The Instigator
griffinisright
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points
The Contender
philosopherpirate
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,009 times Debate No: 655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (32)

 

griffinisright

Pro

The ACLU is an organization that stands for all of the bad guys they support any freak that runs to them for help! such as the NAMBLA and other such anti american anti moral groups. the ACLU fights against Christianity and Judaism and all that is good in this country.

The ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois.

The ACLU fought to take down a cross on a World War II memorial saying it was forcefully shoving Christianity down people's thoughts.

In 1994 the ACLU fought against the people of California to give illegal Immigrants welfare, non emergency medical care, and public education and they won.

The ACLU supported the "Dream Act" which allows illegal immigrants pay instate tuition fees sometimes half the price that students from neighboring states have to pay.

The ACLU took the boy scouts to court because they swore allegiance to God and used public land for their events without paying for it.

The ACLU opposed parental notification of parents when their under aged daughter has an abortion.

Just to name a few...

Other than the fact that the ACLU has been defending evil since 1920 by standing up for murderers and pedophiles, removing the 10 commandments from the front of courthouses, and trying to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance they have also been hard at work trying to make Christmas illegal. The truth is the ACLU is ruining America and they need to be stopped one way or another!
philosopherpirate

Con

First, I will list the numerous instances of the ACLU doing something good and beneficial and then refute griffinisright's specific arguments.

1. Loving v. Virginia
-The ACLU successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, ending a terribly discriminatory and racist practice.

2. In 1925, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and in 1981, in Arkansas, the ACLU fought, unsuccessfully in 1925 and successfully in 1981, against the teaching of creationism and the Bible as fact in science classrooms

3. To those who think that the ACLU is only a radical liberal organization, they defended Colonel Oliver North, who was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, whose conviction was based on coerced testimony.

4. In 2006 the ACLU fought for the rights of Washington residents to access pro-gun and pro second amendment websites at public libraries. The North Central Regional Library District had blocked pro-gun websites and the ACLU, in conjunction with the Second Amendment foundation, argued that was a violation of library patron's first amendment rights.

The ACLU is a necessary organization in the United States because often it is the only organization willing or capable of fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and freedom from illegal and unconstitutional practices by the government. Often times the ACLU does this pro bono, meaning that the ACLU is often the only recourse the poor have against violation of their rights.

According to griffinisright, the ACLU:

"removing the 10 commandments from the front of courthouses "
-Good, if creating a giant monument to a specific set of religious beliefs that are found in a specific religious text in front of a government building is not the government establishing, or at least showing support for, a specific religion then I do not know what is. Griffinsiright may respond that the ten commandments are part of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam since they all incorporate the old testament. First, it is just as wrong to establish three official religions instead of one. Secondly, the obsession with the ten commandments is a uniquely Christian phenomenon. Muslims put much more focus onto the teachings of Muhammad than on the Old Testament and in the Jewish faith, there are hundreds of commandments given in the in the Torah (the Old Testament) and the Ten Commandments do not necessarily have a privileged place when compared to the other commandments.

"The ACLU opposed parental notification of parents when their under aged daughter has an abortion."
-It is difficult to address this without opening the whole can of worms that is the abortion debate, but I will try. Parental notification laws are to reproductive rights what poll taxes are to race laws. They are Jim Crow laws, for lack of a better term. By that, I mean they are at attempt to make abortion de facto illegal without violating the law that says that abortion is a right. Regardless of whether or not you think abortion is good, it is never acceptable for state governments to pass laws which are meant to undermine the laws of and rights guaranteed by the federal government. These laws make abortion de facto illegal because in many instances the parents would prevent the teenager from getting the abortion. Or, alternatively, the teenager would not seek an abortion because of reprisals from their parents. Even minors have rights that their parents cannot take away and parental notification laws end up denying a minor's the right to an abortion.

"The ACLU took the boy scouts to court because they swore allegiance to God and used public land for their events without paying for it. "
-The ACLU's argument was that religious organizations, specifically those that are discriminatory, should not receive preferential treatment in their access to federal land, simply the same access everyone else gets. That hardly seems to be evil.

"The ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois."
-While is is certainly not desirable to have Nazis march in Skokie, the only alternative would be allowing the government to ban unpopular forms of speech or banning particular forms or types of speech in specific locations. The alternative of banning the Nazis from marching would always be worse than allowing them to march.

I am not going to, at this time, present counter arguments against griffinisright's other instances of the ACLU supposedly "defending evil." He presents a grossly inadequate defense of hits own resolution. No where does he explain why what the ACLU is doing is evil. Giving health care and education to immigrants hardly seems "evil." Moreover, he seems to refuse to give a context or history or explanation for any of the ACLU's actions. Not doing so is profoundly lazy and unethical debating. His incomplete arguments rely on the ignorance and prejudices of the audience in order to achieve their effect. The only way his arguments could make sense to anyone is if they are already pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, and pro public displays of religion. Because of this, he should lose for two reasons. Firstly, such harmful arguments and debate practices should be punished. If an argument can only function if the audience is completely ignorant of the matter at hand and harbor certain prejudices then those arguments should be rejected on face. Good arguments firstly need to be explicitly explained and justified. The proof for an argument needs to be clear so that the audience can judge for themselves the strength of the argument and so I can refute it to the best of my ability. Furthermore, arguments should not rely on the audiences ignorance. Good arguments, good policies, and true beliefs can only come from informed argumentation that appeals to the knowledge. Since griffinisright's arguments only function if the audience is ignorant of the circumstances under which the examples he uses happen then his arguments should be rejected.

Secondly, his arguments are inadequate to defend his own resolution. One sentence claims cannot prove any point. Griffinisright should not be permitted to offer a sufficient defense of the resolution in any of his previous posts, that was his duty in the original post. Because he had an essentially unlimited amount of time to craft his arguments before posting them and starting the debate, he should be held to the highest argumentative standards. Moreover, I have a limited amount of time and a limited number of instances in which to respond to his arguments. If he is allowed to wait until his later posts that would have the effect of severing me out of my posts and hedging me out of the round. At best I would have a single opportunity to respond to his arguments which would be profoundly unfair and should also be a debate practice that must be rejected and punished at every instance.

Finally, griffinisright's single sentences exclude me from the debate because it takes me ten times as many words to explain the context and refuse the examples he presents as it took for him to give them in the first place. I was forced to delete some of my arguments because I was over the character limit. The length limits of debate.org posts prevent me from adequately explaining and refuting all of the barely explained arguments he brings up. Such unfair and unethical debate practices, like all such practices, should be punished by a loss because they prevent me from having an equal opportunity to win the debate.

As a corollary of the above argument, I reserve the right to offer refutation or further counter examples to any of griffinisright's arguments in the event that he provides proof for his arguments and an explanation for why the actions of the ACLU are evil.
Debate Round No. 1
griffinisright

Pro

Most importantly the debate is not a debate of if the ACLU has never supported any good,(I am sure they have)it also is not a debate of if they are a completely liberal orginization either.The topic up for debate is simply this,"the ACLU has been defending evil sense 1920"So the debate actually is a debate of,is and has the ACLU been defending evil?So if you want,you can continue to ramble on about all the wonderful things"you think they have done"But it is not going to do you any good.The debate is not about that.Like I said it is a debate of,is the ACLU defending evil?So until you can disprove that statement you will not be winning any debates.With that being said,the question that must arise is,"What is evil?"
Evil:In ethics, evil refers to intentional behavior,which does harm,is dishonest,or fails to honor agreements.In most cultures,evil is used to describe acts or thoughts which are contrary to an established religion,or which could bring about suffering and death—http://en.wikipedia.org...
Now considering this newly released information,ask your self again has the ACLU been defending evil?Take for instance Fumiko Kimura a Japanese woman who drowned her kids in Santa Monica California after learning that her husband was having an affair with another woman.After slaying her offspring Fumiko attempted to commit suicide by drowning herself before she was arrested.As all criminals in the U.S. she was given a trial and a liberal lawyer represented by the ACLU.The lawyer claimed her actions could be justified by a Japanese tradition or custom called "oyako-shinju", which is a parent child suicide.The ACLU won the case & Kimura was sentenced one year in prison and probation.Today this child suffocating murderer is a free woman, just as free as you & me,able to go any ware & do anything.How is this fair when Andrea Yates drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub & is now serving the rest of her life behind bars?How was Justice served?What about the Innocent blooded children who were killed.The ACLU didn't stand for them.How civil is that? How good is that?I wish I could say it was a rare case of this madness but it wasn't.In October of 1997 Jeffrey Curley was playing just outside his house in Cambridge,Massachusetts when two young homosexual men approached him. Jeffrey had been looking for his bike for sometime now,after it had turned up missing.The two young men asked Jeffrey what he was looking for and suggested that they could help him find it.Jeffrey told them.The men proceeded to help little Jeff find his bike.What Jeffrey didn't know is that the two men had stolen his bike & were using it to lure him in.After pretending to look for his bike for a few minuets they offered to buy the young lad a new bike all he had to do was ride along with them to the store so he could pick one out.What did poor Jeffrey know?He was just an honest kid in a deceitful world.So he got in their car & went along for the ride.On the way to"the store"the two gay men offered Jeffrey money in exchange for sex after he refused the men stuffed a rag doused in gasoline down the Child's throat & suffocated him to death.Then they took his corps back to their apartment and sodomized it. They molested this poor kids dead body.They disgraced him.I am not going to get into details on how these two gay lovers raped this you man you can figure it out yourself. & when their lustful,homosexual,pedophile needs had been met they then dumped Jeffrey Curley's lifeless abused body into a nearby river.
The Cambridge police found NAMBLA literature and a manual published by NAMBLA called"Rape and Escape"that,according to one eye witness,graphically details how pedophiles might lure,befriend,& rape a child,then avoid detection & prosecution.Charles Jaynes,One of the murderers was a member of this group called the NAMBLA which stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association(an organization who, you guessed it advocates sex with under age children)
Jeffrey's parents sued the NAMBLA for the part it played in their late sons death.Now I am sure you are thinking"what kind of person or organization in the right mind would defend such a sick scab on the face of society?"the ACLUthat's who.Free of charge too.The NAMBLA should have been put out of business & all of its members arrested after an incident like this but not as long as the ACLU has a breath in its body.They stood up for these pedophiles on the basis of freedom of speech.And the NAMBLA is still in business today handing out the same twisted literature that it gave to Charles Jaynes and his lover.
John Roberts,executive director of the ACLU branch in Massachusetts had this to say about the case,"while we join with all others in deploring the heinous crimes committed against Jeffrey Curley,two people have been convicted of his murder & are serving life sentences."
Ok stop right there.Don't you get a kick out of how the ACLU always offers such moving tribute to the victim?No one would ever know he was talking about the murder and rape of a 10year old boy.Is he suggesting that justice has been served?Bad guys are behind bars aren't they?NO!Not all of the bad guys are in jail the freaks in the NAMBLA are still running strong today.
Roberts also went on to say"I think it is fair to say that most people disagree with NAMBLA and that many would find its publishing's offensive.Regardless of weather people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views,holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important first amendment freedoms"
Why don't you give that canned speech to Jeffrey,tell Jeffrey about being in a grave buried under ground,tell Jeffrey about loosing his precious freedom,tell Jeffrey about standing up for the NAMBLA or did you forget Jeffrey was tortured,raped & murdered at the hands of two adults who just happened to fill their minds with NAMBLA material?
Here is the kicker,the ACLU requested that the judge put a gag order on the case.How amazingly ironic the ACLU,the self-appointed, self-righteous,high-&-mighty defenders of free speech(remember they defended NAMBLA on the grounds of free speech)would want to prohibit the grotesque details & truth of this trial from ever becoming heard by the public.
Now I have heard it argued that,"You and I have no right to bar these people from having a relationship if they truly like each other.The ACLU came to NAMBLA's defense because they wanted to stand-up for the Constitutional rights of the members of NAMBLA.Rape is definitely NOT encouraged by NAMBLA.On their web site it states."
"We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion.Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex.Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships.We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual,loving interaction between persons."
Problem with this argument is,according to their web site they do not agree with rape but their pamphlets not only promote it but they give detailed directions on how to get away with it with out being caught.They DO support rape.Go back and read the police report they are a two faced company!Of course they aren't going to tell people on their web site they promote rape they would get in trouble for that,but to a member or a person as sick as Charles Jaynes they would gladly tell them that.
Now I want you to be honest with me what do child murders & child rapists have in common?THEY ARE EVIL!How did I come to that conclusion?Go back and look at the definition of evil"does harm,is dishonest,","or which could bring about SUFFERING...AND...DEATH"I cant be 100%certain,but I would bet drowning and being raped brings about suffering not to mention death!Both cases the ACLU has defended.The truth of the matter is the ACLU has been defending evil!They have in the past and they continue to do so today!& these are just 2 cases that I had time to mention.
philosopherpirate

Con

Griffinisright argues:

"Most importantly the debate is not a debate of if the ACLU has never supported any good,(I am sure they have)it also is not a debate of if they are a completely liberal organization either. The topic up for debate is simply this,"the ACLU has been defending evil sense 1920" So the debate actually is a debate of, is and has the ACLU been defending evil? So if you want,you can continue to ramble on about all the wonderful things"you think they have done"But it is not going to do you any good. The debate is not about that. Like I said it is a debate of,is the ACLU defending evil? So until you can disprove that statement you will not be winning any debates."

This argument is just silly. To say that the ACLU defending good is not relevant to whether or not the ACLU defends evil is just wrong. At the point where I argue, and griffinisright completely ignores this that the things he says are "evil" are actually good then the ACLU is not defending evil, it is defending good. At the point where he ignores ALL of my first speech and even ignores his own original arguments I win this debate because all of my arguments go conceded.

Moreover, the way griffinisright has interpreted the resolution and debate seems to imply that all he has to do is prove one instance of the ACLU defending evil to win. As such, he feels he is free to ignore every other argument in the round with each new post because apparently every instance of the ACLU defending good is not relevant to whether or not it is defending evil. This way of approaching the debate is not only grammatically incorrect but makes for a very bad debate.

First, the statements of the sort "[insert noun here] has been [insert verb here] since 1920" can only be proven true by showing a pattern or habit of doing whatever the verb is. If someone said we have been nuking Japan since 1920 because we did it twice in 1945 they would be wrong. Griffinisright needs to show a pattern of the ACLU defending evil since 1920 which means showing many instances of the ACLU defending evil at multiple points throughout the last 87 years. As it stands, he has exactly two instances of the ACLU defending evil that are well enough explained to merit consideration. These two arguments, especially in the fact of the instances of the ACLU defending good I offered earlier that were ignored, are not enough to prove that the ACLU has been defending evil since 1920.
Secondly, the way he interprets the resolution means that he never has to respond to my arguments, only continually bring up new examples and if anyone of them goes unrefuted or insufficiently refuted then he thinks he should win the debate. If he never has to respond to any of my arguments, as he has yet to do, that is not a debate. That is me debating and him making a bunch of floating arguments that are not in response to any other point ever discussed. I am the only one debating here.

Moreover, it is incredibly unethical to make, for debaters, or to consider, for judges, arguments not made in the actual debate but in the comments section. There are limits on how long a post can be for a reason, it ensures an equitable playing field for the debate. As a result, the "argument" griffinisright makes in the comment section should be disregarded by everyone when it comes to evaluating this debate. I will not respond to the points he makes in the comments section because they are not part of the debate and I will not legitimize them as such. As a result, he should lost the debate right here and now. I argued that debates are competitions and, like all competitions, should be conducted in as fair a manner as possible. There are debating practices which are conducive to good, fair, and ethical debating and practices which are conducive to unfair, unethical, bad debating. And like any competition, good, fair, and ethical practices should be rewarded and unfair, unethical practices should be punished. At the point where griffinisright engages in not only sloppy argumentation, but unethical argumentation designed to prevent me from having the same ability to win this debate as he can (its called cheating) he should lose.

Finally, I will respond to his two new arguments.

In response to his first example, I think it is entirely appropriate to hold members of different cultures to their culture's standards instead of ours. Griffinisright's definition of evil says "In most cultures,evil is used to describe acts or thoughts which are contrary to an established religion" That Japanese woman was not acting contrary to the established religion of her home country and as a result, defending her would not be evil. The only alternative to holding people to the standards of their own culture would be to hold everyone to the standards of American culture, and that would always be much more evil than judging people by their own standards and beliefs.

In response to his second example, people should have a right to advocate illegal things. If we were not allowed to advocate illegal activities then that would stifle all ability to change the law. If it were illegal to advocate illegal activities then those who were arguing for women's right to vote in the early 1900's would have been jailed for advocating an illegal activity. While it is certainly not desirable that NAMBLA chooses to advocate the things it does, it would be arbitrary and a slippery slope to say that people can advocate some illegal things and not advocate others. While NAMBLA should have been found civilly or criminally liable in the rape of that young boy, they still had a right to do what they did and the ACLU was justified in defending NAMBLA's right to print and disseminate such information.

More than anything else. If you do not buy my defense of the ACLU's actions or that griffinisright's debating practices are unethical and unfair, he should lose the debate because he ignored my argument that he has so far failed to prove the resolution true. He needs to do it in his first post or lose the debate. Heck, he has even failed to do it in his second post. At the point where he has yet to make a cogent defense of his own resolution then he should lose the round right then and there.
Debate Round No. 2
griffinisright

Pro

"As a result, he should lost the debate right here and now." I am sorry but that just made me laugh! Any way I am not going to waist my debate discussing what a debate is as you have done in the last two posts, which is why I posted a comment below. If it doesn't have to do with the debate it doesn't belong in your argument section! WE ARE NOT DEBATING WHAT A DEBATE IS. If you want to debate that with someone that challenge them to a debate on what a debate is. But don't waist my time with your nonsense.

No on to the actual debate, I simply have two questions for you and I expect a yes or no answer not some "well it depends on the culture or the way you look at it" Kind of mumbo jumbo crap you have been giving me in the past. So here is the questions all you have to say is yes or no. 1) Do you as an American citizen think that rape is evil? 2) Do you think that in the United States Murder is to be considered evil?

"If we were not allowed to advocate illegal activities then that would stifle all ability to change the law. If it were illegal to advocate illegal activities then those who were arguing for women's right to vote in the early 1900's would have been jailed for advocating an illegal activity." It sounds to me that you are implying that there is a striking similarity to women rights advocates and rapists/ murders. The way you have that worded it almost sounds like you hope one day groups like the ACLU and NAMBLA will have fought hard enough to make murder and rape legal. This sounds like evil intentions to me, so now I know why you are debating in the ACLU's defense. You yourself enjoy the idea of a corrupt and evil America.

There is no sense arguing with you about something you enjoy so my argument to the people is this ACLU has been defending evil since 1920. Right from the beginning Roger Baldwin (an anti militarism who endorsed communist rule) and Crystal Eastman (a feminist, socialist, and pacifist) established the ACLU. Now you can debate that communism is not evil all day, but I strongly believe in its truest form it is. Look at communist China who executes people for simply having a page of the Bible! But I am not going to make that the base of my argument because it is an opinionated statement. And this debate is not about opinions it is about facts.

As I stated in my first argument, the ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois. Now I have a few more questions for you, 3)do you believe that Nazis are not evil? Yes or no? Killing Jews and other minorities seems to be evil to me. 4)How about illegal Immigrants, are they evil? I would say that their breaking the laws of this country by coming in here illegally can be considered to be evil because it is dishonest. Again going back to the definition I provided "which does harm, is dishonest, or…" The ACLU also fights tooth and nail to destroy Christianity like removing the 10 commandments, taking God out of the pledge and banning Christmas. All on the basis of the constitution giving us "freedom from religion" which is a lie in itself the constitution gives you the freedom OF religion NOT FROM religion. This country was established on the beliefs of Christianity weather you like it or not! Not one of our founding fathers disputed the fact that the Bible should be taught in schools so their kids would know ware their ethics come from. I am not saying that they were all Christians there were one or two who were not but they still backed the notion that the Bible should be at the core of our country. Our very constitution and laws were also founded on the teachings of the Bible. So don't try to pull your separation of church and state BS, It won't win with me! It never will. They are all lies and full of deceit! You can argue that the ACLU is just trying to not offend people by being politically correct and not saying Merry Christmas. 5)I ask you, which is more offensive the "peace on earth" or "good will towards men" rhetoric? It has nothing to do with being offensive! It has to do with the fact that it has Christ in it and after 2,000 years he is still intimidating people!

I don't want to get into abortion too much either because that is a different topic but seems the ACLU has opposed parental notification of adults when their under aged daughter has an abortion it is important to discuss. You can fight that abortion is not murder because it is not alive, so it is not evil but if it was then, why would the definition of an abortion be?; An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. http://en.wikipedia.org...
If it wasn't alive why would they use the word death? We know that only living things can die. And hiding something as big as a pregnancy from your parents sounds deceitful to me, after all if you are under 18 you are your parent or guardians responsibility, and they have the right to know ware you are and what you are doing. I also got a good kick out of how you brought up the fact that the ACLU defends the right to bear arms when you yourself are against gun rights! Seems to me you believe guns are evil or something. In that case you would be contradicting yourself on that one.

There are a lot of examples, and believe me there are many more so there goes your comment about me only having two examples. All of these I brought up in my last two arguments. But please answer my few questions regarding things being evil or not. After all, the ACLU did defend these things and many more over their 87 year history. So if you can prove that these things are not evil than you can win this debate. That's all the pressure that rests on you shoulders my friend so good luck! It has been a pleasure debating you good luck in all of your future debates and Merry Christmas!

PS: NOTE: to philosopherp irate First off in your next debate please don't waist your time defending what you believe a debate is. Almost half of your "debate" you spent boarding the audience with your negative viewpoints about debate.org and criticising my style of debate instead of actually staying on topic and discussing the matter at hand, you said and I quote, "The length limits of debate.org posts prevent me from adequately explaining and refuting all of the barely explained arguments he brings up. Such unfair and unethical debate practices, like all such practices, should be punished by a loss because they prevent me from having an equal opportunity to win the debate." Look Mack if you don't like debate.org that much than don't use it. Secondly you accepted the challenge to a debate so don't complain that I have an "unfair advantage" because I had the opening argument, after all you get the last word. So quit crying and spilled milk and stand up for your cause.
philosopherpirate

Con

Thats cool that griffinisright wants to engage is misspelled ad hom. attacks and straw man arguments but I am going to keep this debate on a professional level.

Griffinisright asks a couple questions and says he expects a yes or no answer. I do not care what griffinisright expects because his questions over simplify the issue to the point of destroying the intellectual context of this debate.

I am unsure of what the first two questions have to do with anything in this debate. If griffinisright can explain what relevance they have to the debate I may answer them.

"It sounds to me that you are implying that there is a striking similarity to women rights advocates and rapists/ murders. The way you have that worded it almost sounds like you hope one day groups like the ACLU and NAMBLA will have fought hard enough to make murder and rape legal. This sounds like evil intentions to me, so now I know why you are debating in the ACLU's defense. You yourself enjoy the idea of a corrupt and evil America. "

-This is an offensive attack against me personally that ignores the arguments I made. Griffinisright seems to think that discussing the debate we are having is irrelevant to the debate we are having. But in reality all of his attacks against me are not only entirely irrelevant to the debate we are having but are indicative of the sloppy, unethical debate I accused him of engaging in earlier.

In response to his third question, I refuse to answer it because it is a purposeful misunderstanding of my original argument. Its not a matter of whether or not I agree with what Nazis advocate, its a matter of whether or not they have a right to march and assemble public ally. Regardless of what I think about the Nazis, they have just as much a right to assemble and march as any other group. As I argued earlier, it would be disastrous, and quite evil, to outlaw unpopular speech. The ACLU, by defending unpopular speech, is a good organization.

In response to his fourth question. Illegal immigrants are not evil. Breaking the law is not necessarily evil because it is possible for laws to be unjust. Breaking unjust laws, as I believe illegal immigrants do, is not evil. Furthermore, I refuse to abide by a wikipedia definition of evil. The greatest minds of humankind have been debating what is evil for thousands of years and I refuse to let it be simplified down to what wikipedia has to say about it because griffinisright cant be bothered to look anywhere else.

Dishonesty is not evil. There are many instances in which dishonesty can be, if not good, at least not evil. Sometimes the government needs to lie to protect national security secrets. It can be at least not evil if not good to lie to protect a friends feelings.

"The ACLU also fights tooth and nail to destroy Christianity like removing the 10 commandments, taking God out of the pledge and banning Christmas"

The existence of Christianity does not rely is in no way related to whether or not there is a ten commandments display in front of certain courthouses, or is it dependent upon the words "under god" being in the pledge of allegiance. Christianity is a rich and vibrant religion that is based around a personal connection between a person, their faith, and Jesus Christ. The focus on such temporal icons like giant stone monuments sounds a lot like creating false idols and graven images (one of the ten commandments, look it up.) Furthermore, since griffinisright thinks that the ten commandments and the phrase "under god" are specifically Christian, then I do not need to win the argument about "freedom from religion," because the government putting up the ten commandments is establishing Christianity as the official state religion and that is certainly uncostitutional.

Also, the freedom of religion necessarily implies a freedom from religion. If I am a Jew then I have the right to be free from having Christian beliefs imposed on me. If I am a Christian then I have the right to be free from Islam. You cannot be free to practice your faith if you are not free from others imposing their faith on you.

"This country was established on the beliefs of Christianity weather you like it or not! Not one of our founding fathers disputed the fact that the Bible should be taught in schools so their kids would know ware their ethics come from. I am not saying that they were all Christians there were one or two who were not but they still backed the notion that the Bible should be at the core of our country."

-This argument is incorrect in so many ways that it would take me a whole 'nother post to answer it. All I will say about it is that it is irrelevant because what the founding fathers did or did not do is not relevant to whether or not the ACLU defends evil. Any argument he makes about them will commit the naturalistic fallacy by deriving an ought, a claim about what is evil, from an is, what the foundind fathers did.

"So don't try to pull your separation of church and state BS, It won't win with me! It never will. They are all lies and full of deceit!"

-I really don't care what you think or what will "win with [you]" because I am debating for the judges and people who are reading this debate. Whether or not you are convinced to change your mind at the end of this debate is irrelevant to.....everything.

"I also got a good kick out of how you brought up the fact that the ACLU defends the right to bear arms when you yourself are against gun rights! Seems to me you believe guns are evil or something. In that case you would be contradicting yourself on that one."

-What I believe personally is immaterial to this debate. All that matters is what is presented in this debate. Moreover, the ACLU fought for the right of people to access pro-gun literature, something I do personally agree with. The point of my argument was that despite your insistence that this debate is not about whether or not the ACLU is a liberal organization, you seem to be a very conservative person and are angry at the ACLU because they are a liberal organization and defend what you perceive to be liberal points of view. I attempted to show that the ACLU is not a liberal organization but a pro-rights and pro-constitution organization.

"There are a lot of examples, and believe me there are many more so there goes your comment about me only having two examples."

-Then give them. I have constantly engaged griffinisright's examples while he has refused to engage me in mine. When he does not respond to my arguments but I respond to his, I should win the debate, or at least be far ahead.

Finally, I will not ignore my meta-debate arguments. Firstly, I have given plenty of reasons as to why they should be considered and griffinsiright has not answered them. Just as a referee penalizes a team in a sport can penalize a team for cheating or playing the game unfairly, you, the judges, should penalize griffinisright for not only cheating but debating unethically and sloppily. Secondly, debate is a unique activity in that it is self-reflective, meaning that we can discuss the debate we are having as we have it. If we do not discuss the debate we are having than that will ensure bad debates in the future because we never stop and reflect on what is good debate. Griffinisright 1. engages in personal attacks against me, not only is this extremely poor argumentation, it is against the rules of debate.org 2. he has yet to ever offer a sufficient defense of his own resolution, that means he loses 3. the arguments he does make are unethical in that they ignore or purposefully misinterpret my arguments and are designed to give him an unfair advantage over me. This sort of argumentation should not be permitted and should merit a loss in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benames75 9 years ago
benames75
Preach it Jessica! Preach it!...
Posted by jessica.spangler 9 years ago
jessica.spangler
I voted for pro. In fact I honestly do not understand how Con got any votes. This is a debate about facts. I had a hard time reading all of Cons arguments because many of them were off topic. And just so you know con the definitions that Pro gave for abortion and evil are not just from "wikipedia" I actually checked several different dictionary's old and new and all of them conveyed the same idea using the same key words. Maybe next time you are going to accept a challenge to a debate you should pay closer attention to the topic and fight to prove it to be false instead of twisting the topic. ie the only argument you did put forth was when you listed good things the ACLU has done. But as Pro stated this debate is not "The ACLU has never done good things" Thank you Pro I actually did not know much about the ACLU before reading your debate.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"evil"?

It is naive to use the word "evil" in the header...It is to vague...also saying "bad guys", is a tad childish.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I voted pro for a simple reason: The ACLU HAS been defending evil since 1920.
Posted by dirtycommiepig 9 years ago
dirtycommiepig
I didn't vote for either party because I felt that Philosopherpirate was taking up too much of his arguments with reasons why Griffin should be disqualified. Neither party was addressing the points of the previous post.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
I voted for Philoso because Griffin twisted a lot of the arguments around to fit his debate, and I think that its wrong and ignorant to look at a complex case like the ACLU fighting against the Boy Scouts (for being discriminatory yet supported in a public school system) without actually delving into the arguments.

A good debater will analyse, not twist facts around or cherry pick at the facts.

See Lucian's comment.
Posted by philosopherpirate 9 years ago
philosopherpirate
could people who are voting briefly post their reason for voting what way they did in the comment section? It would be most helpful and interesting.
Posted by lucianmidnight 9 years ago
lucianmidnight
You people crack me up. You've obviously never studied law or civil rights. The fact that you all think you've made profound points is borderline disturbing. You've merely taken flawed rhetoric (as peddled by the Christian right) and synthesized it into a post.

First, the ACLU defends Christians constantly. Just because James Dobson doesn't tell you about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Here is a site with actual verifiable case info, since you all don't seem that intent on doing research to actually back up any points:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com...

Next, as to the question of "evil," it's so reassuring to see that fine young conservatives believe that unpopular views and political dissent (not matter how repugnant) shouldn't be allowed. Just because the ACLU defending Nazi's gets a lot of publicity (whereas the thousands of smaller civil rights cases they've fought do not), doesn't mean they defend "evil". I find it especially ironic that the debater points out that the ACLU has "probably" defended good causes, but seems to maintain that they defend evil. By that definition, any organization who has ever defended anyone deviant of mainstream America has defended evil. That's virtually every Christian church, the NRA, the GOP and DNC, the Red Cross, and the American People.

The fact is that the ACLU doesn't defend an IDEOLOGY or ETHOS, they defend the Bill of Rights. So, ostensibly, you're calling the Bill of Rights evil. Congratulations, you hate America. This would all be fairly obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking.
Posted by philosopherpirate 9 years ago
philosopherpirate
Attacking how someone debates in particular instance is not attacking them personally. There is a difference between someone and their arguments and I drew that distinction and he did not. I know dozens of people who engage in debate practices I personally find unethical or unfair and still think they are fantastic, nice, intelligent people.

And in response to ishamael_89, I know I am not in a c-x round and I know people are unlikely to vote for abuse stories and procedural arguments on debate.org, but its still fun to argue them isnt it?
Posted by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
Griffinisright, I personally think you are right and that the ACLU is scum from the depths of the earth.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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: Pro near the end stooped to personal attacks and baseless claims.
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by silentwitness 9 years ago
silentwitness
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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 magpie 9 years ago
magpie
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by benames75 9 years ago
benames75
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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 jessica.spangler 9 years ago
jessica.spangler
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
griffinisrightphilosopherpirateTied
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