence was HUGE to me. If so many people ignored the First Amendment, and STILL many people disrespected the freedom of speech, then A LOT more would disrespect it, if The First Amendment wasn't there for the Supreme Court to make rulings on. That being said, society still would probably function. Probably, anyways. You see, before the freedom of speech was thought of in England, citizens would never say anything bad about the King, or else. And they accepted it that way! Who's to say that won't repeat if the First Amendment is taken away? Now, my opponent will probably argue that today is different, because it has been thought of now. As for that, throughout history we have seen people being too accepting of injustices (I'm not saying protesters don't exist). The already mentioned subjects of the King in Middle Ages England, Democrats is the 1800s who accepted slavery, and many more.

Also in the big paragraph, he states that we would be held to the same standard of the rest of the U.N. We could leave the U.N., and the U.N. is full of diplomats who won't do a lot of action, even if we banned free speech and stayed in. We could very easily leave the International standards just like that. Now, he will probably argue that the international standards apply to all countries, U.N. or not. As for that, the U.S. is an economic superpower, the U.N. STILL couldn't do very much.

It is your turn now, for the final argument, Overnight. This has been a good debate. Over and out.
Overnight

Con

I would like to first thank my opponent for a good debate, and I look forward to possibly debating again sometime soon!

I am going to rebut my opponent's final points, and I will then reaffirm my points, proving why I feel that I have won this debate.

Since the legality of the 1st amendment has been covered, I want to go to a few points made by Pro;
My opponent has said that the founding fathers have made the 1st amendment in order to assure that the desire to speak would not be infringed upon. What my opponent has failed to reconcile, however, is the more dark parts of this debate. I must say, weren't present at the times of out founding fathers. (Internet age issues...I'm sure we can tell what I mean) These issues, including the inadvertent threat of violence, is problematic in the sense that they are potentially endangering the other party's well-being, but since the 1st amendment protects them, there can be no action taken. I am not referring to blatant threats, since the constitution states that blatant threats are not within the juris-protection of the government.

When my opponent mentioned my mention of the use of silencing orders by repressive regimes who claim to have expressive liberties, my opponent viewed this as a means to undermine a possible society in the US without the 1st amendment. This simply isn't true, because as my opponent has said, the US is an economic superpower, and wouldn't tarnish the financial reputation of the country. none of the regimes who I mentioned are superpowers by any social/financial means, cancelling the possibility for ulterior comparison.

Now, I would like to finally state my conclusion.
The first amendment has been overpassed by many generations, with the use of widespread technology allowing for more types of "expression" that the founding fathers could imagine. I am NOT calling for a ban on the freedom of expression, however I am calling for the repeal of the 1st amendment in order for the replacement of a more modern system, one that takes threats, and other issues, more individually focused, in order to actually protect the modern rights of ALL citizens.

Thanks to my opponent, once, again, this has been a great debate, and amazing points were made!
Also, the arguments I made do not necessarily reflect my actual opinions.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mharman 3 weeks ago
Mharman
Well, GG.
Posted by Overnight 1 month ago
Overnight
Great debate @Mharman, you made great points!
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
@Overnight: Ok. As far as this debate goes, I will probably start Round 3 tomorrow.

In other unrelated news, congrats on winning the debate against Rjupudi18: Ban Islam. He is on my friends list, but if I was eligible to vote, I would've voted for you. I get the idea that he doesn't realize that ALL religions are protected under the First Amendment, not just Christianity.
Posted by Overnight 1 month ago
Overnight
It doesn't matter to me, if someone wants to debate you before we run out of time, thats cool. If not, I'll just accept. Thanks @Mharman!
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
@Overnight: Ok then. Do you want to accept that debate after this one (assuming that the timer doesn't run out), or do you want me to challenge you separately after this debate is over?
Posted by Overnight 1 month ago
Overnight
Sorry @Mharman, I already tried, and it says since I am already in a debate with you, I can't debate till were finished with the 1st amendment one.
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
@Overnight: You could just accept the open debate I have. I can do up to three debates at the same time. Unless you do want me to challenge you separately.
Posted by Overnight 1 month ago
Overnight
Second Amendment. If you don't want to, thats totally cool.
Posted by Mharman 1 month ago
Mharman
@Overnight: Challenge you on the Second Amendment or something else?
Posted by Overnight 1 month ago
Overnight
Hey @Mharman, I see that you are debating the 2nd Amendment. I really like that you are making these debates, would you be willing to challenge me after this one ends?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 1 month ago
DebaterGood
MharmanOvernightTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Would have voted for @Mharman, but the argument about modern times I feel was unavoidable, so Con gets arguments. Both sides were very civil. Grammar to Pro, I caught a few mistakes by Con.