The Instigator
mikelwallace
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
msoshima54
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,826 times Debate No: 454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (33)

 

mikelwallace

Pro

I believe that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a cancer on our society, and is most certainly damaging our Nation.
The reason for this is that while hiding behind the pretense of an organization that defends the civil liberties of ALL Americans, they have shown that they are actually a far left group with a strong liberal agenda, that seeks to use its power to lead a battle against the liberties of those with whom they disagree, (typically conservatives and traditionalists).
In my arguments I will use cases that the ACLU has taken an cases that they have ignored as examples of their not so hidden agenda.
msoshima54

Con

It is true that the ACLU is biased toward the Liberal side, but really who isn't? Their purpose is to keep and eye on dangerous things such as The Patriot Act, which none of the congressmen who voted "yes" for actually read most of the bill. It is important to have organizations such as the ACLU to keep an eye out for our rights.
Debate Round No. 1
mikelwallace

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.
It is important to have orginazations who keep an eye out for Americans' rights, that is true, but when an orginazation is biased (which, by your own admission the ACLU is) then it is just another danger. When you say keeping an eye out for "our" rights, then that should represent and include ALL Americans. When parents were outraged that an elementary school in California was making a course on Islaam mandatory, the ACLU came to the defense of the school, and saw to it that the school could keep the course. However, when a teacher was fired from a high school in the very same country for wearing a Christian Cross around her neck, and contacted the ACLU for help, she was ignored. They are selectively defending the rights of those with whom they agree. That is great for Liberals, but extremely dangerous for conservatives. And there are plenty of people who are not biased towards the Liberal side. I will admit, the mainstream media is extremely biased, and they do their best to paint this entire nation in a "liberal" color, but MSNBC does not represent the American people. The ACLU abusing its power to further their political agenda and defend the rights of other liberals and ignore the rights of conservatives makes them a danger to our society. Even if you were right that most people are biased towards liberals, (which I dont think you are-there is a reason Fox News doubles the ratings of CNN and MSNBC every night) it does not matter, if only one in every ten people were traditionalists, they should still have every right to equal representation.
msoshima54

Con

When I said "It is true that the ACLU is biased toward the Liberal side, but really who isn't?" I meant to say who really isn'y biased toward any part of the political spectrum. Sorry for the hasty wording.

It would be a Utopia if absolutely everybody's rights were looked after in the U.S., but unfortunately that would be impossible because every organization is biased and will favor one group of people over the other. ACLU is only one of the lookouts for American rights and I'm sure other similar groups will cater toward different types of people. Most organizations looking out for our rights are mainly liberal so of course conservatives will feel neglected sometimes. Since when did conservatives care about the equality and wellfare of all races or sexual orientations?

Everybody is biased and it is impossible to make everybody happy in government. I am just arguing that organizations such as the ACLU are important to have around. This does not mean that I agree with everything they do, but I am happy to know that if the government gets a little too power-hungry, groups like ACLU exist to say something about it.
Debate Round No. 2
mikelwallace

Pro

Part of what is dangerous about the ACLU is that they hide behind the title of the "American Civil Liberties Union: Keep America Safe and Free". This does not properly reflect their true agenda. They not only ignore the rights of those with whom they disagree, they fight them. I will give two examples:

A young boy named Jeffrey Curley was kidnapped, raped, and killed by 3 grown men. These men were members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) This is a group which teaches men how to have sexual relations with little boys and get away with it (dont believe me, look it up-they have a website). Pretty sick huh? Well when the parents of the dead child found out about this they were outraged, as Im sure any parent would be. They sought a law suit against NAMBLA for teaching and encouraging these men to commit the heinous act they did. Guess who came swiftly to the defense of NAMBLA? The ACLU. And they won! NAMBLA continues to teach the techniques of child rape in "THE Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships"

In another case, the ACLU came not to defend but to attack. The BSA (Boy Scouts of America) have a policy where a scoutmaster can not be "openly" gay. Wether you agree with this or not, the Supreme Court has decided that private institutions (Which BSA is) have the right to come up with their own charters and rules. However, the ACLU has launched a battle to make sure that the BSA are not allowed to do anything on public property. So why can there be gay rights parades on public property but no Boy Scouts Jamborees?

Clearly the ACLU is defending the wrong people here. Why does a person have the right to encourage child rape but not to teach JudeoChristian values? I believe that this organization is dishonest about their motives, and while defending the rights of some, they attack the rights of others. And another problem is that they have way too much power. Remember, an organization with too much power and a hidden agenda is always dangerous, it doesn't have to be the government to be corrupt and dangerous.
msoshima54

Con

The ACLU's purpose is to defend the American people's Constituational rights. In the cases that you presented ACLU is simply trying to ensure that your and my Bill of Rights is kept secure. Of course there are people that have different views from each other and will condemn the side ACLU has taken for the sake of our rights. Of course they are biased to the Liberal side, but that does not mean they are "defending the wrong people." Nobody has the right to say who is right or wrong in many of the touchy subjects the ACLU takes on despite the criticism it knows it will be hit with. Furthermore it doesn't make sense to say that the ACLU "defends the rights of some,but attacks the rights of others." HOW can they not offend some people?? no matter what you do in life there will always be someone that disagrees with you. You may want to buy a blue car but your girlfriend wants a red one, so clearly one of you will feel like your "rights were violated" in the end. Also, what do you expect? a Conservative organization would never defend the rights of gays and lesbians. That is something a Liberal would do, so it isn't an argument to say they are dangerous because they have a "strong liberal agenda."

Now,on your arguments dealing with NAMBLA, I agree with you. How grown men can form a romantic relationship with some teenager is a sickening thought to me. Despite this, you and I have no right to bar these people from having a relationship if they truly like each other. The ACLU came to NAMBLA's defense because they wanted to stand-up for the Constituational rights of the members of NAMBLA. I dont know about this rape case you are talking about, but it was definitely NOT encouraged by NAMBLA. On their website it states:

"We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons."

They simply want to not be discriminated for their choice of relationships. It is not our call to say who they ahve to love, it is the U.S. Constitution's call. This is where the ACLU comes in to defend the underdogs for the sake of honoring our Constitution. The Boy scouts case is similar, the ACLU is only trying to defend the rights of homosexuals. If the Boy Scouts forces gays to hide their sexuality, then the ACLU should definitely step in.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Ryangg,

I agree with your main point. Afterall, we can expect that a dictator's lack of sound policy is due to a lack of people dissenting and debating. But I'd like to make a
Point Of Clarification:

I'd think that legally, the speech would have to say
"we should do this act which is currently illegal AFTER our lobbying pays off and they finally change the law".
Could you really legally tell people to commit acts even while they are illegal?
Posted by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
Expressing illegal views most definitely is legal in a society that allows free speech. In fact, a main reason that we allow free speech is that dissent and discourse can change people's opinions and thus change the law. Though society thinks something is wrong, we allow those who disagree to try to sway the rest of us. Democracy believes that ultimately only the rational or most justified opinions will convince the majority.

I don't think sex between men and boys is moral, but we have to grant those who do think so the opportunity to express themselves. There are plenty of things that may be wrong with society (should we be in Iraq? should we tax the rich so heavily? should the penalty for crack possession be 100 times that for heroin?) and if we ban protest, nothing will change. Who decides what to allow dissent against? We'd doom ourselves to that person's convictions, and no one is perfect.

Incidentally, while falsely shouting "fire" in a theater harms people, advocating people trample each other is legal.

And do you know where the whole idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater is wrong" came from anyway? Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision that... banned fliers opposing the WWI draft. Clearly they decided wrongly, and a later case, Brandenburg v. Ohio overturned the decision, saying we can only limit speech when it causes imminent lawless action. So urging someone to have sex with boy when the boy is the room, tied up? Illegal. Advocating man-boy sex on a website? Totally legal.
Posted by parkerdoc 9 years ago
parkerdoc
ryang,

How is it legal to express your views, when your views are illegal? Is that free speech. You cannot yell fire in a theatre, so how can you print pamphlets on how to attract and molest/rape young boys? That is not protected by the constitution.
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
ALCU is a great idea gone wrong. They take everything waaay to far.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
Look I will admit, there are some, a few, in the ACLU who are working to defend civil liberates, and there have been times that very conservative people have been granted defense. However in my opinion, a majority of those in the union are very liberal and it shows. But you are right, we could go back and forth all day and it wont do either of us any good, we will still disagree, sorry for the "low-blow". I do respect your opinion, I just really don't like the ACLU, (at least a majority of those in the origination.)
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
As I recall, the problem with creationism was that it was taught in science class. Of course, it is neither something that can be proven, or disproven using science. At least with evolution biologists can (slowly) try.

The Westboro Baptist Church was another group whose free speech they defended. That is composed of about 94 of the least liberal people in America.

Mike, remember that if you joke around with ad hominems, people may start to confuse the issues. Anyway, if people take your ad hominem attacks seriously, or fear that other observers take them seriously, they may be deterred from entering into the debate. Since we don't want to prevent the debate from even happening we should probably lay off that kind of talk.

We could keep swapping sites, like a google or youtube of "ACLU fights for Christians", etc, but it seems that there are a million sites with a million claims on this one. Debate by site/example like this will be endless…
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
Your defense of the aclu speaks volumes about who you are. Thats all I need to say...go NAMBLA!!!
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
The ACLU is a bunch of sick mo fo's!
Posted by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
On a side note, if an organization favors Islam, how is that a liberal bias? You consider Islam liberal? If anything, it would be a minority bias, which is something the ACLU probably admits.
Posted by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
Yes, I believe they allowed Muslim foot baths at some college. Give me a reliable link saying they defended public school Islam classes?

(I can give you dozens of links about the ACLU's "War on Christmas," but I can also link you to the ACLU site where they laugh at the allegations and express their actual position.)
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thedude346 6 years ago
thedude346
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by theresamtran 8 years ago
theresamtran
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 tenjusato 9 years ago
tenjusato
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 jaji 9 years ago
jaji
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 zjack3 9 years ago
zjack3
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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 els21 9 years ago
els21
mikelwallacemsoshima54Tied
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