The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
AndiiCutiee
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

taking oaths in court should be abolished

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...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 22993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

Oaths in court should be abolished. There are a couple of problems with taking oaths that contradict its purpose. I will be proving this.

1-acceptance
2-positions
3-rebuttals
4-summaries
AndiiCutiee

Con

Why is it that you believe this? I believe that oaths are beneficial. Here is my reasoning: Not to be stereotypical in any way, but the majority of convicts seem to be African-American or Mexican (I myself am African American). Many Mexicans and Blacks are relatively religious or at least have some belief in God. The oath which is sworn upon God and His book is defiantly an intimidating factor.
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

First let me state that race doesnt determine if your religious. Next the oaths taken in courts witch are usually religious are very flawed and doesnt guarantee truthfulness in court. witch brings me to this debate. The oath system is very flawed.

Oath: a solemn appeal to a deity, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one's determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.........http://dictionary.reference.com...


The oath system is contradictory if you don't have a religion.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (p 91)spends some time examining the question of the swearing of oaths. He is troubled not so much by the fact that the oath makes no sense but by its peculiar logic in special cases. The oath implicitly assumes, he claims, that people who do not believe in God are not truthful. Now, if those who do not believe in God are asked to take the oath they may fall into two categories: those who agree to take it, and those who do not. Ironically, those who do not believe in God but who swear an oath in his name have at that point committed their first act of perjury and in so doing have increased their own credibility before the court. On the other hand, those who do not believe in God and refuse to swear are either denied the chance to give testimony or risk having their testimony discounted, even though it is being produced by men who take their moral position more seriously than the ones just discussed. So among those who do not believe in God, the oath causes less truth to be produced in court than might otherwise be the case, rather than more, regardless of the way these people choose to behave. The court puts them in an impossible position with regard to giving honest testimony consistent with their own moral view of the world. This clearly runs counter to its purpose as a civil institution.

If im a atheist or I don't believe in god and if I affirm any oath in court then I have already contradicted the purpose of the oath and have lied. a typical oath goes like this; I do hereby solemnly swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god. The problem with this is that the courts automatically assume that were Christian and believe in god and accept the bible. So this allows atheists and other people to get one over on the judge so say. The purpose of an oath is provide a guilt system to the person taking the oath as to make them feel they are going to hell for lying or atleast that they are sinning. This will not work if I don't care about sinning,I reject teachings of god, or if I put my hand on the bible and swear but don't accept the bible,but as we can imagine people will go along with this and put a blanket over the judges head and create the illusion that they will feel guilt if they lie. They certainly will feel no religious guilt if they don't have one or care for that matter. Thus the oath system is contradictory and doesnt serve its purpose. So it should be abolished.


The bible witch oaths are based on, gives direction to not to take oaths.

These following scriptures clearly gives direction to not swear or you will be condemned by god.

James 5:12---But most of all, my brothers and sisters, never take an oath, by heaven or earth or anything else. Just say a simple yes or no, so that you will not sin and be condemned.

So since this obviously is direction from god to not take oaths, it is contradictory for the court system to be using oaths because Christians don't realize that what there doing is against gods word. So either if you lie or tell the truth under oath in actuality you are sinning from taking the oath alone. This is another reason why oaths arnt efficient nor does it guarantee its purpose.


Taking an oath doesnt guarantee that a person will tell the truth.

As we are all aware the persons in question could say they swear to tell the truth, but actually lie. Even if your religious or not the court should not use this to guarantee truthfulness because it cannot guarantee it. Oaths are not 100% effective. Courts know that an oath alone isnt reliable to ensure a person will tell the truth. Witch is why we need juries.

Judge Roderick Duncan admits that people lie in court even while under oath witch proves it isnt efficient............http://tenant.net...



So in conclusion these 3 things have been proven...........The oath system is contradictory if you don't have a religion. The bible witch oaths are based on, gives direction to not to take oaths. and lastly,Taking an oath doesnt guarantee that a person will tell the truth. For these reasons oaths in court should be abolished.




AndiiCutiee

Con

AndiiCutiee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Seeing as my opponent holds no contentiousness towards my points, they succeed, therefore since my points succeed without refutation I believe I should win this debate.
AndiiCutiee

Con

AndiiCutiee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AndiiCutiee

Con

AndiiCutiee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
This is going to be interesting. That posting by you has already benefitted my case.lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
frozen_eclipseAndiiCutieeTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was being dumb and not doing anything at all.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
frozen_eclipseAndiiCutieeTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by CON