The Instigator
calverley79
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

judicial system needs reform

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 15735
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

calverley79

Pro

I am doing an argumentative report for college, I need someone to debate me on these statements.
1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.
2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.
3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.
socialpinko

Con

As my opponent is instigator in this debate, he shall have the burden of proof and it shall be his responsibility to uphold his contentions. My opponent has brough three contentions and to win he must uphold all three. His contentions are as follows:

A)Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.

B)All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.

C)If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.

If my opponent cannot uphold all three of these contentions and prove that implementing these policies will result in a more just judicial system the he will lose this debate.

American Judicial System: The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justice.
The U.S. judiciary comprises a system of state and federal courts, tribunals, and administrative bodies, as well as the judges and other judicial officials who preside over them.[1]

Reform: a: to put or change into an improved form or condition. b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.[2]

I will now pass the debate on to my opponent as to allow him to defend his contentions.

[1]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
calverley79

Pro

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I will start this debate with my first claim.

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.
1.) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal.
2.) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal.
3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal.

I can list more examples but it is really not completely necessary to prove my point.
returning to 1) 100 years ago a woman or a man was stoned for the commitment of adultery
2) abortion was illegal until 1973.
3) http://www.nolanchart.com... I refer to this because it is just to large to summarize.

These are just 3 examples of an ever growing problem with the judicial system, regarding a lack in religious morals. I will refer to religious morals later in this discussion.

b. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.

I worded this phrase this way for a specific reason. I refer to religious moral law.. I am not talking the ten commandments, I am talking the only commandment given to us in the bible by Jesus himself. Let me clarify, I by no means trying to turn this into a religious debate, I just find that this particular commandment is the basis for peace and harmony between all humans.

I quote " A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another." Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ)

This statement has an amazing moral code written in it. For if I love you as Jesus loved you, and you loved me as Jesus loved you, there would be a strive towards treating people better in general.
Further, Making this statement the basis for the law would make the above immoral actions illegal. For a violation of that statement would mean an immorality.

c.If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.

A set of maximum punishments for crimes would have to be made, but I recommend examples close to the above example, now here's where the cool part comes in. The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. Assuming that the moral code behind the law states to love one another and people follow this the punishments should never be the extreme, maybe under rare occasions would this happen. However it can be assumed that the maximum punishment would be less than the current. The judge would then be responsible for determining if the punishment requested falls within the lines of nothing and maximum based on discretion and the above moral code.

I now move to the pros of this situation as apposed to today's system

1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them
due to alternate forms of punishment.

2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals.. Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again.

3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled.

I now turn this over to you.
socialpinko

Con

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.
Removing which religion? Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Christianity?

1.) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal.
2.) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal.

Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion.

3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal.

First, this is fraud and is illegal. Second, why would it be legal due to a lack of religion and how would introducing religion stop it?

B. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.

"A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another." Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ)

My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthenasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer.

C. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.

"The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision."

This would certainly be a confict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving.

Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off te street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision.

My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system.

1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them
due to alternate forms of punishment.

My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded.

2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals.. Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again.

I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the injusticeness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating.

3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled.

Just because the victim might get more closure does not mean that the victim is qualified to make an objective decision as to the punishment of a criminal.

Pro's contentions have been negated.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
calverley79

Pro

My opponent poses the question of which religion, The answer to this question is any religion, meaning the separation of church and state. Just a footnote as I see that it has very little to do with the validity of my claim, the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar, Yes even in the tora. If I need to validate that claim I can, I am assuming that it is not going to be objected to.

Notice that my opponent does not place objection to my first point
1) Adultery is immoral, it is not illegal.

The validation of this statement is enough to proves there is an enabling of people to legally commit immoral actions.

The claim that my opponent has entered as to my second claim
Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion.

I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another.

All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us. This I can prove. When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong, lets replace people with babies. does that change the intent of the verb? What about if we change babies to unborn babies, well we are still killing, and killing is opposite of love. therefore immoral. Regardless of some religious or individual beliefs the meaning of two words is undeniable.

Moving to my third point 3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal.

I assure you that it is not illegal, I say this with certainty because it happened to me. I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal.

To address the second part of his claim, and I quote from a judge in Tennessee. " a persons moral character has no place in this court room, my judgements are based on fact, and the fact is that you were accused." Had the accusers moral character been evaluated the court would have seen a woman that committed seven affairs in a five year marriage, a drug abuser, and a person with no work ethic, yet the court deemed that she deserved soul custody of 2 minor children based on an immoral lie. Even neglecting the fact that she was a drug abuser with no work ethic we have already determined the act of committing adultery validates my claim.

On to my opponent next claim.
My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthanasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer.

I will start with the first half of this claim, as for gay marriage, It is not a violation of the statement love on another as I have loved you. therefore not Immoral, weird maybe, not common maybe as well, but love is never immoral.

Moving on to euthanasia, I will refer to the above statement where I explained the difference in love and killing, take that sentence and replace it with old person, the verb to kill still remains the same, in which case the act is immoral, however if one would to go about it the right way... IE. getting a legal documentation from the victim saying it was his will and he recommended no punishment, his will would have to be followed, I would recommend that paper be signed in front of an unbiased lawyer however.

Next claim
This would certainly be a conflict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving.
I ask you, If a kid steals from you do you put him to death? this is why there are limits, maximum punishments, that fit the crime committed, either in time served, or by removal of the problem. and an unbiased judge appointed by the government to oversee the punishment requested by the victim, with the ability to overturn that request at his discretion,
Should a 8 year old who goes into a store go to juvy? how bout the punishment being to work for the victim in the store for a day for no pay.
Do you know that a United States Judge made the ruling years ago that a man would pay one dollar a week for life to the family members of the man he accidentally killed in an auto wreck. is that unfair, or should he have gone to jail.

Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off the street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision.

What makes a Judge smarter than you when it comes to what should happen? Maybe you feel that the teenagers crime doesn't deserve a life sentence in jail, but you can't tell a judge that. the above statement is similar to saying that we can not decide for ourselves if we want an apple, orange, or banana for breakfast. Are you saying that a person isn't capable of knowing a punishment between nothing and a loss of a hand. and isn't capable of making a decision of what should happen.

My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system.

1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them
due to alternate forms of punishment.

My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded.

Is a man with no hands going to steal? no, thefts down. is a drug dealer with no fingers going to do drugs, no, drugs down. Is a man who runs from the law that has no more legs going to commit any more crimes, not without a wheelchair, and he probably won't get too far. Case proven.

2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals.. Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again.

I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the unjustness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating.

The contest to this claim validates this claim and the last one based on the googled statistics of 56 percent of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders

the last claim states nothing about the ability to make a punishment it just shows a democratic judicial system based on checks and balances between a judge and victim, where as my opponent admitted the claim of closure.

Your rebuttal
socialpinko

Con

//"My opponent poses the question of which religion, The answer to this question is any religion"//

My opponent claims that any religion may be subbed in for our judicial system as "the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar". However this is simply not true as Jainism teaches that one should not harm any living creature[1] but then Judaism and Christianity teach that homosexuality is punishable by death[2]. As one can see replacing the present judicial system with general religious law would not solve anything.

1) Adultery is immoral, it is not illegal.

I actually do raise objection to this point in that A)My opponent showed no reason why adultery was immoral or should be illegal and B)My opponent neglected to mention that adultery is illegal in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona[3].

My opponent next responds to my issue with how his solution would fix the abortion issue and why abortion is wrong iin itself. My opponent responds with "I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another." I assume this means that we should love other living things. However people who support abortion sometimes claim that A)A fetus is not alive and B)Terminating the pregnancy is actually the merciful thing to do in some situations.

My opponent then brings an unexpected point. He claims that "All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us." And to prove this he claims that //"When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong"//

However my opponent fails to see that this does not mean that men are born with knowledge of what is truly right and wrong. Just drawing on my opponent's example, we could say that Hitler and his followers did not know the difference in that they believed they were doing the right thing in trying to rid the world of what they perceived to be inferior peoples. Did they know that what they were doing was wrong?

//"lets replace people with babies. does that change the intent of the verb? What about if we change babies to unborn babies, well we are still killing, and killing is opposite of love. therefore immoral. Regardless of some religious or individual beliefs the meaning of two words is undeniable."//

My opponent next claims that killing is immoral in every instance and that just because the vitim is a baby does not make it any more right. However this contradicts my opponent's earlier claim that it was right to fight the Nazis and Hitler in that what they were doing was wrong. So either killing is right in some instances or it isn't. What is the fetus is killing the mother and that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the mother will die? You may love the fetus and the mother but the mother is the only living being and thus takes priority.

3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal.

My opponent claims that fraud is legal and claims that "I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal." However we do not have to believe my opponent in that all he brings is a personal anecdote and not any external evidence to prove his claim. This argument may be dropped until my opponent brings solid evidence in favor of his claim.

My opponent's next claim is that a person's moral character needs to be taken into account in a court room. But by what standard should we judge that person's moral character? My opponent believes that religious law should be used to determine a person's moral character but I already brought the examples of absolute pacifism in Jainism and punishment of homosexuals by death in Christianity and Islam. My opponent needs to be more specific in this claim.

My opponent's full statement is below.

//"Had the accusers moral character been evaluated the court would have seen a woman that committed seven affairs in a five year marriage, a drug abuser, and a person with no work ethic, yet the court deemed that she deserved soul custody of 2 minor children based on an immoral lie. Even neglecting the fact that she was a drug abuser with no work ethic we have already determined the act of committing adultery validates my claim."//

In the example of the affairs, depending on what state the woman lived in, this may or may not have been illegal. Also my opponent is only assuming that adultery is wrong and has not rationally proven this. As to the drug abuse part, as of now drug abuse is against the law and can be dealt with while not paying attention to the person's moral character.

Gay marriage

//"I will start with the first half of this claim, as for gay marriage, It is not a violation of the statement love on another as I have loved you. therefore not Immoral, weird maybe, not common maybe as well, but love is never immoral."//

And what about when it comes to adultery. My opponent is clearly firmly against adultery but if the two people do love each other does that make it right?

Euthenasia

My opponent in the case of euthenasia claims that while killing is immoral, if you do it right then it should be okay. An example of it being okay my opponent claims is if the person obtains "a legal documentation from the victim saying it was his will and he recommended no punishment, his will would have to be followed". What if a person is in a coma and is unable to respond? My opponent's example completely depends on the person's ability to commnunicate. Is a person who is unable to communicate suffering any less than anoter person who is able to communicate?

Victim choosing punishment

The reason we have laws is so that regardless of someone's personal feelings towards another their punishment is as much as possible deserving aand appropriate. As I said earlier, the victim of a crime is the last person who should have the ability to decide the punishment of the offendor. If I am savagely beaten by some thug then you can bet that I am going to want some pretty sweet revenge, however the law is the only system that when used corectly can insure that a criminal offendor is not subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

//"What makes a Judge smarter than you when it comes to what should happen?"//

Is this a serious question? Let's see. Maybe the years and years of legal training and experience that it takes to become a judge. I trust that most will agree that a judge has a little more legal expertise than grocery store manager or a UPS driver.

Unfortunately I have run out of character space and will deal with the rest of my opponent's case in the next round/

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]http://www.epis.us...
Debate Round No. 3
calverley79

Pro

//My opponent claims that any religion may be subbed in for our judicial system as "the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar". However this is simply not true as Jainism teaches that one should not harm any living creature[1] but then Judaism and Christianity teach that homosexuality is punishable by death[2]. As one can see replacing the present judicial system with general religious law would not solve anything//

I ask you does The statement one should not harm any living creature includes other humans? this validates my claim on religion as far as Judaism, lets move on to Christianity, The Christian bible is held in two eras, the new testament (current laws) and the old testament (old laws). I will grant my opponent one partial statement, Christianity did state that homosexuality should be punished by death, but I emphasize it did this in the old testament. On to Judaism, again I state the fact that yes in the judist old testament it was stated but in the new the laws changed. therefore emphasizing my original claim that the main basis for moral code remains the same throughout religion, Being on this subject I will further my claim by stating that the Tora, the Muslim bible, admits that the Christian bible is a work of god, It also states that Jesus did exist, but as a prophet not the son of God, I ask you if you have two religions on total opposite spectrum of today's date and time that agree on the validity of the Christian bible how can it or it's views be disputed.

//I actually do raise objection to this point in that A)My opponent showed no reason why adultery was immoral or should be illegal and B)My opponent neglected to mention that adultery is illegal in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona[3]//

first point: When you are married you are in a binding contract with the person in which you are married to, to prove this point I refer you to divorce, If marriage was not a legal binding document there would be no reason for a court hearing for divorce, a person who violates this contract is in fact breaking the law as all contracts are to be followed as such.
second point: Adultery in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona has not been a punishable crime since 1965. and the United States adoption of the no fault divorce laws.

//My opponent next responds to my issue with how his solution would fix the abortion issue and why abortion is wrong In itself. My opponent responds with "I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another." I assume this means that we should love other living things. However people who support abortion sometimes claim that A)A fetus is not alive and B)Terminating the pregnancy is actually the merciful thing to do in some situations.//

I ask you what if you were that fetus. Would you then think it should be legal? All life is important, for without bees there would be no pollination, without it there would be no plant life, so just because they are not human they don't have to live? I ask you what is life? the realization that you are here, or the fact that electrical impulses travel from your brain through your body energising all parts of you creating heartbeats, motions, thoughts, feelings, etc. I now bring the point 18 days after conception a baby has a heartbeat,which proves an electrical signal is present proving life, which proves abortion is killing. This is a known fact, now there hasn't been enough scientific tests to tell us when the first electrical signals in the cells are present, but I would imagine long before that 18th day.
B) Albert Einstein was crazy, Galileo was mentally unstable, Steven Hawking has a serious disability, there are people all over the world with deliberating conditions that are lived with and those people have some of the most extraordinary lives. I am sorry if I find this claim completely ridiculous.

My opponent then brings an unexpected point. He claims that "All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us." And to prove this he claims that //"When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong"//

This is right I do claim that all men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, However I did not say that all men are made to follow that knowledge. We are all affected by temptation and peer pressure. it makes us make bad decisions,all people are fallible to a point, especially if a man like Hitler tells you if you don't do it you will be killed as well. I bring to you this point, If I were to ask 100 people if killing a person was wrong, how many would say yes? If I were to ask 100 people if stealing was wrong, how many people would say no?
//My opponent next claims that killing is immoral in every instance and that just because the victim is a baby does not make it any more right. However this contradicts my opponent's earlier claim that it was right to fight the Nazis and Hitler in that what they were doing was wrong. So either killing is right in some instances or it isn't. What is the fetus is killing the mother and that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the mother will die? You may love the fetus and the mother but the mother is the only living being and thus takes priority.//
1) If a single person threatens the existence of humans this person has already violated the law, therefore the decision was made to protect those people, and who made that decision, well the people that were being killed, just so happened that we agreed, therefore fighting and killing the Nazi's was a punishment mutually determined by the victims, and approved by the world. hence world war 2.
2) Who makes the decision? The Judge? No. The family, but wouldn't the families decision be bias? But their not capable of making that decision because they haven't been taught to make that decision? This is the claim that my opponent is making... His version of law allows court systems and judges to step in at any moment to decide the fate of you or your family or to even take the decision from you. Wouldn't you want a say. even if it was a bad decision there would be people there to make sure it wasn't wrong, say..... a Judge.
//My opponent claims that fraud is legal and claims that "I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal." However we do not have to believe my opponent in that all he brings is a personal anecdote and not any external evidence to prove his claim. This argument may be dropped until my opponent brings solid evidence in favor of his claim.//
But I did...http://www.nolanchart.com...... This time I will quote since my opponent didn't bother reading it. "Sometimes a parent, fearing a loss of control or custody over a child, crosses the ethically acceptable bounds of legal warfare. An unfortunate but all too frequently used tactic by mothers is to accuse the father of sexually molesting their child. The mere accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights and launch a criminal investigation. Even when no evidence is found to substantiate the allegation, family law courts typically "err on the side of caution" and award full custody to the mother. "..."The judicial system, likewise, responds to alleged child abusers swiftly and aggressively. " OUT OF ROOM think of this, how many people are falsely accused.
socialpinko

Con

//"Being on this subject I will further my claim by stating that the Tora, the Muslim bible, admits that the Christian bible is a work of god, It also states that Jesus did exist, but as a prophet not the son of God, I ask you if you have two religions on total opposite spectrum of today's date and time that agree on the validity of the Christian bible how can it or it's views be disputed."//

I do not see how this relates to our debate but I will respond anyway. Islam and Judaism agree on a lot of things. They both agree that an all knowing , all powerful, and all loving god exists. Can they both be right? They also both believe that one's life is best lived in accordance with their specific holybook. This is contradictory though in that you stated that since they both believe something, it should not be disputed. However their views are hugely similar in that they are monotheistic religions. They are bound to share details but this does not validate either of their claims about Jesus Christ.

//"The Christian bible is held in two eras, the new testament (current laws) and the old testament (old laws). I will grant my opponent one partial statement, Christianity did state that homosexuality should be punished by death, but I emphasize it did this in the old testament."//

You have stateed that killing a person based on their sexual preference alone was once moral but now is not. Why is this? Is it because god says so in which case you are basing your proposed change on Christianity and thus the similarities in religions are meaningless. Or is it because it was simply a law handed down by a god, in which case it should certainly not be the basis of law for people today in that a lot of people believe in no god and just claiming that god says so provides no rational justification for the rule.

//"first point: When you are married you are in a binding contract with the person in which you are married to, to prove this point I refer you to divorce, If marriage was not a legal binding document there would be no reason for a court hearing for divorce, a person who violates this contract is in fact breaking the law as all contracts are to be followed as such."//

Now you are bringing divorce into this? Marriage is a legally binding contract but there are of course conditions. One is not forced by the state to stay married to an abuser or with a rapist. Divorce is entirely within the realms of modern law.

//"second point: Adultery in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona has not been a punishable crime since 1965. and the United States adoption of the no fault divorce laws."//

First, it is still punishable with a fine depending on what state you live in and I thought you were talking about adultery. No fault divorce laws have nothing to do with it.

//"because they are not human they don't have to live?"//

Fetus' are not alive until they are born. I made this claim already and it went uncontested so it may be accepted. If everyone has the right to live then masturbation should be illegal women should never not be pregnant in that you are killing millions of potential lives by masturbating and women's eggs decay until menopause in which they can not have children. If they aren't always pregnant then those potential lies are lost.

//"B) Albert Einstein was crazy, Galileo was mentally unstable, Steven Hawking has a serious disability, there are people all over the world with deliberating conditions that are lived with and those people have some of the most extraordinary lives. I am sorry if I find this claim completely ridiculous."//

I must ask my opponent to clarify on this point further. If he is pointing out that all life has potential then I refer him to my last refutation.

My opponent then made a statement when bringing up a point he made about how everyone is born with the knowledge of right and wrong ingrained in them. When I pressed him for evidence he wrote this:

//"I bring to you this point, If I were to ask 100 people if killing a person was wrong, how many would say yes? If I were to ask 100 people if stealing was wrong, how many people would say no?"//

This is a logical fallacy. Argument ad populum. It does not prove that everyone is born with the knowledge of right and wrong, only that society teaches most that certain things are wrong.

//"1) If a single person threatens the existence of humans this person has already violated the law, therefore the decision was made to protect those people, and who made that decision, well the people that were being killed, just so happened that we agreed, therefore fighting and killing the Nazi's was a punishment mutually determined by the victims, and approved by the world. hence world war 2."//

My opponent claims that killing the Nazis was justified in that most people agreed it was right and it saved innocent lives. First, as I already pointed out before, popularity of an idea does not make it right and my opponent has yet to show why it is right. Second, my opponent is fine with killing to protect innocent life when it comes to war, but when it comes to where a mother will die if the baby is not aborted, my opponent stands strong in his conviction that it is immoral.

My opponent lastly claims that because people have been falsely accused of crimes, it is legally permissable to lie under the law. Of course he did not show that it was legal, only that the state is very strict with child molestation cases as it should be. While unfortunate that this does happen, it is not actually legal to do so.

I now await my opponent's responses.
Debate Round No. 4
calverley79

Pro

//1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.//
//My opponent lastly claims that because people have been falsely accused of crimes, it is legally permissible to lie under the law. Of course he did not show that it was legal, only that the state is very strict with child molestation cases as it should be. While unfortunate that this does happen, it is not actually legal to do so.//
In other words, it does happen regardless of perception of legal.

//2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.//
Is it not the Court systems job to protect the certain rights given to us by God. If our declaration of independence, the basis of our entire government system, is so bold as to mention the creator, why is it that our court system is not willing to even consider the creator, or the morals and values instilled by him/her, in the writings that they have given us?

//3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.//
My opponent brings a very democratic stance towards this statement, arguing that a judges knowledge of the law gives him unequally regarding his ability to make decisions. If all men are created equal as our declaration of independence states how can a judge be more equal than you or me in regards to making a decision. Isn't this a violation of the declaration of independence?
To All Those Reading. It seems we are out of time I leave you with this thought.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal(men and judges alike), that they are endowed by their Creator(God) with certain unalienable Rights(the right to have morals be judged in a courthouse), that among these are Life(without false accusation and persecution), Liberty(without fear of being punished falsely) and the pursuit of Happiness(without being falsely labeled by a court, and guilty parties walking free). "1
for
"2008
A Colorado judge ordered on January 22, 2008, the immediate release of Tim Masters after finding that exculpatory evidence had been withheld from his defense team. DNA research by Richard Eikelenboom from Independent Forensic Services in Nunspeet also cast doubt on his conviction with the Peggy Hettrick murder case in 1987 in Fort Collins. However, the DNA was that of the victim's boyfriend and may not be indicative of a crime.[55]
David Scott was released from prison after DNA evidence determined he was not the man who killed 89-year-old Loretta Keith of West Terre Haute.[56]
Lynn DeJac, convicted of killing her daughter, was exonerated after a judge overturned her conviction based on new DNA evidence implicating her former boyfriend in the killing.[57]
Rachel Jernigan, convicted of bank robbery in 2001, was released from prison after another woman confessed to the crime.[58]
Willie Earl Green, sent to prison in 1983 for the murder of a woman, was released after a change in testimony.[59]
Robert Gonzales, a mentally retarded man who falsely confessed to the slaying of an 11-year-old girl in 2005 was released from jail after a national database matched DNA in the case to another man in custody for another crime.[60]
Patrick Waller, who was convicted for a robbery in which four people were abducted and a woman was raped, has been exonerated.[61]
Raymond H. Jonassen spent four months in jail based on information that turned out to be false.[62]
Dean Cage was exonerated of a rape conviction after 14 years in prison.[63]
Walter Swift was wrongly convicted of raping a pregnant Detroit woman in 1982.[64]
Levon Junior "Bo" Jones, sentenced to death for the 1987 murder and robbery of Leamon Grady, was released after nearly 15 years in prison.[65]
James Lee Woodard was released from prison after DNA tests and changes in witness testimony proved that he did not rape and murder his 21-year-old girlfriend in 1980.[66]
Cynthia Sommer, convicted of killing her Marine husband with arsenic to pay for breast implants, was cleared after new tests showed no traces of poison.[67]
Thomas Clifford McGowan was freed after spending nearly 23 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.[68]
Nathaniel Hatchett, who spent 12 years in prison for rape, was released after prosecutors decided to drop charges based on DNA evidence that shows he was not the rapist.[69]
Glen Chapman, who spent 14 years on death row, was released after the District Attorney dismissed murder charges against him.[70]
Guy Randolph was exonerated by a court judge after the district attorney's office acknowledged that he had been wrongly convicted.[71]
Hattie Douglas's charge of murdering her 11-month-old son by poisoning him with alcohol was dismissed in May 2008. The murder charge was dropped after new tests cast doubt on the theory that the death of her son was caused by alcohol.[72]
Ada Joanne Taylor, Joseph White, Thomas Winslow, and three others were wrongly convicted in a murder and rape case[73] Ada Joanne Taylor confessed to police of being part of the crime after she was told that she would be the first woman to receive the death penalty in Nebraska.[74]
Arthur Johnson was exonerated after spending 15� years in jail.[75]
2009
Alan Beaman, convicted for the stabbing and strangling to death of his ex-girlfriend, was exonerated.[76]
Timothy Cole was convicted in 1985 for a rape he did not commit, he was posthumously exonerated in early February 2009 after serving 14 years. He died in prison in 1999.[77]
Thaddeus Jimenez spent more than 16 years in jail before his conviction was tossed.[78]
Sgt. Brian W. Foster's conviction for rape was overturned.[79]
Joseph R. Fears, Jr. was convicted in 1984 for two rapes. His sentence was overturned after DNA evidence proved that he didn't commit one of the rapes.[80]
Paul House was exonerated after spending 22 years on death row for murder.[81]
Joshua Kezer's 60 years prison sentence for second-degree murder was overturned. Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said: "The criminal justice system failed in the investigative and charging stage, it failed at trial, it failed at post-trial review and it failed during the appellate process."[82]
Bill Dillon's life sentence for murder was overturned. He was convicted in 1981 based on John Preston's testimony that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer's bloody t-shirt. However, a 2007 DNA test proved that Dillon's DNA did not match the DNA on the t-shirt. Hundreds of other convictions based on the alleged abilities of the same dog are now in doubt.[83]
Darryl Burton. Wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 24 years.[84]
2011
Cornelius Dupree was wrongfully convicted of rape and robbery and imprisoned for over 3 decades.[85] "2

And For all the others wrongfully convicted throughout the centuries that I couldn't fit in 8000 characters or less. These are just 30 of multiple hundreds of wrongfully accused persons in just 3 years.
I ask you, If these persons moral background was taken into consideration at the time of trial how many wouldn't have been falsely imprisoned? (just a side note, it took 32 reasons to petition for our independence from Britain.)(Yes God is mentioned in the declaration of independence, why not in courts?)

Read more:
1 http://wiki.answers.com...
2 Read more: http://www.answers.com...

I would like to say thank you to my opponent for this debate, it has been a pleasure discussing this topic with you. I look forward to the results.
socialpinko

Con

1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.

My opponent's claim that people are able to legally commit immoral acts was refuted when I showed that lying was considered fraud no matter where you go in the American judicial system. My opponent responded to this with:

//"In other words, it does happen regardless of perception of legal."//

My opponent's claim was refuted. He did not claim that the law was not effective enough, but that lying in the American judicial system was legal.

2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.

//"If our declaration of independence, the basis of our entire government system, is so bold as to mention the creator, why is it that our court system is not willing to even consider the creator, or the morals and values instilled by him/her, in the writings that they have given us?"//

Here my opponent brings a new point in the last round. I think it should not be used as it is abuse, however I will respond anyways. The DOI was a document in which our founding fathers told the country of England that they had been wronged and that they would be legally separating from that government. The DOI was not used to set up the American government. It was set up by our Constitution and the subsequent ammendments. If you would look at one of the ammendments to the constitution it reads:

//"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"//

This clearly shows that the founding fathers wanted to keep religion and government separate.

3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.

My opponent's last claim is that all men are equal and thus a judge has no more of a right to pass legal decisions than anyone else. This is the weirdest of all my opponent's contentions. By his own claim, drug lords ahould have the same rights as police officers. What right to police officers have to try and arrest drug lords if all men were created equal?

My opponent ends by showing numerous cases of people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes and later released. This does not help my opponent's case though in that he did not show why administering general religious law would have resulted in a different outcome for any of these people.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by calverley79 6 years ago
calverley79
Thanks for the help with this, I appreciate it, I am sure it will help me with my paper.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
calverley79socialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't show any benefits coming out of his reform.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
calverley79socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, you made some base claims to base your arguments on, but you never backed up those base claims, and so they were easy targets for Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
calverley79socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I think Pro might have made a case if he had shown that the Judiciary was imposing a moral code that differed substantially from the popular will, as demonstrated by polls. Pro didn't do that, but rather proposed a theocracy based upon his personal religious beliefs. It's a nonstarter.