Debate Rounds (3)
All laws shall in relation to the law's goals and in relation to other laws which are present or not be considered constitutionally valid if and only if it conforms to rules of logic.
This meaning that if you apply one reason for making a law, you can't not apply it to another potential law unless you have a sound logical reason for making an exception, which would then have to be applied consistently itself. Also, what ever objectives the law is trying to obtain would have to be shown to actually happen. For example, a law against marijuana is to reduce marijuana use. If that is shown not to work then the law is unconstitutional.
First round is for acceptance.
Good luck, and I await your response.
MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
Thank you. Sorry I was busy with the holidays.
Boost the Economy
If we actually were required to follow logic and hence abide by the data and the results of studies then it would solve a great deal in our economy. We could've nipped trickle-down economics in the bud once the results showed the gap between rich and poor was growing rather than shrinking and revenues were declining rather than increasing.
War on Drugs Would've Ended Sooner
There is a wealth of data showing that the war on marijuana has been a failure. Allowing a court of law to examine and weigh the facts and making this court's decision binding could have ended the war on drugs a long time ago. This would've saved money, and it would've saved lives as innocent bystanders are sometimes killed by the black market or even by law enforcement making an error.
We Can Base An Assault Weapons Ban On Whether Or Not It Actually Works
People right now argue that an assault weapons ban is a bad idea suggesting it won't actually work. By putting it right in the Constitution that a law has to be shown to work in order to be valid. Then, we can say "OK then let's pass the bill, because if you turn out to be right then the data will show it and invalidate the law." If an assault weapons ban actually would work then we should have one. Even Scalia in Heller said it wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. Indeed, I don't know at this point what my own stance on an assault weapons ban is, I'm still researching it but it would solve a lot of problems if we could institute a ban that is automatically invalidated should the scientific data show it conclusively not to be effective.
Let The Courts Decide Global Warming
Global warming science and its detractors would both get a fair hearing in court. The evidence for global warming is in my opinion overwhelming and the court decision would quickly put all this "skepticism" to rest and institute needed environmental regulations. And if I'm wrong and a thorough analysis of data shows that global warming is a myth, then that's fine. If that were the case then I wouldn't want environmental regulations anymore. On top of that using the court system means even if (and I think it's likely) the court ruled global warming was a real problem each regulation would have to stand on its own merits, and so the best, most effective ones would be applied and the ones that are just bandaids would not.
There are innumerable other reasons. Simply, logical public policy means a better, happier, healthier, wealthier, safer America as opposed to making rules by dramatics and emotions, which is especially prevalent today and is often encouraged by the media.
I do not promise perfection. No matter how logical and rigorously scientific we try to be mistakes will be made and there are often temporary blind spots in data before testing, but by relying on logic less mistakes will be made and they will be less serious and furthermore they will be more correctable. It's possible that at first data would've suggested for example that marijuana prohibition was a good thing, but by now such a law would've been repealed based on new data.
Firewolfman forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.