The Instigator
plascencia84
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
artC
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

if you are in favor of social progrms you will loose your freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!

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: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,609 times Debate No: 337
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (15)

 

plascencia84

Pro

social programs from the democrats seek to take your god given freedoms away and control your life. just like obama and hillary, they are for big government. big government just wants to imprison us. democrats want to do away with capitalism!!! if they do this country will perish.!!
artC

Con

First of all, our freedoms are not god-given.

"Big government" as in the government we have now, seeks to help everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. The point of social prgrams are to make the standard of living better for everyone. It is what democracy is supposed to be about. By the people for the people. not by the elite, for the elite.

Where do you get the idea that "big govenment" wants to imprison us? Furthermore, what do you even mean by "big government"? Also, where do you get the idea that democrats want to do away with capitalism? And are you so dependent on this capitalistic society that you really think we will PERISH without it??
Debate Round No. 1
plascencia84

Pro

plascencia84 forfeited this round.
artC

Con

Welp, I guess I win.

And this is suppsoed to be a hundred characters long so that is why I am still
Debate Round No. 2
plascencia84

Pro

plascencia84 forfeited this round.
artC

Con

How many times do I have to type that I won, to win?

This debate is a joke.

Someone else should debate me on this topic.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
There was religons in school because at that time, they hadn't established nationalized schools like we have now.

Also, my comment was that our rights are not god-given, regardless of what SOME of the founding fathers thought. I don't take everything they believed over 200 years ago and apply it to my life and believe it.

I stand by my comment that rights are not god-given. They are given by people to themselves and others because we believe in freedom and are intelligent enough to build a society on that principle.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Hahaha... If my comments are so uninteresting and stupid, why do you feel the need to respond to them?

The same people wrote and signed both documents. Did they change their religious convictions between the signing of the Declaration of Independence? I should think not. But that is neither here nor there. You did not answer my question. If the intent behind the first amendment was to keep religion out of public property, discourse, and documents, (which you claim) why didn't the founders speak against the teaching of religion in public schools, which was so prevalent at their time?

How do your second, third, and fourth points relate to this discussion? I never said that the founders meant to establish a theocracy or endorse Christianity in any way. I know perfectly well that many of the founding fathers were deists, and not expressly Christian (although if you reed their writings there can be no question that, as a general rule, they endorsed Christianity, even if they did not personally adhere to it). The fact is that this nation exists because a group of men believed that humans had God given rights, which was the basis of their complaints against George III. You are, of course, free to disagree if you like, but I find it hard to call someone American when they deny the principles this country was founded on.

ArtC made the statement that our rights are not God given and I was rejecting that on the basis of what the founding fathers themselves said. It's okay to disagree that our rights are God-given, as long as you replace "God" with some other kind of objective moral absolute. Otherwise there can be nothing wrong with totalitarianism.
Posted by IronHead60 9 years ago
IronHead60
This will be my final posting here as clearly the intellectual arguments posed by you, Snoopy, are both uninteresting and nonsensical.

1. You previously made the inference that the U.S. Constitution was a religious-founded document. Setting aside your claim that because you *think* the first amendment is religiously based, hence the U.S. Constitution must be as well, you have now ironically changed the subject to discuss the Declaration of Independence. Hmmm...

2. Well, since you brought it up, let's talk about the Declaration of Independence. There is no indication in the that document of any intention to support the Christian religion. It consists, for the most part, of a detailed description of the tyrannical actions imposed by King George III.

3. The Declaration is not, and was never intended to be, the basis of our government. Our government was not formed until 13 years later when the Constitution was ratified and became effective in 1789. But many religious extremists (please note that I am not implying you are or are not a religious extremist) ignore the Constitution because it does not mention God or Christianity, and makes it plain that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

4. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

Snoopy, we could switch to another U.S. document, like the Articles of the Confederation, but I frankly don't have the time.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
HA. WOW. Now you have a way of knowing people aren't American after you read one statement by them. The fact that I'm not from this country has nothing to do with how I think and feel about this countrie's government. And the fact that you happened to make an ignorant comment which was partialy fact doesn't make you right.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I might have to debate one of you two.

According to the Declaration of Independence, we have certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator. How else can you interpret that, other than as a religious statement? That is an explicit statment that our rights are divinely derived. If you believe there is no God, fine, but you have to find some other objective source of human rights.

That interpretation of the first ammendment is just plain wrong. It is simply saying that the government should not establish a state religion. I does not say that religion should be kept out of all public places, documents and discourses. If the first ammendment DID mean this, then why didn't the founding fathers decry the religious teaching that was mandatory at almost every school at the time?

"Instead of accusing people of being non-American if one contradicts the founding principles of our nation (a debate of its own accord), perhaps you should brush up on your history first."

Really? Funny that I was right that she isn't American... You might be American in nationality, but not in principle, ESPECIALLY if you believe human rights are derived from the government.

History happens to be my specialty, although I'm more of a world history person than an American history person. I know enough to know that our country was founded on the idea that humans have rights that transcend government, though.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Thanks Ironhead, well put.

"you contradict the founding principle of our nation, and are, therefore, not American."

Since when does contradicting principles make you a non-American? I mean, you're right, I'm not an American, I'm a Croatian living in the United States. Yet I know so much more about these fouding principles of YOUR nation, than you do, or probably ever will.
Posted by IronHead60 9 years ago
IronHead60
Actually Snoopy, artC is correct and you are mistaken.

The U.S. Constitution is, in fact, a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8).

Instead of accusing people of being non-American if one contradicts the founding principles of our nation (a debate of its own accord), perhaps you should brush up on your history first.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
ArtC,

What on earth are you talking about? Our freedoms are not God given? Have you ever read that little thing called... THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? If you don't believe that our rights are God given, then you contradict the founding principle of our nation, and are, therefore, not American.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
I think it's wrong to say that the government takes your freedom. We elect our government. The government may misrepresent you as an individual but it doesn't exactly just take your freedoms.
Posted by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
I'm sorry to say but freedoms are things that you are born with and can only be taken away by government. And the ones most likely to do that is big government. Like I have the freedom to keep every single dollar I earn but the government comes in and says that I cant do that. Government by its nature is a destroyer of freedoms and rights
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
plascencia84artCTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
plascencia84artCTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
plascencia84artCTied
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 humanist 9 years ago
humanist
plascencia84artCTied
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 freedomfighter 9 years ago
freedomfighter
plascencia84artCTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
plascencia84artCTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
plascencia84artCTied
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 killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
plascencia84artCTied
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 Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
plascencia84artCTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
plascencia84artCTied
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