Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks for this debate!
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For my opponent, it is inconceivable that the 1st Amendment be repealed, since it represents the American ideal of freedom.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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DebaterGood 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.