The Instigator
almaciga2010
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

The Copyright infringement law suits

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,368 times Debate No: 14450
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

almaciga2010

Con

It is said that the US is a Christian country and that our Constitution is based on Christian culture and traditions. It is with that in mind that our leaders make reference to the Bible whether the Old Testament or New they tend to inform their audience of their faith in this Scripture or that one.
Yet, I can't find one that has quoted the The Scriptures in the right context. I do not profess to be an expert but I have read and studied it for a very long time, enough to know that God is not from a particular political opinion.
Ms. Michele Bachman said a while back that God has called her to run for the Congress. I wonder if she by any chance, got to read the Bible at all. Now, she is complaining that Health Reform is socialism. Is it socialism to hope for all Americans to have access to what already all members of congress and the senate have? A choice of medical insurance already paid for by our own taxes. If Jesus was on earth right now, which views would He have on this matter. If we think of the US as an employer, and we are those whom they service and we are already paying for it then why would it be socialism? I understand by reading the Bible's account of the Good Samaritan that we are to think of all as if they were our neighbor including those who do not have or agree with our political views. As a matter of fact Jesus kept clear from all politics but He did say to "Love God over all things and our neighbor as ourselves". In what way can we show for our neighbor better than to let them have what they (the members of the congress and the senate) are already enjoying?
I try not to have a negative view of our political processes but right now, with the Supreme court giving the corporations the right to legally manipulate our policy making, it is necessary for all of us to know what that means. Corporations have a lot of money at their disposal and all humans are prone to be bribed and when the policies of this country make it legal and call it lobbying, well is not that something that those politicians who quote the Word of God, doing so as blaspheming?
Is anybody in this community asking those very same questions? I have tried to communicate with those politicians but they are not under obligation to even answer our questions unless we are part of their constituency.
Most people do not realize that just one vote in the House or Senate can and will affect millions of people not just the residents of their respective districts.
RoyLatham

Pro

Welcome

I welcome my opponent to debate.org. According to Con's profile, we are both the same age, 63, so it's appropriate that I accept her challenge. I look forward to a spirited debate.

The Resolution

Con has not spelled out the debate resolution. The gist of her arguments is that her opinions on a number of topics are in better accord with Christianity than the opinions of her opponents. Since she is Con, the resolution must be inverted to "Con's opponents represent Christian beliefs better than Con."

The title of the debate features "copyright infringement law suits," but /con makes no mention of such suits. Until Con makes some linkage to the title, I will ignore it.

Con's Case


1. Con begins by asking "I wonder if [Michele Bachmann] by any chance, got to read the Bible at all." con clearly implies Bachman has not. In an interview with the Christian New service, the following interchange occurred:

CNS: When was the Word made Flesh? At the conception? And when did Jesus get a right to life?
Bachmann
: I think the answer would be John 1:1. The Word was God and the Word was with God from the foundation of the Earth. So, prior to our even being here on the Earth, the Father and the Son were together because all things were created by Jesus Christ and with the Father and held together. And I believe in a triune God: ... [continues at length discussing the Bible]
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...

Clearly Bachmann has read the Bible.

2. Con asks with respect to health care "In what way can we show for our neighbor better than to let them have what they (the members of the congress and the senate) are already enjoying?" The teaching is a requirement for "Christians to be charitable, not a requirement to take money money from one group of people and give it to another group. That is theft, no matter that it is done with good intention.

3. Con asks, "Is it socialism to hope for all Americans to have access to what already all members of congress and the senate have?" No, socialism is not defined by what a person hopes. Socialism in the sense referenced is defined by redistribution of wealth forced by government. Traditionally, socialism was direct control of the means of production, such as having doctors work for the government. the modern twist is to require individuals comply with rules. The Health Care Bill was about 3000 pages, and it expected to spawn 100,000 pages of additional regulations. That is detailed compulsion.

4. Con claims " the Supreme court giving the corporations the right to legally manipulate our policy making" The Court ruled that the constitutional right of free speech applies to people acting collectively, either when acting as a labor union or as corporations. All free speech is advocacy is "manipulation" of policy making. Nothing in the Court decision authorized bribery, and Con provided no evidence that the decision went beyond free speech.

Con says "all humans are prone to be bribed and when the policies of this country make it legal and call it lobbying, well is not that something that those politicians who quote the Word of God, doing so as blaspheming?" Blasphemy is a "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Advocating some position with respect to pending legislation cannot be blasphemous because legislation with respect to an establishment of religion is prohibited by the Constitution.

5. Con asks, "Is anybody in this community asking those very same questions?" I have heard the question of what Jesus would do about Obamacare. To my knowledge, the notion that lobbying is blasphemous is unique to Con.

The Affirmative Case

Destruction of Wealth


R1. I claim that government imposition of socialism by extreme regulation is contrary to the Christian tradition because it substantially reduces the wealth of society. All experiments in establishing vast ruling bureaucracies demonstrate that the result is make preservation and expansion of the bureaucracy the primary goal of the bureaucracy. Examples include East Germany compared to West Germany, North Korea compared to South Korea, and China compared to Taiwan. I am not claiming that Obamacare amounts to authoritarian rule. My claim is that when bureaucracy replaces free markets and individual choice, that inevitably the efficiency of the society suffers. that has been demonstrated by the examples. There is no basis in Christian tradition for impoverishing society by bureaucratic rule.

Establishment of a Ruling Class


R2. The Chistian tradition requires charity, not forced transfer of wealth. Forced transfer of wealth requires establisment of a ruling class that determines from whom the weath is extracted and who it goes to. The is nothing in the Christian tradition that empowers the establishment of a ruling class to which individuals are subservient.

For these reasons the resolution is negated.





Debate Round No. 1
almaciga2010

Con

almaciga2010 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. Her ddo page indicates she has not been online for three days.

My arguments are continued.

Debate Round No. 2
almaciga2010

Con

almaciga2010 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

My opponent's account is no longer active. We'll probably never know what the relation to copyright infringement was.
Debate Round No. 3
almaciga2010

Con

almaciga2010 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

My opponent is gone, leaving my arguments unanswered. Now we are just running out the clock.
Debate Round No. 4
almaciga2010

Con

almaciga2010 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

Finally, It's over. Pro forfeited four rounds and never answered my arguments Ugh.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by almaciga2010 6 years ago
almaciga2010
Guys: All of you who have commented on this one. I accidentally have posted this con argument under the wrong argument category. This one is supposed to go in the polics category.

About the copyrights law infringement I can only say that although it is true that artists and companies involved in the artists crafts should exercise the right to acquire payment for these infringement I do subscribe to the proverb, "better to be prevent infrigement than to spend the time in collecting". Why didn't the companies involved did not take precautions to stop the torrents from being used. Why didn't hey requested the internet from publishing. The people who use these do not have the resources to stop the spread of these or to stop the sharing of those files. I think the courts should throw these cases out. At least they should ask if the companies and their greedy lawyers if they tried every means possible to stop them.
I understand that some of those movies were out there even before they came to the theaters. How can hat be? What kind of security are they providing that it was leaked. I think this is a scam to make sure a movie makes more money than it should be just showing it in theaters, even if you download a movie and the movie is lousy.
Posted by Sangers 6 years ago
Sangers
I didn't get the relation between the argument and the resolution either :D But wow both 63... Good luck to both :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WillMurray 6 years ago
WillMurray
almaciga2010RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
almaciga2010RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06