The Instigator
asdf
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
MontyKarl91
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: In a democracy rights created by legislation are preferable to rights created by the judic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,508 times Debate No: 16197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

asdf

Pro

In a democracy, people are given the major say in government decisions. By electing politicians to represent them in legislation, rights suitable for the citizens are created. This represents what people want, making rights created by legislation more preferrable. On the other hand, the judiciary consists of judges appointed by government officials. This does not represent the people's voice in any way, making rights they create invalid in the case of a democratic government. Also, judges in courts interpret the Constitution based on their own thoughts, clearly providing for unfair judgement in judicial decisions.
MontyKarl91

Con

You did not clearly post your resolution, so I am going to assume that you are of the opinion that justices should be elected by the majority of the population rather than be appointed by the executive branch. I find this an interesting idea in theory, but unfortunately one that would never work in practice. Understand, this idea has come under scrutiny and debate for years, and it is general consensus among those qualified to give opinions that elections hurt the legal system we have established.

First, you do not seem to be clear on what certain types of governments actually are. No country on Earth is a true democracy. That includes the United States of America. Rather, the USA is a republic, where citizens elect officials to represent them rather on voting for every amendment themselves. It is a fallacy when you state these claims for a democracy, because they are mutually exclusive.

Now that we have solved that, let me clear some other facts up for you. One, judges do not have a single right that grants them the authority to write laws. All they can do is examine a law and see if it does not violate any clause in the constitution. This simple statement proves my point. To be able to fulfill this power, a justice has to have an intimate knowledge of the law. An executive official would be more likely to appoint a more qualified justice to the court. If you lack faith in that, are you aware that congress must approve any and all judicial appointments? You see, since you live in a republic, you elect officials in the forms of presidents, governors, and congressmen to make these decisions.

Now, the basic argument for appointments. When you force justices to be elected to court, you compromise the entire system. You seem to completely underestimate the amount of money it takes to run for public office. Unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is running for office, they would have to have sponsors to run their campaign. This makes the justices susceptible to the wishes of their financiers. They would feel indebted to these people, and it would color their judgment in certain cases. Judges must be as unbiased as is physically possible in order to ensure a proper reading of the law.

Now, I can tell by your grammar that you are not a law student, so I can forgive this premise you have set forth. Here is the most vital issue. The single most important quality for the law system is CONSISTENCY. How would you like it if your best friend was murdered, and when you took it before a judge the judge awarded the murderer the deed to your house, even though the previous week a murderer was put to death for the same crime? An extreme example I grant you, but a fitting one nonetheless. Consistency is what prevents absolute anarchy. Lawyers spend 97% of their time reading, trying to find past court cases. These are known as precedents. They understand that in our system a justice tries to follow rulings of past courts as closely as possible to establish a firm set of laws. If you were to elect officials, there stands a solid chance we would lose this consistency. Rather than being based on the law, judge's decisions would begin to reflect the general opinions of the people in a certain area. This causes imbalance, and is a major flaw in any legal system.

Finally, why do you believe laws should represent what people want? If history teaches nothing else, then it teaches us that human beings are fickle indeed. Often the most unpopular presidents are later considered the best. The law is even more vital than presidential opinions. Very few people are qualified enough to determine the law. I am knowledgeable, yes, but I am not qualified to select a justice. This is why the system we have in place is the best possible system for a Republic. By making the other two branches agree on all appointments, it fills the courts with very qualified individuals who can read the law as it is, and not be indebted to deep pocketed financiers.

I am looking forward to a fun debate, and I await your reply. Thank you and Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
asdf

Pro

asdf forfeited this round.
MontyKarl91

Con

Considering my opponent has forfeited her second round, I have nothing to say for this round. I ask that the voters remember this forfeit. Let us move onto Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
asdf

Pro

asdf forfeited this round.
MontyKarl91

Con

I am going to take my opponent's second forfeiture as a complete forfeiture of this debate. She did not raise an argument at all and was not clear in her resolution.

However, I would like to thank my opponent as well as our readers for this debate. I hope you remember my argument and her forfeitures when it comes time to vote.

Vote Con.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
asdfMontyKarl91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.
Vote Placed by Ahijah 6 years ago
Ahijah
asdfMontyKarl91Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Monty Karl91, you used "such arrogant and condescending language in your arguments." This is the same thing you said about my debate in instrumental music. Just because you don't agree with the argument. I read the debate and I was cordial with MrCarrol. In the future you should not be so condescending in casting votes. People remember and can also sway outcomes of debates. We all have the ability to vote.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
asdfMontyKarl91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought the banhammer with enough force to crush his enemy, see them driven before him and hear the lamentation of the women.