The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Humans are bad. The Constitution is good. Deal with it.

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  
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: 3/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 3284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (20)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

I just have a few things to say. We do not live in a utopia. On this side of eternity, the world that surrounds us is a hellish and savage place. Humanity itself is a tragic farce, a global joke; for all our protestations, complaints and self-righteousness, we must face a simple fact: we are feckless and wicked. Such is the fallen state of man that Thomas Hobbes classified life on Earth as "nasty, brutish, and short." I could not agree more, and for several millenia, since the Garden of Eden itself, humanity has been on the decline. In the Third World today, children live in indescribable poverty, abject misery. More than a third of the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day. Children stitch soccer balls with their teeth for cents a day because their oppressive governments will not give them free enterprise or basic opportunity. Cruel tyrants in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea starve their citizens for the glory of the state and the shininess of the ruler's palace. Corruption runs rampant and genocides are omnipresent, even in the "illuminated," "progresive," 21st century. In short, man is not, by his nature, compassionate. Man is not, by his nature, generous. Man is not, by his nature, moral. Man is the weakest of all creatures, for he alone has a higher purpose, and he alone fails in his sacred duties. We are wretches by the simple fact of our species.

The founding fathers knew this. The framers of the American Constitution understood this basic truth. The nascent principles of the United States center around this crucial perception of mankind: we are evil, we are corrupted by power, and our appetites for authority must be limited. And so, with their sobering insight into the human psyche firmly in hand, the great patriots of our Founding consulted their contemporary philosophers, culling wisdom from wherever they could find it. Thomas Jefferson leaned upon the musings of John Locke and his revolutionary doctrine of natural, God-given rights. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison poured over the wise script of Montesquieu, Adam Smith and even the pessimistic Hobbes. They consulted all corners of the ideological spectrum to help them establish something which was truly extraordinary, something which was utterly mystifying to the imperialist policies of the 18th century. The framers of our Constitution, the progenitors of our Union, made it their most sacrosanct mission to unleash the buried goodness in every human soul.

As Ronald Reagan's tombstone reads, "I know in my heart that man is good." What did he mean by this? Surely the Gipper was a Christian. Surely he sensed that his race was sinful, fallen, and flawed. Surely he, the stalwart leader who stood up to the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, knew what ie meant to confront depravity and crush despotism. No, what Reagan's epitaph drives at is the underlying theme of America, the country he described as "the last best hope for mankind," and which Lincoln called "a shining city on a hill." Reagan, like the Framers, suspected that man can be good only within fenced boundaries--he also guessed that, when these limits are appropriate, the achievements of our nation would be limitless. The same rule applies to government.

I'd like to suggest here that fences are starkly necessary for the advancement of human nobility. Without the guidelines and teachings of religion, the moral longings of our conscience would find no expression. Without eternal consequences for our actions, we have no incentive to control our animalistic passions. In the same way that religion dictates what actions we may take in our private lives, the Constitution dictates what actions the government may take in its public life. Our framers enumerated specific powers in the Constitution because they feared both monarchy and mob rule with equal disgust. They saw the ugly inclination of mankind to ignore its responsibilities, either to rise to totalitarianism or to descend into anarchy, both of which are antithetical to the betterment of the human race and anathema to common decency. The framers knew that man must have limits if his goodness is to be revealed. He must be fenced in order for him to run free. And, perhaps most importantly, the fences which restrict his actions must discourage wickedness but never impede prosperity and liberty. Truly, they walked a fine line. But these men were not mental midgets. They were smart. And they got it right.

In order to preserve the balance of stability and freedom, John Adams argued that our Constitution will only work for a "moral and religious people." This means that it is our responsibility to abide by the rules we set for ourselves and never to forsake them in the blind pursuit of pleasure. Today we see that our culture has forgotten the meaning of responsibility. What we desire is license, not liberty, for we abhor the obligations that come with a free society--in license--, no obligations are present. Today, we do not understand that unlimited human nature is as dangerous as unlimited government. Today, we are "girly men" (to credit the Governator). We are ignoring the intentions of our framers, the men who made this a nation of laws, not a nation of men. I worry when I watch Washington ignore its specific, mandated duties and spiral into a tailspin of unauthorized, unconstitutional socialism. This foolish trend has to be reversed.

We face a striking danger as a nation, in my opinion. We are already forgetting the humility and caution toward government control which established this country. In our mad desire for more government goodies, we are becoming dependent on their largesse; we are becoming indentured to their every whim. If we ever forget that man is inherently wicked and that government is inherenly fallible, we'll soon have an all-powerful welfare state and a population of lazy, whining drones, fully dependent on "safety-net" assistance.

Take responsbility. Understand the downfalls of your humanity and recognize that government is never the answer to our problems...government IS the problem. Remember the principles which founded this country, the conservative tenets which chained man's wickedness and unchained man's creative genius. We have institutionalized free markets and the rule of law in America. Our Constitution represents this. Our Constitution does NOT represent the nanny state.

Let me tell you something: it's not generosity when you're redistributing money that never belonged to you in the first place. You can't be charitable with someone else's money. That's not generosity. That's theft! We must understand the limits that have curbed government and emancipated the human spirit in this majestic land. We should not set fire to the document that has made us the envy of the world. The magnamity and decency of America is such that, in the last century, with foes on four continents, two world wars; inumerable police actions, and countless air strikes, in decades rife with terorist attacks and Communist revolutions, we, as Americans, have not conquered an acre of ground. We have established no empires. We have colonized no countries. We have enslaved no man, black, white, or brown. As Colin Powell eloquently stated, "the only land we have ever claimed in war are the gravesites of our fallen."

I am proud to be a citizen of this venerable country. This is America, a nation of hardworking people, not benevolent government. We are a nation of individuals, not serfs. We are the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. Did we get here by chance? Or is our success due to the principles which founded this country, the principles that trust the individual over the group, which trust the citizen over the government, which trust law over coercion and liberty over tyranny? I think we can guess the answer.
Korezaan

Con

I negate, "Humans are bad. The Constitution is good. Deal with it."

Definitions.

Bad = immoral.
Good = moral.

These are based off his case, where he mentions morality quite often.

Two observations.

1) "Deal with it" has two meanings. The first is literal, in which it tells people to actually take an action to change, usually, things to solve a problem. The second is exactly the opposite, in which it says "Change your mindset, because [subject] is true and you are not." Since his case basically says the constitution is good and people aren't, we can safely assume that my opponent is using the second definition.
2) When he says "are" and "is", they are categorical statements. Therefore, he has to prove every instance of both of the statements in the resolution true. If he fails to achieve either burden, I automatically win the round because the topic is not completely true.
3) He brings up good examples of what America has done in his case. I'm going to assume that he's trying to say that every single good thing we do is based off of the constitution, as his case ALSO says "humans are bad".

Two overviews. Since these attack the underlying assumptions in his case, if he does not adequately respond to even one of them, he already loses the round.

1) You can't ever prove absolute statements when it comes to people. You can't say all Nazis wanted to kill Jews. You can't say that all Vietnamese are communist, you can't say every Russian is like Stalin, you can't say every guy with a turban is a terrorist, you can't say every Chinese guy that works in the information industry is working to overthrow the US government by supplying secrets to the Chinese government. Actually anybody can, but just not truthfully. Nobody can just generalize about EVERYBODY. Just because Hobbes and some other writers say so doesn't mean they're right. And even if they're right in some instances does not mean all instances.

2) There is no way we can determine what intents the framers of the Constitution had. There is never a way to tell truthfully of someone's intentions. Just because I buy an iPhone does not mean I want to look cool. Maybe I just want one cause I think they look cool due to my own aesthetic sense, but you may think I did it to look cool around other people, and your entire family may think that, and your entire side of the country may think that, and maybe everyone else thinks that too – but that doesn't mean I did it for that reason. And just because they read so and so authors and just because they were Christian does not mean they had X, Y, and Z values. Unless of course, I'm seeing Christians wrong and they actually believe that their past actions, from the Inquisition to the Crusades, were all absolutely justified. If Christians believe that, please tell me. Cause I honestly believe that all Christians don't believe that. Oh wait, there's generalization going on here too. Hmmm……

3) His case isn't talking about the constitution at all. All his "good" impacts are from something else. I'll destroy links when we move into the line-by-line.

Case.

Contention 1: Syllogism

Humans are bad. (His case)
Humans wrote the constitution. (Given)
Bad people create bad things. (Given)
Result: The constitution is bad.

To even give him the assumption that the constitution is good, we have to assume that everyone involved with writing the constitution were something more than humans, like supernatural beings perhaps. I would like to see some anatomical evidence for this. Or, if not, if we take that the framers were indeed human, then the statement "humans are bad" is false is wrong, because it's not absolute.

Contention 2: Another syllogism

Constitution is good. (His case)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Given)
We have amended the Constitution. (Given)
Amendments are counted alongside the Consitution as the highest law of the land. (Given)
We are humans. (Given)
Humans are bad. (His case)
Result : Constitution is bad

I'm going to assume that the framers weren't reborn and took part in another body in the making of all the other amendments of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution is bad, since it was tainted by us "bad humans".

Line-by-Line.

First P:

"We do not live in a utopia"

-Not all humans good =/= All humans bad. Not all chinese people wideopen eyes =/= All chinese people slitty eyes.

"I could not agree more, and for several millenia, since the Garden of Eden itself, humanity has been on the decline."

-I wasn't aware the Consitution included the text of the Genesis and Paradise Lost?

"[M]an is not, by his nature, compassionate. Man is not, by his nature, generous. Man is not, by his nature, moral."

- Our nature, if any of you would like to know, is to outside running around all day without clothes so we get our Vitamin D, and live nowhere outside of southern Asia and parts of Africa. Man, by his nature, is gregarious and likes group activities. Nature.... Man's nature IS to be compassionate. It's to help out others of his own kind, not this buisness and insurance and "modern" **** that we have today, not to deny people healthcare just because it earns you more money, not to do all this sort of immmoral ********. Man's nature IS compassionate. It's what we've become today that's not our nature. Our nature is NOT to get up at 5 in the morning to wake up to a cup or two of starbucks, NOT to climb into a cage of death metal, NOT to move our ankles to travel some miles, and NOT to sit in a grey cubicle with electric light all day. Nature.... What we do is not equivalent to our nature. I only wish it was.

"Man is the weakest of all creatures, for he alone has a higher purpose, and he alone fails in his sacred duties."

- I apologize, I'm atheist. Please explain "higher purpose" and "sacred duties" to me. And why they link or impact to absolutely anything in this debate, and why it proves your point that humans are bad. I'm a debater, not a theologian. That's why I'm on debate.org and not some other site.

Second P:

"The founding fathers knew this."

- They couldn't have. They were human.

"[…] poured over the wise script of […] and even the pessimistic Hobbes."

- Funny how Locke wasn't in here. Cause his writings were taken into consideration as well, PLENTY more so than Hobbes, and Locke believed that humans were good natured. It's BECAUSE Locke was considered into the creation of the Constitution that we have a democracy today; Hobbes's writings dictated society was best when it was controlled by ONE SINGLE LEADER, AND NOT A LEADER ELECTED BY A PEOPLE, WHICH WERE ALL "CONFUSED" AND "SINFUL". Hobbes does NOT lead to a democracy.

Third P:

"[…]the underlying theme of America[…]"

- Theme of America? Say what??? So in his case he says "the individual over the group" and here he's generalizing EVERYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES? what the heck

"when these limits are appropriate, the achievements of our nation would be limitless"

- loloolololol oxymoron.
- explanation please.

Fourth P:

"[T]he moral longings of our conscience would find no expression"

-I find better ways to show that I'm moral other than handing over to a tax-free institution 10% of my money. Such as ACCEPTING PEOPLE FOR THEIR BELIEFS.

"Without the guidelines and teachings of religion […] The framers knew that man must have limits if his goodness is to be revealed. He must be fenced in order for him to run free."

WHAT THE F***!?!!!!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS? Okay I BEG you to answer this question next round – Am I arguing that ALL humans are bad or just the ones outside the catholic church? Cause if the answer is yes, screw this debate. I'll let you glorify Christianity ALL YOU WANT.

I'll continue next round. I want you to answer me about what my position is supposed to be.
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

"There is no way we can determine what intents the framers of the Constitution had. There is never a way to tell truthfully of someone's intentions."
--Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers.

"Humans are bad. (His case)
Result : Constitution is bad"
--Humans are "bad" without moral guidance. The Constitution is a moral guideline.

"It's to help out others of his own kind, not this buisness and insurance and "modern" **** that we have today, not to deny people healthcare just because it earns you more money, not to do all this sort of immmoral ********. Man's nature IS compassionate."
--The problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Americans currently see government not as the protector of their rights, but as the provider of said rights. They view government as an engine for change rather than a covenant with the people. They believe our federal agencies should spend time and money taking the profits of businesses rather than easing the barriers to economic growth for everyone in this country. They believe prosperity comes from the government, not entrepreneurship and incorporation. They believe that their freedom includes freedom from exertion, freedom from worry, and freedom from failure. They have bought the Big Lie of Big Government. They profess to value democracy, but subconsciously yearn for socialism.

The responsible leaders of this country, in Congress and in the Oval Office, need to tell the American people a harsh truth. We must spread the word that the American Revolution was fought to limit government, not expand it. We must teach our countrymen that a government with the power to give anything away also has the power to take anything away. We must unmask the essential truth of human life: our rights emanate from our Creator, not the created apparatus of the state. And, finally, and perhaps most difficult of all, our leaders must tell people that the freedom to succeed includes the possibility that you may fall on your butt. Self-reliance, personal responsibility and free enterprise are precepts we once believed in as Americans; in the 18th century, we lionized these tenets so fully that we committed them to history within the pages of our Constitution. It's time we believed in them once again. America needs to stand tall and proud. We don't need to faint away, pathetic, cold, cowardly, and weak.

"Please explain "higher purpose" and "sacred duties" to me."
--There is a higher purpose. As human beings, they know that they are the only creatures on the planet who are concerned with legacies, with the fellow members of their species. As scientists, they know that the universe is rational (Newton's Laws, etc.) but they devise theories to remove the rationality from their surroundings (Darwinism, evolution by chance mutation, etc.). As moral agents, they know that their actions are not only necessary and unnecessary, but good and evil. As citizens of a democracy, they know that every life has intrinsic value, that every citizen deserves a voice, and that women have an equal value to men; they also know that these very values are derived from religion, and still they will not recognize the divine significance of life on earth.

They accuse the religious of deluding themselves, of devising a whimsical system of reward and significance for life, just to make themselves feel better (why would we imagine Hell, then? Just a thought.). But the truth is that atheists are the ones who delude themselves. Atheists are the ones who want to ignore the meaning of life while still trying to do meaningful things. Atheists are the ones who wish to make themselves feel better about their immoral actions and their "free," sinful lifestyles. After all, if God is not, everything is permitted.

My point, finally, is this. Do not be discouraged by science, for it provides MORE evidence for an ultimate purpose, not less. Love your fellow man and practice generosity not to find meaning in your life, but to proclaim your loyalty and love for the God who gave you that meaning.

"WHAT THE F***!?!!!!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS? Okay I BEG you to answer this question next round"
--If there are no regulations on human behavior, liberty is nothing but wishful thinking. When humans are free to do as they please without limit, there is no liberty for anyone, for everyone is under threat of being invaded by their neighbor without consequence. Think about it.

"I'll continue next round. I want you to answer me about what my position is supposed to be."
--That's up to you. YOU chose to accept the challenge, not me.
Korezaan

Con

(important) EXTENSIONS:

- OB2: He needs to prove the statement categorically true. Since there are two separate things that he needs to prove in order to win this debate, if he fails to do either one then you automatically vote CON.

- OV1: He can't prove absolute statements. He keeps saying "Humans do X Y and Z" and "They A B C", where A B C X Y Z are actions or beliefs. Well, it doesn't matter if he says so and he says the Constitution says so and he says the Bible says so and ee tee see, it has no weight in the round until he actually shows some sort of evidence. I can say "Humans know squares have 15 sides" all I want; it doesn't matter how obviously right or wrong that statement may seem to you. Obviousness takes no place in debate. What is obvious to one of you may not be obvious to another.

- And everything else in my case that he doesn't respond to.

CONT OF R1:

"But these men were not mental midgets. They were smart. And they got it right."

- They couldn't have. They were human.

"What we desire is license, not liberty[...]"

- Apply OV1.

"Today, we are "girly men"[...]"

- There is nothing wrong with girly men.
- This is out of context.

"We are ignoring the intentions of our framers[...]"

- Apply OV1.
- Apply OV2.

"(The entire sixth paragraph)"

- Oh I get it, all of us on debate.org are just lazy whiny drones.
- Prove it.

"...government IS the problem."

- Government is set up by the Constitution. GG, auto-loss.

"Our Constitution represents this."

- Please give me your exact interpretation of the Constitution and what it leads to and what can be attributed to it, and everything that it supposedly represents. I'm having too much fun to run theory on you.

"Let me tell you [...] That's theft!"

- What is this referring to?

"The magnamity[...] an acre of ground."

- Constitution does not link to this.

""the only land we have ever claimed in war are the gravesites of our fallen.""

- Internal Link Turn: He says "we have never conquered an acre of ground" then brings up this quote. At this point I really don't know which side he's supporting; he's turned and double turned and contradicted himself so many times I'm not even going to bother going back to count.
- i.e., we invade, have some soldiers die, and DING! ITS OURS! wtf? good, my...

"a nation of hardworking people"

- LOLLOLOOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLL

"Did we get here by chance, or (really long thing)"

- Umm there can be more than just these two things. Perhaps a combination?
- Where does the military link in to the Consitution?
- How does ANY of this link to the Constitution???????
- Please give warrants that all success can be derived from the Constitution.

RE to his R2:

OV3: Separation of Church and State. Don't bring religion into this. There is no correlation.

OV4: His case is set up like this: CHRISTIANITY---MORALITY---CONSTITUTION---CAPITALISM. Let's look at the individual links.
1) Christianity is not absolutely moral. I think we saw this well enough with Moses ordering mass killings, rules like stoning people to death if they work on Sundays, and other things like the Inquisition.
2) The Constitution isn't a "moral guideline", it is THE LAW OF THE LAND. The document doesn't tell us, "Oh, you ought to set up a government like this...", no, the US Constitution says "You WILL set up a government according to these articles.
3) Since when did Democracy and the Constitution lead to Capitalism???
4) I really don't see how capitalism came out of Christianity.
5) I also don't see how morality leads to capitalism.
6) Nor how Christianity leads to the Constitution.

OV5/Summarization on why you can already vote CON: Let's assume for this next overview that he's won all the links I attacked in the previous. He still does not win the round, as he has not proven either of his two burdens: First, he must show that all humans are bad. He already has not done this, as I've shown in my R1 an argument that went CLEAN DROPPED: THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE HUMAN. My opponent glorifies them and says that they're "smart" and "on the right track", so it's obvious not all humans are bad. Second, we can use this argument to turn his other one, where he says "Constitution is good". If we assume that all humans are bad, then the Constitution cannot be good, as we are all "sinnned" and "corrupt" and all those other nice terms he's used to describe Homo Sapiens so far. Either both humans and the Constitution are good, or they're both bad. Either way, he loses as one of his burdens he will never be able to meet.

"Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers."

- Perhaps you should cite and quote them so they have some weight in the debate.

"Humans are "bad" without moral guidance. The Constitution is a moral guideline."

- First statement is unwarranted.
- Second statement is unwarranted.
- My R1: "Humans wrote the Constitution. Bad people create bad things." Therefore the Constitution is bad. Done game.
- Apply OV4.1

"The problem is[...]"

- lol what? it's a document that sets up the three branches and how to amend the Constitution. How the hell do we misunderstand this?

"(Rest of that paragraph)"

- OB2 says you need to prove it categorically true.I don't think any of that. I'm American. GG.

"the American Revolution..."

- Is nontopical.

"[...]our rights emanate from our Creator[...]"

- Proof please thank you have a nice day.

"[I]n the 18th century[...]It's time we believed in them once again."

- And what moral and joyous times they were indeed, slaughtering natives.

"America needs to stand tall and proud."

- I thought pride was a sin.

"There is a higher purpose."

- No there isn't.

"As human beings, they know[...]"

- I DON'T. ARE YOU DEHUMANIZING ME?

"[...]with the fellow members of their species."

- That's not how capitalism works.

"[...]but they devise theories to remove[...]"

- Let's get this straight. He says that the universe is rational. Ge implies that scientists are rational and they figure out rational explanations. AND THEN he says scientist create rational explanations that lead away from rationality. I honestly don't get what he's trying to say here.
- And none of this applies. This does not make humans "bad".
- And even if it does, he never specified the impact, so you'd be intervening as a judge.

"they also know that these values are derived from religion[...]"

LOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOOLLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOL

- This is so hilarious. Okay first of all, no, they're not. Cross apply everything I said in OV4. And then add on these: He says that Christianity dictates that everyone deserves a voice, yet in the Bible it says that we shouldn't allow women to speak in church, and then he says that every life has an intrinsic value, while in the Bible Moses orders people to kill their neighbors just because they believed in something non-christian, and finally he says that women have an equal value to men, but that's not true either, because if Christianity actually supported the idea that women are equal to men, then they would've just kept the story of Lilith in the Bible. Instead, a SECOND story was made to supplant that, Eve's, where EVE WAS MADE FROM A PART OF ADAM. A SPARE PART.

"Atheists are the ones who wish to make themselves feel better about their immoral actions and their "free", sinful lifestyles."

- Enlighten me with your exclusive holy powers. Thanks in advance.

"After all, if God is not, everything is permitted."

- And everything IS permitted. That means God is not. GG.

"science provides MORE evidence"

- Please show me how thx.

I shall summarize in my final speech.
Debate Round No. 2
ReaganConservative

Pro

"- They couldn't have. They were human."
--We are the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. I believe they did get it right.

"- Apply OV1.
- Apply OV2."
--They're called liberals. Step foot on your typical university and you will see what I'm talking about.

"- Government is set up by the Constitution. GG, auto-loss."
--The framers desired less government. Government is too big now.

"Please give me your exact interpretation of the Constitution"
--Read my 2nd round argument.

"What is this referring to?"
--Re-distribution of wealth.

"LOLLOLOOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLL"
--You're right, liberals don't know what hard work is. That's why they want the government to send them a welfare check at the expense of someone else.

"Please give warrants that all success can be derived from the Constitution."
--Without the Constitution, what guideline would we, as Americans, live by?

"Don't bring religion into this. There is no correlation."
--Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy.

"Christianity is not absolutely moral. I think we saw this well enough with Moses ordering mass killings, rules like stoning people to death if they work on Sundays, and other things like the Inquisition."
--That's Old Testament...or Jewish text. Christianity is New Testament.

"Since when did Democracy and the Constitution lead to Capitalism???"
--Why are you discussing capitalism?

"Summarization on why you can already vote CON:"
--Haha, wow you really want that victory! Does debate.org give your life meaning?

"- Perhaps you should cite and quote them so they have some weight in the debate."
--YOU'RE the one that made the claim that we don't know the intentions of the founding fathers. I suggested you go read the Federalist Papers. Now you want me to do the work for you. No.

"Proof please thank you have a nice day."
--Read the Declaration of Independence.

"And what moral and joyous times they were indeed, slaughtering natives."
--At least there weren't marches in the street celebrating the slaughtering of unborn babies. People also realized why wars were fought and why freedom is valued.

"I thought pride was a sin."
--You don't believe in patriotism?

"No there isn't."
--Then why do you go to school? Why do you get a job? Why are you still living?

"And everything IS permitted. That means God is not. GG."
--No, everything is NOT permitted. That's why we have laws.
Korezaan

Con

ROADMAP: Line-By-Line, then Voting Issues.

"We are the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. I believe they did get it right."

- That's just because our military scares the **** out of everyone else. And besides, it's not as if everyone else in the world likes us. It doesn't matter if you're "the major power" on a playground if you're the bully.
- Apply Syllogism 1.

"They're called liberals. Step foot on your typical university and you will see what I'm talking about."

- "Typical University" is not everybody, so it doesn't break OV1.
- You're not a liberal, so your argument doesn't break OV1.
- This doesn't even touch OV2.

"The framers desired less government. Government is too big now."

- It doesn't matter if they desired small government. Constitution doesn't say that.
- And besides, they didn't all desire small government. Some wanted big gov.
- And besides, you didn't quote the Fed. Papers. No warrants, no argument.

"Read my 2nd round argument."

- I did. I couldn't stop laughing.

"Re-distribution of wealth."

- I'm assuming this refers to taxes then. Well, to all us people who've watched ZeitGeist, we don't think that this national income tax system is just either. Therefore this fails to prove OB2's requirements.

"You're right, liberals don't know what hard work is. That's why they want the government to send them a welfare check at the expense of someone else."

- I don't. I'm a liberal. Thanks for the debate.

"Without the Constitution, what guideline would we, as Americans, live by?"

- This does not explain whatsoever how the Constitution is a moral guideline.
- Hmm let me think.... PERHAPS THE BIBLE MEBE?????
- Or for us atheists, how bout our sense of morality?
- Which by the way, you have never proved sufficiently that morality comes from Religion.

"Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy."

- No it wasn't.
- You never proved this.
- It doesn't matter if our founders were Christian, they never mixed the two things.

"That's Old Testament...or Jewish text. Christianity is New Testament."

- The Inquisition was a real life event, thanks. It's why Galileo was under house arrest for the last years of his life, because he wouldn't give up his "pagan belief" that the world was heliocentric and NOT what the Church said, which was that the universe was geocentric.

"Why are you discussing capitalism?"

- Good question! WHY THE HELL AM I TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM!?!!!! Oh yes, I remember now. Let's look back to your R1. "We have institutionalized free markets and the rule of law in America. Our Constitution represents this."

"Haha, wow you really want that victory! Does debate.org give your life meaning?"

- Honestly, I'm here for the debates. I see debate as a game, and a fun one at that. It's much more useful than other games, such as, say, my College Math class, or trying to beat my old mile time in PE. Me saying "Summarization on why you can already vote CON" is just part of my debate style. That, obviously, is quite different from yours. Not to say that yours is bad or whatever; my style just seems more organized for me.
- I love your style of attack. It's so innocent.
- "If I told you I was here for anything other than the trophies, I'd be lying"

"YOU'RE the one that made the claim that we don't know the intentions of the founding fathers. I suggested you go read the Federalist Papers. Now you want me to do the work for you. No."

- Umm we don't. You've stated that throughout the debate.
- And we don't know the intentions. OV2.
- Debate works in a format where we have to present the evidence or warrants or justifications for our arguments. You just saying "federalist papers" is making the voters on this site do their OWN work, and at that point it's not even you making the argument, it's the voters making the argument for you.
- Besides, the Federalist papers are contradictory. Some say big government good. Some do not. THEY WEREN'T EVEN WRITTEN BY ALL OF THE FRAMERS of the Constitution, JUST THREE of them, basically giving the public their opinions of the Constitution and whether or not it should be ratified. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was a debate amongst the framers(http://en.wikipedia.org...); whether or not to include them.

"Read the Declaration of Independence."

- Just because it says so doesn't mean its the truth.

"At least there weren't marches in the street celebrating the slaughtering of unborn babies. People also realized why wars were fought and why freedom is valued."

- Bringing up a bigger example does not mean that the original was right. Hitler killed several million Jews. That doesn't suddenly make me killing one Mexican moral.
- Abortion is nontopical.

"You don't believe in patriotism?"

- No, I don't. I believe I cleared that up in my profile.

"Then why do you go to school? Why do you get a job? Why are you still living?"

- Why does that matter?

"No, everything is NOT permitted. That's why we have laws."

- Laws are not derived from God.

____________________________________

In short, he has not proved both of his burdens in the round:
First, to show that humans are bad,
Second, to show that the Constitution is good.

He provides examples of good things, but never links them to the Constitution.
He has NEVER proved how ALL humans are bad.

Just on that I've already won this debate. But if you don't believe that.....

VOTING ISSUES:

1) OV1: He never proved that all humans are bad, nor that the Constitution is absolutely good.

2) OV2: He never proved the intention of the Framers. He brings up the Federalist papers, but first he never cites or quotes anything, nor even provides us a LINK to the papers, so we can't give any ground to him for that. But EVEN IF you think it's common knowledge like he does, the Fed. Papers weren't written by all the framers of the Constitution, so he can't say that the framers intended X Y and Z, because only three people wrote them. And EVEN IF you think that, against historical records, that the Fed. Papers were written by all of the framers, they're contradictory, so they don't matter anyways.

3) Syllogism 1: I wonder why I didn't just go for this and throw everything away. In my first speech I give you a syllogism: Humans are bad, Humans wrote the Constitution, Bad people create bad things - Therefore, the Constitution is bad. As long as the premises of these arguments are true, the conclusion reached must be true. I've won since R2, since he never refuted any of the premises.

He brings up this argument in his last speech saying that because we're the world superpower that the Constitution is good, but that doesn't work at all, because then we'd just be judging good or bad based on the events on that time. So that would mean before WW1 the Const. was bad, then in the Depression it was really bad, then after WW2 it was good. That doesn't make sense at all.

4) EVEN IF you believe the examples in his case are good things, he's never provided a link to the Constitution, so he can't use them to prove that the Constitution is good.

5) TURN: He says that humans are bad. All of these "good" things come out of humans. Result: Not all humans are bad. OB2 says he needs to prove the statements categorically true. He has not; he has lost.

6) No warrants for anything.

7) Christianity does not link to Morality. (Inquisition)

8) Morality does not link to the Constitution.

9) Constitution does not link to Capitalism.

10) Capitalism does not link to "good".

11) And EVEN IF it did, we participate in it, so we're good too.

Oh yeah, and for his R1 arg where he "proves" that humans are bad,

He's just saying we are.

He never proved it.

This isn't oratory.

This is debate.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Thank you, Anonymous, but I was hoping ReaganConservative could speak for himself.

As for your actual comment, see Korezaan's or Yraelz's comments, or challenge me to a debate if you like.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
"Americans currently see government not as the protector of their rights, but as the provider of said rights. They view government as an engine for change rather than a covenant with the people."

Best line in the entire debate. Also, you gave one of the most eloquent opening arguments I have read on this site. Nice job with this one RC.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
There is no intrinsic value to life..... not even under the Christian religion, considering that omnipotent god will give everyone a just chance of choosing the kingdom of Heaven or not no matter how short someone's life happens to be.

Wow I just got another sweet religious idea...... hehehe
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
-You can't prove that he meant that.

-What exactly are we becoming open to that is immoral?

-Please show me why the whole "moral absolutes" argument that you provided; that we need moral absolutes in order to judge people, is true. I really don't believe that. If morality was not relative, then we;d be judging people purely on ends, and not even taking into consideration what the circumstances were. If that's what you oppose, I welcome a debate on that, but otherwise, I don't think that relative morality is wrong.

- There was no garden of Eden.

- Humans were always like this.

- What are we "degrading" into?
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Brittwaller I believe what he meant is that we are becoming more open to immorality, which we are. We pretend that morality is relative, but the truth is there has to be absolutes or you have no right to punish or judge a murderer any more than you do someone who has an abortion. If there was a garden of eden (which many people still believe there was) then we definitely are in a degraded state, and the statement you quoted is very much correct either way.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Interesting debate. I voted CON, as PRO did not (could not) logically hold the position he put himself in.

However: "I could not agree more, and for several millenia, since the Garden of Eden itself, humanity has been on the decline."

This is *exactly* what I call the "Hell in a Handbasket" fallacy - the religionist view that over time the human race as a whole has become "worse" in the most general sense, having fallen off from some earlier Golden Age or perfection. This view is untenable; even if such a judgement could be made, which it can't, it would be incorrect: human nature cannot be "better" or "worse" than itself - it is what it is, including the best and worst features of that nature. War, crime, poverty, oppression, etc., are nothing new - they have existed as long as we have or longer. This fallacy is simply common today because there are so many more people on the Earth, and although absolute conditions may have changed in some way, relative positions have not.

May I have permission to quote you, ReaganConservative, in an essay I am writing? You put the fallacy in the most straightforward terms I have yet to see.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Oh, okay.

This comment is now over 25 characters.
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
"Funny how Locke wasn't in here."
--"Thomas Jefferson leaned upon the musings of John Locke and his revolutionary doctrine of natural, God-given rights."

I did mention John Locke.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
by "Yes" I meant the second choice.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Duron 9 years ago
Duron
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
ReaganConservativeKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30