The Instigator
thatguykody
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
resolutionsmasher
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Separation of Church and State?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 4/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,246 times Debate No: 7755
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

thatguykody

Pro

I am using this debate as a reference for my controversial issues paper. This is my first debate on this website. I will let my opponent start off this debate.
resolutionsmasher

Con

In this debate I will value Natural Rights, specifically the rights to the pursuit of happiness and liberty. These rights are inalienable and cannot be rightfully taken from anyone by anyone save their creator (God, nature, chance).

Thus my criterion in today's debate will be social contract. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Hobbsian Social Contract Theory. So if you need further explanation about it I insist that you inquire of wikipedia. Otherwise I will move on.

I have two contentions to offer in today's debate.
CONTENTION 1: The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that.
CONTENTION 2: Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights.

Now on to my first contention. The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that. The first amendment reads," Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....." As we can clearly see the founding fathers took to Mr. Williams idea of separation. Note that they specifically stated that the state stay out of the affairs of the church but never that the church stay out of the state. This is because it is impossible to uphold natural rights through strict and total separation of church and state.

Thus I arrive at my final contention. Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights. To arrive at this conclusion I must quote the Encyclopedia of Psychology: "Every belief is a religion of sorts, even atheism, which requires its own amount of faith, is a religion in and of itself.... Every belief that one holds, experience that one has, event that one goes through effects our decision making thereafter, consciously or unconsciously, without exception....Therefore to perfectly separate church and state would mean to completely remove any notion of God from the thought process of every citizen of said country." Such a control on thought would violate every citizen's natural right to liberty thus strictly separating church and state would tear down natural rights, which is an unjust act and therefore cannot be allowed.

Because of this resolution must logically be negated.
Debate Round No. 1
thatguykody

Pro

thatguykody forfeited this round.
resolutionsmasher

Con

What the heck is this?!
If you don't argue your point then why start this debate. I win by default.
Debate Round No. 2
thatguykody

Pro

thatguykody forfeited this round.
resolutionsmasher

Con

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
thatguykody

Pro

thatguykody forfeited this round.
resolutionsmasher

Con

I'm getting mighty tired of this.
Debate Round No. 4
thatguykody

Pro

thatguykody forfeited this round.
resolutionsmasher

Con

You just suck dude. This is stupid.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Bummer...looks like aff bailed.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
excuse me! I will address those points if they are brought up. Now please leave the debating to those who are actually participating in the debate.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
WoW PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION IF THEY INTEND TO ARGUE ABOUT IT!!!!
Posted by JBeukema 7 years ago
JBeukema
'the constitution simply states that Congress shall make no laws abridging one's freedom of religion '

-respecting the establishment of a religion; one could argue that allowing one form of worship is respecting the establishment of a religion unless ALL religions, faiths, and forms of worship are given equal opportunity
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
You can comment all you want. I plan on using that but thanks for the tips.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Con- however, the SC on multiple occasions has tailored/interpreted constitutional intent to limit the church's involvement in the state as well. You missed the boat on spirit of the law. I think the better offense comes out of the social contract and the people's right, in a majority, to include some church-related dogma in their state affairs. However, I would have specified it in policy that does not harm guaranteed rights. For example, most of our criminal statutes are based in Western religious philosophy, specifically the ten commandments. This, of course, is because a majority of spiritual Americans have agreed with these laws.

PS- the constitution simply states that Congress shall make no laws abridging one's freedom of religion :) You should exploit this to its fullest extent.

For those of you reading this: are comments like this too detailed or intrusive? This is my first couple of days on this website...should I, from now on, hold this sort of talk til the debate is through? Just testing the waters! :)
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
The constitution says in the first ammendment that the government has no right to interfere in the buisness of the church. There is nothing in the constitution implying that the opposite is true. Thus opening a town hall meeting in prayer is allright. Having the ten commandments engraved on a court house wall is ok....etc. etc.
Posted by JBeukema 7 years ago
JBeukema
Pro has yet to clearly state the subject and his (?) position
Posted by SuperPerfundo 7 years ago
SuperPerfundo
5 rounder advocating the joining of church and state? I'm already enthralled!
Posted by Mr_smith 7 years ago
Mr_smith
Look up the following supreme court cases:

Everson v. Board of Education

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Engel v. Vitale

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

Lee v. Weisman

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
thatguykodyresolutionsmasherTied
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
thatguykodyresolutionsmasherTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
thatguykodyresolutionsmasherTied
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 kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
thatguykodyresolutionsmasherTied
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 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
thatguykodyresolutionsmasherTied
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