The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Will America murder David E. Stannard, for threatening the state's founding cult?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 99256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Although there are various people of the political spectrum in the US, which claim to hate each other, all worship the nation's so-called "founders," as gods, and goddesses. Any criticism of them is forbidden, and anyone who criticizes them, will be called "anti-american," a traitor. David E. Stannard, on the Dickshovel link, dares to blaspheme, what someone calls the "Americult," by revealing the so-called "Founding Fathers," and "Founding Mothers," are not gods, but hated the indigenous, and ordered their genocide. Since this goes against America's perception of it being a god, I am sure the US government will execute David E. Stannard, making him a martyr, and America's human sacrifice, to their deth god, and goddess, Lord Our God, George Molech Washington, and Goddess, Martha Hel Washington. All Americans will cheer their greatest "threat" will be gone. I am sure I will go to prison, for threatening the American master race. That's all.


Well, first of all I would like to thank Con for making this debate possible.

Now, this isn't a debate about the founding fathers, but about what happens when people critique them. I personally do not consider the Founding Fathers and Mothers to have been demigods worth worshipping. As Con points out, actions by Founding Father's towards Native Americans were reprehensible, they also institutionalized slavery through the Constitution, and they managed to exclude everyone other than white property owning men from having the vote!
On the other hand, we also should give them some credit for creating a system which has been incredibly stable, which has lasted for two hundred years and which has guaranteed people certain liberties and freedoms which they would not have otherwise had. And though some of those freedoms have been suspended at times (e.g. Japanese Internment) I think it's fair to say that one freedom, freedom of speech -- will protect Mr. Stannard and Con from death at the hands of the USFG.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Stannard would not be the first person to criticize the "Founding Fathers" and others who have done this were not killed. For instance:


I can give you more examples as the debate goes on.

Well, enough of my meandering. Let me briefly summarize each of my contentions, and I'll elaborate on each of these in round 2:
Contention 1: Rights to freedom of Speech include the right to say whatever you want about people who have been dead for over two hundred years.

Obviously, rights to Freedom of Speech will make it impossible for a court of law to execute somebody for expressing any opinion. But what about extrajudicial killing? What if the Federal Government were to have the CIA do hits on people for expressing a historical opinion? Well, my opponent's reasoning is that since everyone on the political spectrum (with the exceptions of himself, Mr. Stannard, Mr. Zinn and Mr. Parenti) is uncritical of the "Founders" they lionize, people, esp. people in a position of power, would feel comfortable killing people for daring to shatter the "Origin Myth."

And yet, why do people in all walks of life tend to revere the Founding Fathers? It's largely because the system which they created has generally guaranteed freedoms, including the freedom to speak one's mind. Now, how would somebody, say, in a position of power, who revere's the framers so much that they'd be willing to kill, go against one of the most deeply ingrained values set forth by those same framers? Put another way, anyone who is willing to kill a dissenter doesn't really give a damn about the framers and what they stood for in the first place. Either way, it seems a stretch.

Contention 2: Precedent: Other people have been critical of the founding fathers and they weren't put on some kill list for it. (See above).

Contention 3: Why would the USFG even bother to kill someone for criticizing the Founding Fathers?

a.) referring back to Contention 1, there are really two possibilities. Either a person in power would revere the Constitution too much to kill someone for critiquing the Framers who wrote it, or a person would not revere the Constitution enough to care about some random person critiquing the Framers.

b.) Even if we suppose that some maniac (and granted we have at least one in the corridors of power) would be willing to do this, why bother? I mean, whose heard of Stannard? Who has heard of my opponent? Nobody really, untill this debate started.

c.) In the case of Stannard, who, I take it, is published, any suspicious death will arouse suspicions. The USFG has plenty of things to worry about as it stands, why would they want to explain this away? I mean, why would they want to take the time to plan it, carry it out, and cover their own tracks.

d.) Any damaging evidence which becomes public -- and with organizations like Wikileaks anything could become public -- and I'll add, even things which are kept hush hush today will, in time, whether in years, decades, a century, or longer, become public knowledge. Forget the Freedom of Information Act -- it's bound to be found in some archive at some point. And when it is found, someone can make a flush fortune selling a book about an extrajudicial assassination of someone who challenged our founding myth. One risk of the USFG commiting such a stupid crime in the first place is that it will eventually enable someone to have even more credibility when criticizing our founding fathers, the founding myth, and the government which helps propagate it.

So again, I ask, why? Why violate the very principles you believe were given to us by (correctly or incorrectly) our "God-like" Founders? Why risk detection? Why risk giving credibility to the very dissenters the USFG would be trying to silence? Why do this to some random person that nobody's even heard of?

Maybe the answer is that Con needs to relax a little bit. Look, maybe Con is just pretending to be paranoid -- and I don't mean this as a personal attack at all: just friendly advice from a fellow debater. Con, if you really believe this will happen, then you really need to just take it easy. Seriously, go get a massage. But maybe it's best of you wait until after the debate ends. Truth is if you do it before, that's alright too because you can continue to pretend to live in a world where historical arguments lead to government sanctioned assassination...

Debate Round No. 1


Wow! I thought the "founders" are gods, and goddesses! Does the nation's "Supreme Oracle's," priests, and priestesses, get their visions, from the gods, and goddesses, who supposedly founded the nation? The public worships the "Supreme Oracle," as if it's infallible!


This reminds me of a Monty Python skit.


I mean I took the trouble to post an argument with three contentions, and this was Con's response:

"Wow! I thought the "founders" are gods, and goddesses! Does the nation's "Supreme Oracle's," priests, and priestesses, get their visions, from the gods, and goddesses, who supposedly founded the nation? The public worships the "Supreme Oracle," as if it's infallible!"

Right well I would thank my opponent for making this easy but the truth is, I'd rather see Con actually try. I tried, I made my point, and so long as those points go unrefuted they extend into this round, right across the flow.

I suppose that's enough for now, but hopefully in Round 3 Con actually rallies and debates!

You can do it Con! Believe in yourself! Explain why your stance isn't unduly paranoid, and how it could really be true. And no, that doesn't just mean making unbacked assertions! Come on Hugosl I believe in you! Come on!

Okay now I'm getting annoying with this overencouragement. You get the picture.
Debate Round No. 2


I thought the people in the US worship the founders. I see online, people, no matter what religion they have, or none, idolize them. That's why I thought the US is a cult. If people should think independently, they should not worship people, only the divine, which I hope exists. No human made ideology is sacred, since they are made by fallible people. I have grown sick of politics. Quoting from the Bible, a phrase from Matthew, ( "No Man can serve two masters." (This, of course, was the old way of saying person.) Although I found the phrase, originally meant God, and the false god Mammon, or money, I use it as I only worship God, not the state. Some years ago, some lady, gave me a flag pin, and said "God Bless America." I told her I only worship God, not the US. This disappointed her. I think worshipping the US's founders, is idolatry. Therefore, I don't worship them. Thank you.


Well, I don't really have any quarell with hugosl's closing remarks. I agree that we shouldn't worship the Framers or the State they created. The founding fathers are not infallible. I'm not certain that nationalism/ love of the country's past is literally it's own religion, but taken to extremes as it can resemble religion and therefore Con's exageration on this point does serve to wake us up to the extreme deference to the framers. A level of deference which can get excessive.

On the other hand, the key issue in this debate is not whether the Founding Fathers deserve their praise, it is not a matter of whether we are too deferential to our origin myth, or too uncritical of it.

The key question of this debate is whether or not challenging that myth would lead to deadly suppression. My opponent has not shown any evidence to the effect that this would happen, and I have reasoned and shown evidence that it wouldn't happen.

Hugosl has not met the burden of proof necessary to prove his case, and I submit to you that I think I have met that burden of proof, though ultimately you'll be the judges of this.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just trolling. Meanwhile, con made no arguments whatsoever, in short, dinky paragraphs that were meaningless. Pro's argument of how the US would not dare to blatently violate the Frist Amendment rights was his strongest, while con provided no arguments, just small paragraphs of trolling.