Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
| Started: | 12/18/2011 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 4 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 2,259 times | Debate No: | 19945 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)
 Pro - Round 1 - Framework for the Debate Acceptance (Just type something about accepting the debate). - Round 2 - Pro Case Con Cross Examination - Round 3- Con Case Pro Cross Examination -Round 4- Con Rebuttal Pro Rebuttal -Round 5- Pro Crystallization Con Crystallization Good Luck!  Con After researching the topic I came to the conclusion that the SOPA Act is not constitutional so I accept this debate. For clarity here are some definitions: SOPA Act- The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual propertyand counterfeit goods.[2] [1] constitutional- Established by or operating under a constitution [2] I believe that the SOPA Act is a complete violation of privacy and liberty to the online media and will present my arguments in the next round. Thanks to MasterLD for proposing this topic and I look forward to his case! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; |
 |
|
Pro As such, I affirm today's resolution. Contention One: The SOPA Act is a constitutional right In Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution, congress is given the right to pass bills that both provide for the general welfare, as well as to"secur[e] ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Thus, the SOPA Act is protecting a constitutional right. Contention Two: The SOPA Act extends existing rights As it currently stands, the SOPA Act gives "the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders the right to seek court orders"[2]. Seeing as the courts already have this power, it is constitutional. In conclusion, we can see that the SOPA Act is both within the framework of the Constitution, and has already proven to be Constitutional. As such, I urge a Pro ballot. Con I will follow the framework provided and ask my questions. I would also like to note to the voters that Pro ridiculously set up a 1,000 character limit (should already cost him the loss on abusiveness). Was it ever stated in the constitution that they can censor the internet? Are you aware that the bill says that if copyrighted material is copied on to a website, the owner/host of the website is legally responsible? So if one person posts copyrighted material on lets say Facebook, Facebook will be closed? Do you consider this constitutional? Where in the constitution does it state that the government has the right to censor private interaction? How is securing something (like you provided) and censoring something the same thing? Can you justify your 2nd contention at all? How is this even what the bill says at all? How is it constitutional to violate the liberty of individuals? Do you know that SOPA act will not stop any pirating because individuals can simply just enter the IP Adress instead? |
 |
|
Pro
Please forgive me, this is my first debate. Please continue with your Con Case.
Con
I can barely write anything but all I have to say is watch the videos to see the act's fradulence.
C1: First Amendment violation and liberty violation
|
 |
|
Pro CX:
My opponent accuses me of being abusive. However, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely broken the rules of the debate by providing videos instead of a case. Con Note: My opponent has broken the rules set in Round one. It says that Round 4 is for the rebuttals, not CX. Thus sorry Pro but you have already lost the debate. Rules are rules and the voters can now vote Con. However I still will do my rebuttal. R1: Constitutional Right?? It NEVER states in the constitution that the government has the right to censor the internet or any such venture. All what he cites states is that the Congress can SECURE the writings and discoveries, not remove entire sites based on "copyrighted" material or "offensive" material. R2: Extension of rights I can not detangle his syntax to understand what he is saying here. There is no citation in the constitution and it is not pertinent. Yes, they have power. However they do not have the power to completely get rid of material and jobs on the Internet. Unconstitutional. Summary Pro has broken the rules and has not refuted any of my contentions. Do not let him try to do it in the last round, that is illegal. Vote CON. |
 |
|
Pro My Opponent has once again accused me of breaking the rules. I again will point out that he has broken the rules as well. But more importantly, we should stick to the actual issues presented here today. My opponent claims that I have not refuted his claims. However, this is an outright lie. His contention one has no evidence, and he failed to answer the questions about this in his CX. Furthermore, his second contention is irrelevant to the question of constitionality. Returning to my own case, he fails to refute the fact that upholding the law is a constitutional right. I also offered that the courts allready have this power, it is just a process for doing so more efficently. In Conclusion, my opponent provides no evidence for any of his claims and fails to refute the Affirming contentions. Furthermore, he provides YouTube videos instead of a case, in clear violation of the rules. If you care about upholding the debating tradition, and the ACTUAL ISSUES, I urge you to vote Pro. Con I have not broken any rules. Pro's frivolous attempt to defend himself by turning the tables was futile. It never stated that we can not use Youtube videos and they were part of my case since I couldn't explain because of the short character limit. However my opponent broke the rules again because he brought up his rebuttal in the LAST round rather than the fourth C1 did have evidence because it is violating liberty and the first amendment, I don't think I need a source for the first amendment. C2 is related to the constitution for the founding fathers and the people who amend the constitution do consider the economy when making laws. Pro drops his first contention and says that protecting a law is a constitutional right but that is absurd. Protecting the law to enslave people is constitutional, no? I apologize to the readers for my opponent's poor conduct but if you vote for him you are setting a precedent for other debaters to break rules as well. It is crystal clear, vote CON. |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 months ago
| MasterLD | cameronl35 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 2 |
Reasons for voting decision: pro convinced me and had more viable proof, needed sources though. Poor debate cameron is usually better then that.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 months ago
| MasterLD | cameronl35 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: first of all, sad debate by both sides. pro set an ungodly low character limit, abused the size of his text, and accussed the con of using illegal videos but the opening round does not forbid that, so conduct goes to con. the videos themselves were informative, sources go to con. as For arguments, cons argument that the constitution does not mention the internet is laughable (since they were both conceived 200 years apart) but the pro's werent any better. Pro had some spelling errors too.
http://www.debate.org...
We'll see how I did..idk this one was iffy
Again, you know your capabilities better than anyone else.
If you didn't think you could do it then don't accept...
He broke the rules and spelled things poorly...it was a very messy debate