The Instigator
Anonymous
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points

The American judicial system is a horrible, greedy corporation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/28/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,702 times Debate No: 1116
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (21)

 

Anonymous

Con

First of all, let me say that I am proud to be an American, and am thankful to have been born here. Sadly, our great nation has quickly lost all sense of what it once was- a land of freedom, opportunity, and equality.

America: Where statistics prove that the judicial system is racially and sexually biased.

America: Where we lie, and try to scare the crap out of our kids about issues such as sex and drugs, rather than telling them the truth and teaching them how to be responsible.

America: Where the schools can teach politically correct lies, while denying their students constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

America: Where the government profits billions of dollars a year from the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and opiates, but they incarcerate (or otherwise intrude upon a persons civil liberties) 1 out of 5 of our nations youth for possession of drugs or alcohol.

America: Where we have campaigns against drunk driving, and bars in every restaurant. Where we often set unreasonably low speed limits, (although we build cars that will go 150-200mph,) and outrageously high fines (Virginia is only the beginning) but that police officer passing by you on the highway is, by definition of the law, "reckless driving", and for no good reason.

The list goes on and on, but it all boils down to this: everything about our legal system in America is centered around money. A bunch of self righteous hypocrites with their robes and their badges and guns- these people should not be running things. The fact is, this place is better than alot of other countries, but not much better. Slavery and oppression have simply gone underground, as government sanctioned "penalties" for messing with their profit margin.
beem0r

Pro

Proud to be debating you, anon.

I didn't notice until right after I accepted, but you mislabeled yourself as being against the title. However, even though I am labeled "in favor" of your title statement, I will obviously be arguing against it, since you gave an "in favor" argument. Watch that next time you start a debate.

Anyway, I suppose I'll do this in the old response format.

-You said: /* First of all, let me say that I am proud to be an American, and am thankful to have been born here. Sadly, our great nation has quickly lost all sense of what it once was- a land of freedom, opportunity, and equality. */

I would disagree with the latter part of your statement: We're as free as ever, there's just as much opportunity, and we're more equal than we ever have been in the past.

-You said: /* America: Where statistics prove that the judicial system is racially and sexually biased. */

This is inherently false, since statistics can only show association, not causation. What this means is that no matter how much higher a percentage of blacks are convicted of crimes, it does not imply any link to bias or racism. Perhaps the reason that more blacks are in jail is because, on average, blacks commit more crime per capita? This can easily be explained by the fact that a higher percentage of blacks than whites live in poverty, ergo they have a higher likelihood of disobeying the law for their own unsatisfied needs. If you think these statistics really DO imply that the system is biased, please link me to said statistics in your next post.

-You said: /* America: Where we lie, and try to scare the crap out of our kids about issues such as sex and drugs, rather than telling them the truth and teaching them how to be responsible. */

That has nothing to do with the judicial system or the worth thereof.

-You said: /* America: Where the schools can teach politically correct lies, while denying their students constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. */

Schools cannot deprive students constitutional rights, nor do they, as far as I know, knowingly teach politically incorrect lies. I could just as easily have said that this too had nothing to do with the judicial system, but I'm curious as to where you're drawing these conclusions from.

-You said: /* America: Where the government profits billions of dollars a year from the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and opiates, but they incarcerate (or otherwise intrude upon a persons civil liberties) 1 out of 5 of our nations youth for possession of drugs or alcohol. */

See the very second "America:" point you made for a possible reason for this. It is illegal for persons under 21 years of age to consume alcohol without some special reason. If our nation's youth doesn't want to get incarcerated, they need to do what the judicial system wants and stop buying and consuming alcohol and drugs.

Oddly, this would show the judicial system to be anything but greedy: giving minors reason NOT to buy alcohol, which would lessen the government's profit from taxes.

-You said: /* America: Where we have campaigns against drunk driving, and bars in every restaurant. Where we often set unreasonably low speed limits, (although we build cars that will go 150-200mph,) and outrageously high fines (Virginia is only the beginning) but that police officer passing by you on the highway is, by definition of the law, "reckless driving", and for no good reason. */

a> See your 2nd "America:" point again. It's not the judicial system's fault that people aren't responsible.
b> Also, if you think the speed limits are too low, perhaps you haven't taken the time to view the other drivers on the road. Perhaps you and I don't need to drive at such modest speeds, but some drivers have a hard time handling even these low speeds. Or maybe people just know how to drive better where you're from.

-You said: /* The list goes on and on, but it all boils down to this: everything about our legal system in America is centered around money. A bunch of self righteous hypocrites with their robes and their badges and guns- these people should not be running things. The fact is, this place is better than alot of other countries, but not much better. Slavery and oppression have simply gone underground, as government sanctioned "penalties" for messing with their profit margin. */

Not true. Our judicial system is centered around protecting members of society. You say the people running things should not be running things... who should? You've given no valid reason why the judicial system is greedy. You've made 2 points that still stand as to why you think the judicial system is horrible:
1> The speed limits are low, and there's no one stopping cops from speeding.
2> Too many people are being penalized for drug/alcohol use.

However, I don't think this is nearly enough to say that it's horrible. At most it means that it could be improved, in your opinion. However, these cons do not outweight the pros:

the judicial system prevents crime
the judicial system promotes responsible behavior
the judicial system prevents major acts of racism or sexism
the judicial system protects your civil liberties
Debate Round No. 1
Anonymous

Con

I am against the topic of debate, which is the american judicial system. The exact instructions were to choose my whether I was for or against the topic of debate, as it wouldn't make much sense to state my views with respect to my own argument.

"I would disagree with the latter part of your statement: We're as free as ever, there's just as much opportunity, and we're more equal than we ever have been"

That is your opinion based on your own experiences. It is easy to ignore the problems that don't affect your life personally.

And the judicial system has a major influence on public schools policy and curriculum. One major example: Madelyn O'hara.

"Schools cannot deprive students constitutional rights, nor do they, as far as I know, knowingly teach politically incorrect lies. I could just as easily have said that this too had nothing to do with the judicial system, but I'm curious as to where you're drawing these conclusions"

You are wrong. I will save the whole creation/evoluion debate for later, but the fact is that the theory of evolution and much of what we learn in science class is speculation, and yet taught as fact. I shouldn't have to go to a private school to be a Christian or a Muslim just so some arrogant atheist doesn't get his tightie whities in a bunch. Google "Brittany McComb", that is just one of many many examples of intolerance and violation of freedom of speech in public schools, not to mention all the violence, drugs, and immorality in our schools. Teachers having sex with students, or teachers who just don't care, after all, the kids don't respect them anyways.

http://www.foxnews.com...

If fox news is noticing the problem, how can you not?

Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court has done a terrible job of interpreting our constitution. Nowhere does it say that the preisdent of the United States can't walk through my shchool belting Jesus loves the little children if he felt like it.

"It is illegal for persons under 21 years of age to consume alcohol without some special reason. If our nation's youth doesn't want to get incarcerated, they need to do what the judicial system wants and stop buying and consuming alcohol"

So it magically becomes ok to impair yourself once you hit 21, or does saying that just make you feel better? You can't say "don't drink" while your tippin a bottle, and your can't tell me "don't do drugs...except for the drugs I'm selling". You can't abuse your authority and make laws for the benefit of yourself and your peers, by controlling your citizens out of fear, propaganda, and indifferance. Hypocrisy doesn't make people learn their lessons, it just pisses people off, and gives them a reason to not respect you. I don't think drugs should be legalized, but I know that if you are going to fight it you have to fight it by attacking the source of drug usage: poverty, depression, and boredom, rather than by trying to find ways to profit from it. What you are saying is that it is ok for them to incarcerate you for playing Mario brothers, as long as they first pass a law saying tha Mario brothers is illegal? You think that is silly, but look at Virginia's new traffic laws. What a shaft! It is like they gave us all the middle finger. "Haha, we can do whatever we want to do and your'e gonna take it stupid citizens". If you don't know what I mean just google "virginia traffic laws" you'll find it. Now all of a sudden people want to wake up and start complaining, because something is afecting their life and livlihood.

"Oddly, this would show the judicial system to be anything but greedy: giving minors reason NOT to buy alcohol, which would lessen the government's profit"

The government can't stop underaged drinking or smoking, and they know it. They just don't care. They keep selling it because it makes money. They can't do that with pot, so let's just make it illegal and fine people for it. Then we put them on probation and hope they fart wrong so we can fine them again. Then I'll go get drunk and ignore my children. Meanwhile, a posession of Marijuana charge renders a person ineligable for Federal tuition assitance, or for employment with many good companies. Not because someone who has or does smoke is less capable of learning or performing, just because that is how the government profits from you.

"It's not the judicial system's fault that people aren't responsible"

It is if they are counting on people to be irresponsible. If I left a suicidal person with a loaded gun, waited for them to shoot themselves, then took their wallet, I shouldn't feel bad because it's not my fault they shot themself?

"Also, if you think the speed limits are too low, perhaps you haven't taken the time to view the other drivers on the road. Perhaps you and I don't need to drive at such modest speeds, but some drivers have a hard time handling even these low speeds. Or maybe people just know how to drive better where you're from."

You are correct. Some people cant even drive well at 55 mph. Some people can drive just fine at 70 mph. The fact is that accidents result from stupidy, not speed. My point was that the govenrment makes it very easy to lose your right to drive, and very hard to get it back. Once again, the motivation here is profit, and who cares how it affects peoples lives.

"Our judicial system is centered around protecting members of society. You say the people running things should not be running things... who should? You've given no valid reason why the judicial system is greedy. You've made 2 points that still stand as to why you think the judicial system is horrible:
1> The speed limits are low, and there's no one stopping cops from speeding.
2> Too many people are being penalized for drug/alcohol"

You have missed my entire point. Our judicial system should be about protecting the citizens of this country and ensuring that justice is served but it isn't. Instead, it is about raising funds for the government, and ultimatly, the politicians who run it. That is it, case closed. I have given reasons and examples, you have just been very dismissive so far of them. Maybe you just need for them to hit close to home with your life before you begin to understand.

"the judicial system prevents crime
the judicial system promotes responsible behavior
the judicial system prevents major acts of racism or sexism
the judicial system protects your civil liberties"

Um HELLO!! Prevents crime??? Lol...

The judicial system says that virtual chold porn is protected as freedom of speech, but a judge can't hang the ten commandments in his own courtroom. Oh yeah mr responsible behavior, bring on thoose good ol family values.

Have you caught a glimpse of a Klan rally lately, like say on tv or something? You see those guys with the blue suits and the guns who are there to protect the Klan? Sorry to tell you buddy, our legal system is not colorblind. Statistics do prove it. A black man versus a white man, crime for crime, is going to get a more severe penalty. Go look at the stats yourself, im not gonna copy and paste from 12 differerent sites just to save you the research.

As for protecting my civil liberties, I think not. Our constitution says that all men are created equal, and so we should all have equal rights, but we don't. All you have to do is watch the news to see how biased and intolerant our legal system really is.
beem0r

Pro

The topic of the debate was "The American judicial system is a horrible, greedy corporation," which you are in favor of. It might be ambiguous on the debate creation page, but at least now you know what it means. It lets you choose pro or con so that you could have made the topic "The US Judicial system is so sweet that I want to crap my pants" and chosen con, hoping to find someone who thought that it was so sweet that they want to crap their pants.

You: "That is your opinion based on your own experiences. It is easy to ignore the problems that don't affect your life personally."

It's also easy to ignore problems you are ignorant of. Since no one has brought up any major injustice of the judicial system, I don't happen to know of any problems I should be caring about. While you had some complaints, I saw none of them as valid. I am satisfied with the judicial system, and have not heard valid complaints. I am addressing all of your complaints.

You brought up Madelyn O'hara - a GOOG search didn't really show me any good sources, and Wikipedia has no article on her, but from what I saw, she had something to do with school-sanctioned prayer being abolished. So I guess I'll go ahead and explain that one to you.

Religion is not a matter the government is supposed to have an opinion on - we have a secular government. Having mandatory prayer in government-run public schools violates this principle at the core. Religion is a matter left to the parents and the individual, not the government.

Evolution is not taught as 'fact,' it's taught as 'theory.' Which is pretty much the closest to 'fact' we can scientifically get. And yes, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. _unlike 'intelligent design.'_ ID has no scientific evidence to support it, so it is not a theory. Schools do not teach hypotheses, since they are untested hunches, which have no academic worth.

Also, Brittany McComb's mic was shut off mid-speech because she was not following the script she and the school agreed upon. Read all of http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com... if you need more than I've said about that one.

You said: "Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court has done a terrible job of interpreting our constitution. Nowhere does it say that the preisdent of the United States can't walk through my school belting Jesus loves the little children if he felt like it."

He can, as can any guest to the school. Of course, not if he's visiting the school AS president, since that would be clear government support for a specific religion. Of course, that doesn't stop him and others from doing it all the time in speeches and what not. Chances are, there would be no criminal charges. He might be scolded by the school for causing a ruckus, though, since that's likely against school policies. School officials are the only ones not allowed to assert their religious beliefs, and only because they are teaching by the authority of government, which is not allowed to make religious assertions.

It doesn't become magically OK to drink when you turn 21. Personally, I don't think alcohol should be disallowed at any age. The legislators who wrote the laws, however, were not driven by profit. Laws are made to protect people. Like prohibition (which eliminated gov. profit), these laws exist to protect you and me from the instabilities of mind altering substances. People do dangerous things when under the influence, especially youths who are not yet as responsible as they will one day be. I don't know how well they've worked so far, but I know the motive could not have been greed. Legislators don't get paid depending on how many arrests their laws cause.

Also, the government does not sell tobacco products, as far as I know. And legislation continues to be pushed to phase out tobacco now that the health risks are known.
The other drugs that are illegal are illegal because of the social instability that comes with all mind-altering drugs. While I don't think this is a good reason to illegalize them, our legislative system does not have the same political standpoints that I do.

Also, the first 2 results of "virginia traffic laws" were nothing ridiculous. Please provide a link if you want me or the readers to consider it in the debate.

The government need not do such tedious things to make money. They can simply increase taxes, print more money, etc. If they were truly greedy, they would be doing those things, rather than doing things with quite reasonable alternate goals, like protecting people from the dangers of mind-altering drugs. Perhaps the laws don't work as well as you'd hope, but at least they're trying to do what they see as best for their society. In that sense you can almost call them greedy, since they the government of a prosperous people is a prosperous government. However, it seems you're arguing that they don't care about their citizens, which hold their future, but will readily throw you in jail and take your money just because they can.

You said that it's the judicial system's fault that people aren't responsible because they count on people being irresponsible. However, they are not counting on you being irresponsible. They, unlike you, do not assume that any person with a loaded gun must be suicidal. They don't require us to commit crimes to make their money, especially since legislators don't get paid based on the number of arrests their laws cause. Greed is not a factor in the legislation process.

You: "Accidents result from stupidity, not speed. Gov makes it easy to lose right to drive, hard to get it back."

Also, speed is a huge factor when it comes to safety on a road. The faster you're going, the quicker you have to react if you lose control, the more damage that an accident will cause, etc.
Also, they will take away your driving privileges for so little for the safety of you and those you would be driving near. They make it hard to get it back so that you will have to learn a lesson, stop doing whatever irresponsible thing got you to lose it in the first place. This is a much better explanation than, "They just want more money in court fines!" At least I think so, it's the voters' decision.

You: "Child porn = protected, no 10 commandments in courtroom"

Actually, as far as I knew, even drawn child porn (lolicon) is illegal. I could be wrong there, but so what if I am? While you could potentially argue that it's a moral issue, it is probably not a Judicial issue. Just like lying is not and should not be legislated against. The 10 commandments in a courtroom would make it appear that they have anything at all to do with the law, when they don't.

You: "Police protect Klan rallies"

Klansmen are citizens too. Police have to be there at Klan rallies because of the intense hatred our country has for the Klan. Violence would erupt if they were not there. Also, the government isn't making any kind of 'profit' here, so are you saying that it's simply malice and hate driving them in this case? I think protection seems like a much more reasonable explanation. I suppose that's for the voters to decide.

You: "Find stats yourself"

If you want them considered in the debate, you have to provide them. Since you're not presenting them, I get to fully ignore this point.

You: "we should all have equal rights, but we don't. All you have to do is watch the news to see how biased and intolerant our legal system really is"

You have yet to show what rights you or others don't have that another groups does have.
Also, the news isn't some source of truth, it's full of bias. Notice how you'll get much different views watching one network than another.
Debate Round No. 2
Anonymous

Con

I have to be quick, so I will pretty much sum things up. I have already made alot of my points and you don't seem to recognize them. I think it is because many Americans live in different worlds.

Thank you for your explanation of what pro and con means, but it makes more sense to say that I am against the greedy corporation that is the American legal system than it does to say that I am for my own argument...

Madelyn O'Hara was the reason prayer was banned from schools, and was an example of how the supreme court has drastically affected our schools, and in an unfair fashion. This has nothing to do with our constitution except for it being an example that they can interpret the constitution however they want.

"It's also easy to ignore problems you are ignorant of"

Yes, that was my point. As in, the problems not affecting your life therefore they don't exist to you. That is an example of ignorance.

"Religion is not a matter the government is supposed to have an opinion on - we have a secular government. Having mandatory prayer in government-run public schools violates this principle at the core. Religion is a matter left to the parents and the individual, not the government"

This is a wonderful example of where you have been lied to. The government isn't supposed to establish a national religion, and that is it. Other than that, the constitution says nothing of religion in public. I can't pray in school, or even have a moment of silence now because it offends some arrogant person, but why is it that an atheist can write and orally dictate as many papers as they want on their opinions of religion. If I were to write a paper on my faith and devotion to Christ, I would not be allowed to read it unless I edited it to not offend an atheist. (It isn't Muslims or Hebrews that complain about Christ in public, it's always atheists.) This not only has nothing based in our constitution, it is a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The same people who wrote our constituion created public schhols to teach children to reads the Bible, and created a national day of prayer, etc. It is obvious that our judicial system has blatently and unjustly misinterpreted our constitution as they see fit, which was one of my main points altogether.

"Evolution is not taught as 'fact,' it's taught as 'theory.' Which is pretty much the closest to 'fact' we can scientifically get"

No, evolution and old earth are very much taught as fact, although they very much are theory. In truth, science and evulotionary theory are at odds, not science and faith. Science explains how not why, but sadly a scientists personal bias often affects what ends up in the textbooks.

You say ID has no evidence to support it, but that is only if you disregard the evidence. Don't worry, I will be starting that debate soon, and I welcome you to join it.

"Also, Brittany McComb's mic was shut off mid-speech because she was not following the script she and the school agreed upon."

She is one of many examples of this happeneing, and a valedectorian is generally allowed to say anything...except for to share her faith? She didn't have it pre-approved because, as she said, they wouldn't have approved it. So that lesbian chick on TV can criticize Christ, but I'm not allowed to mention him in my V speech? Lol...equality? yeah right.

"He can, as can any guest to the school. Of course, not if he's visiting the school AS president, since that would be clear government support for a specific re"

Um, the government can support religion all they want to, they simply cant establish a mandatory state religion. Read our constitution for what it says not what you want it to say.

"People do dangerous things when under the influence, especially youths who are not yet as responsible as they will one day be. I don't know how well they've worked so far, but I know the motive could not have been greed."

Yes, and the government is counting on people to do stupid things. How many people die every year from alcohol and tobacco, or opiate overdose? We live in a place where we tell our kids not to have sex, but we have Sex and the City and Real sex 15 on basic cable. Hypocrisy is rampant, and nobody cares as long as it makes them happy or makes them a profit. If you really can't see the finanial motive behind many of the Judicial system's actions, then I think you must be naive.

Legislators don't get paid depending on how many arrests their laws cause.

No, but they get paid alot. Why do you think that is? Oh, and I suppose you think that a member of our government is beyond bribes huh?...

Virginia traffic law is just one example :

http://www.petitiononline.com...

"it seems you're arguing that they don't care about their citizens, which hold their future, but will readily throw you in jail and take your money just because they can."

That's right, and you seem to think that our governmental leaders are too noble for this. They aren't. I have a friend who thought like you until they took his life away from him over a relationship he had with a girl 2 years younger than him- 17 years old. There is no justice served in our society my friend, and because there are too many people like you who don't realize it, it remains as such.

"Also, speed is a huge factor when it comes to safety on a road. The faster you're going, the quicker you have to react if you lose control, the more damage that an accident will cause, etc."

Correct, but many people can react just fine at 70 mph. Most accidents occur at or below the speed limit, and are the result of people doing something stupid not going fast. There isn't even any data to suggest that if I got into an accident at 70mph, it could have been avoided at 55. You don't hear about all the accidents that aren't dug or speed related, because that is all they want you to know. You go and deal with our DMV and traffic courts personally, then you tell me it' all roses. It isn't about penalizing offenders, it is about making money plain and simple.

"Actually, as far as I knew, even drawn child porn (lolicon) is illegal. I could be wrong there, but so what if I am? While you could potentially argue that it's a moral issue, it is probably not a Judicial issue. Just like lying is not and should not be legislated against. The 10 commandments in a courtroom would make it appear that they have anything at all to do with the law, when they don't."

Virtua child porn is protected as artwork under freedom of speech, so says the constitution. How did you not know his when you touched on it in another debate about the UCLA? You say morality should have nothing to do with our judicial system, but that is where you step outside of reality. If this were the case, we should have no legal system. If it is morally ok to me to kill you, who are you to sasy otherwise? This makes no sense, and you can't have it both ways. "I say it's ok to have an abortion, but not to smoke a joint, and I enforce that upon you with fears of incarceration and extortion"...

"Klansmen are citizens too"

Yes, and even they are shown more civil liberty than a student in high school. You can be a racist jerk on national television, but you can't say something harmless that irritates an atheist.

"If you want them (my stats) considered in the debate, you have to provide them. Since you're not presenting them, I get to fully ignore this point."

I know what I am talking about both from experience and research. it is obvious you have neither. You go on and fully ignore them like you said, and be part of the ever growing problem not the solution.

"You have yet to show what rights you or others don't have that another groups does have."

No, you just haven't been paying attention. I have been very clear in my examples.
beem0r

Pro

You: "But it makes more sense to say that I am against the greedy corporation that is the American legal system than it does to say that I am for my own argument..."

No, because then your oppenten would be arguing in favor of 'the greedy corporation that is the judicial system.'

You: "Madelyn O'Hara was the reason prayer was banned from schools, and was an example of how the supreme court has drastically affected our schools, and in an unfair fashion. This has nothing to do with our constitution except for it being an example that they can interpret the constitution however they want."

Good. Schools don't need to be endorsing or restricting any religion. I'm sure you would object if schools were leading the children through Muslim religious ceremonies. It's not that you can't pray in school, it's that the school cannot specifically endorse prayer.

You: "Yes, that was my point. As in, the problems not affecting your life therefore they don't exist to you. That is an example of ignorance."

I'm not magically able to know all problems. Since I have not experienced them myself and have not been presented any valid points, I am still ignorant of any problems that might exist. That is not my fault.

You: "The government isn't supposed to establish a national religion, and that is it. Other than that, the constitution says nothing of religion in public. I can't pray in school, or even have a moment of silence now because it offends some arrogant person, but why is it that an atheist can write and orally dictate as many papers as they want on their opinions of religion. If I were to write a paper on my faith and devotion to Christ, I would not be allowed to read it unless I edited it to not offend an atheist."

You can pray in school all you want, the school just can't ask its students to pray.
Also, they still have moments of silence for some things. At least at my school. It's not illegal to.
You can write as many papers you want about Christ, as long as they follow whatever guidelines your teachers have given you. You would be allowed to read it as well, assuming there were in-class readings of said papers, which was very rare for me at least in school.

You: "The same people who wrote our constitution created public schools to teach children to reads the Bible, and created a national day of prayer, etc."

No, they didn't. Other people at the time did. Do you think it would be right if your children were taught in school to read the Qu'ran and worship Allah? I know I wouldn't want that, would you?

You: "No, evolution and old earth are very much taught as fact, although they very much are theory. In truth, science and evulotionary theory are at odds, not science and faith. Science explains how not why, but sadly a scientists personal bias often affects what ends up in the textbooks."

Wow. There is a WEALTH of evidence for both evolution and an old earth. Since you gave no evidence to the contrary and I'm short on space, I'll leave it at that.

You: "Don't worry, I will be starting that debate soon, and I welcome you to join it."

I would gladly. If you go to my profile, you can also specifically challenge me, if you want to.

You: "She is one of many examples of this happeneing, and a valedectorian is generally allowed to say anything...except for to share her faith? She didn't have it pre-approved because, as she said, they wouldn't have approved it. So that lesbian chick on TV can criticize Christ, but I'm not allowed to mention him in my V speech? Lol...equality? yeah right."

The school probably didn't want it to seem like they were supporting religion. If you've read the speech, it was basically a sermon. If she had not agreed with their edits, they would have had to address the issue beforehand and probably let her do her speech.

You: "Um, the government can support religion all they want to, they simply cant establish a mandatory state religion. Read our constitution for what it says not what you want it to say."

Then perhaps it _should_ say that the government cannot explicitly support or disrespect a religion. You only are in favor of government support for religion because that religion would be Christianity. If it were any other religion, you would likely oppose it.

You: "And the government is counting on people to do stupid things. How many people die every year from alcohol and tobacco, or opiate overdose? We live in a place where we tell our kids not to have sex, but we have Sex and the City and Real sex 15 on basic cable. Hypocrisy is rampant, and nobody cares as long as it makes them happy or makes them a profit."

The government knows that people will do stupid things, but they are not 'counting on it.' The judicial system is not the one producing sex in the city, it's not the one promoting drug use. hypocrisy may be rampant, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of the judicial system.

You: "If you really can't see the finanial motive behind many of the Judicial system's actions, then I think you must be naive."

A> Legislators don't get paid based on arrests their laws cause.
B> Gov can just print money if they need more.

You: "They get paid alot. Why do you think that is? Oh, and I suppose you think that a member of our government is beyond bribes huh?...
Virginia traffic law is just one example :
http://www.petitiononline.com...;

I'm not arguing "No member of the entire judicial system is greedy or horrible," I'm arguing about the entire system. As you yourself must know, the system is equipped to deal with problems like this when they arise. With enough support, you can get the law removed.

You: "I have a friend who thought like you until they took his life away from him over a relationship he had with a girl 2 years younger than him- 17 years old."

That specific law is meant to _protect_ children. Since the age of consent is probably 16 where you are, only your friend was able, by law, to consent to sexual relations. While I don't personally agree with this law, most of society still does, and it makes far less sense to say that it was made based on greed or malice than the will to protect its citizens.

You: "Many people can handle 70 mph. Most accidents are from people going slow, not fast."

If they're going below the speed limit, much less damage was caused than if they were speeding.

You: "There isn't even any data to suggest that if I got into an accident at 70mph, it could have been avoided at 55."

There is logic to suggest that, though. Since the car is moving faster, you have less time to react.

You: "It isn't about penalizing offenders, it is about making money plain and simple."

No, it's about keeping the roads safe for you and me. There has to be _some_ speed limit, and it has to be something nearly anyone can handle.

You: "Drawn child porn is protected as free speech"

This is because the law is there to protect people. No one is being harmed by pictures, and the government does not have the authority to tell you or me what we can or cannot draw.

You: "It's ridiculous to say that morality isn't what the law is based around."

The law is based around keeping the citizens of the country safe. you gave an example of murder - this happens to be both widely considered immoral and harmful in reality. However, it's only the latter part the law must care about.

You: "Abortion is legal"

Because it is unclear whether or not an unborn baby is a citizen, it is also unclear whether or not the law must protect them.

You: "Klan gets more civil liberties than a high school student"

No. High school students are allowed just as much freedom of speech as everyone else.

The US Judicial system is a robust, helpful, protection-giving institution. While it may not be the best it can be, it is neither horrible nor greedy.

It's been nice debating with you. I look forward to possible debates in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
It's not different? I mean, hey, who cares about the ACTUAL KIDS being taken advantage of for child porn, that couldn't possibly be the reason it's illegal. It's illegal because of how it LOOKS.
Oh wait, I lied.

Lolicon and real child porn are very different. One is inherently harmless. One is almost always harmful, at least by most people's standards.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
Also I said virtual child porn, which is lolicon as you put it. It is not different to make a realistic drawing of a child having sex.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
I didnt insult anyone. It is not insulting to say that someone who is naive is naive. It is also not insulting to point out to someone that they are contributing to something bad. It is called honesty.
Posted by Krad 8 years ago
Krad
Wow, i dont agree with griff about this being a good debate...
twice anon insulted beem0r
-"You go on and fully ignore them like you said, and be part of the ever growing problem not the solution."
-"then I think you must be naive."
they don't really advance his argument in any way...

oh, by the way, child porn(non drawn) is Illegal. Lolicon is not.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
This was a good debate on bothe sides it was full of interesting information, but I think Con won it by a tad.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Also, they way they do links here is retarded. It made the link I copied from anon another link, but it does not have the correct path. See his round 3 for the link.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Had to shorten and even omit some quotes for my round 2 to be short enough, my apologies if it's hard to follow at some parts.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Anonymousbeem0rTied
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