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

The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,886 times Debate No: 102744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)




The con will argue that the first amendment should not be fixed and is the way it should be.
Waiting for a con

Free speech should be limited and religion should be removed from the first amendment and all of society because there was a video warning that liberals would do protests called "Impeachment Protests" on July 2nd

Religion should be removed because here is the truth:
(1) Jesus Christ is not real, he never existed
(2) Children are being killed for not conforming to their beliefs like ISIS, Adolf Hitler, and Christian churches (for not believing in Christmas) also, there is a video about a Christian threatening women and children acts of torture for not comforming to their beliefs:
(3) All Religions are dishonest, unreliable, and make fake forgery accounts trying to conform mythology with modern day history like the Roman Empire.


Hello, I'm David! This is my first time doing a debate! I personally think the first amendment is perfectly okay, so I'm going to debunk The Instigator! Good luck, and here we go!

(1) You may say that Jesus Christ isn't real, but that's a matter of opinion. Many people believe in Jesus Christ, and many people don't. It just matters what you think.

(2) First of all, ISIS is a terrorist group, not part of America. You must remember that the First Amendment only applies for the USA. Other countries might not have a law similar to the First Amendment. (I know the First Amendment isn't a law, but not all countries use a Bill of Rights.) The same goes Hitler. He wasn't a part of the USA. He was a German man with racist, sexist, and religious beliefs. Also, where did the Christian killing the children take place at? The Bill of Rights might not apply in the place where it happened.

(3) Once again with the opinions. Opinions and facts are two different things, you must remember.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, The statement that Jesus does not exist is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.

Second of all, I never said that ISIS was a part of America, ISIS was just an example of why the first amendment should be fixed, like what happened at San Bernadino, as shown in this link here:
We have ISIS inspired Americans caught in this country trying to leave the country join ISIS, but they fail trying.

Hitler is another example, but not in America, because what if we enforced the belief on Christianity so hard, that we start killing people and children of different religions, race, and beliefs.
Like what Hitler did in The Holocaust, as shown in this link here:

Just because a belief in Jesus Christ is somewhat popular, doesn't make the fact that Jesus does not exist a "matter of opinion" that just means that you're delusional, so in fact, that you believe that Jesus Christ exists.


(1) Where is your proof that Jesus isn't real? Here's my proof right here:

(2) As I said before, ISIS doesn't obey the Bill of Rights or any laws, for that matter. They are terrorists. What you're saying is because they attack us because they don't agree with our system and laws, we should change them. That makes no sense. I believe that the First Amendment shouldn't change just because of ISIS.

(3) Actually, Hitler and the Holocaust had nothing to do with Christianity. If you did more research, you would of saw Hitler only hated people that won't part of the "prefect race", meaning you had white skin, blonde hair, tall, and blue eyes. However, they saw the Jews as leeches, sucking off of the prefect race. (Evidence:

(4) Popularity doesn't have nothing to do with it. Christianity just brings hope. Delusional would be believing that rape is ok, bud.
Debate Round No. 2


Here is my proof that Jesus does not exist:
To tell me to give evidence that Jesus doesn't exist is irrelevant and pointless, it's like saying "Give me evidence that leprechauns don't exist" it has nothing to do with the first amendment, but everything with skepticism
Yes, we should limit free speech because there could be a chance that someone who is inspired by ISIS would carry out attacks in America or behead Americans, which is a threat to society. You don't see that some of these people could kill innocent people like you, you fail to admit to that. How would someone like "Jesus" ever exist if you don't legitimately see him in the sky, you only see clouds and the sky. I know that ISIS is not apart of America, but it is attached to the minds of some brainwashed radicalized American.
You fail to see that there are some Americans that are inspired by ISIS.
Instead of spelling perfect right, you put prefect, which is a spelling error.


(1) Well, you bought up the matter of Jesus. Also, he was a living person. Even atheists agree that Jesus was alive, although he could of not had powers or been the child of God.

(2) How would limiting free speech stop ISIS!? If we're limiting free speech, we're letting ISIS win. Plus, even if we did limit free speech, people would still be inspired by ISIS. There's really no stopping that, unless if we don't mention ISIS at all.

(3) It may be true that you can't see Jesus, but think about this. You can't see air, yet we know it's there. We can't see anything that has 4 dimensions, yet we know it exists. Plus, Jesus just doesn't stay in the clouds. He's everywhere.

(4) Brainwashed Americans? Now I know you're crazy. ISIS isn't just a ton of brainwashed Americans. They're people from Iraq who disagree with the American law. Brainwashing has nothing to do with Iraq, sir.
Debate Round No. 3


"(1) Well, you bought up the matter of Jesus. Also, he was a living person. Even atheists agree that Jesus was alive, although he could of not had powers or been the child of God.;
Wikipedia isn't always a good source of evidence
You are delusional, Though you said "he is not in the clouds" but are you serious when you were saying that he is everywhere? Because you didn't bring any evidence to back up your assertion. He was not a living person, he was just a myth. God is just a myth too.
There are churches in America where children are slaughtered for not believing in Christmas just like ISIS slaughtering innocent Egyptians for not comforming to Islam. Don't ignore
Link of evidence:
(2) American Child Massacre (Churches Slaughter Innocent Children for not believing in Christmas):


(1) You're absolutely right. You can't always trust Wikipedia. But my opponent forgot to realize that HE too used Wikipedia to back up some of his info. So that means that some of his info might not be true neither. Also, if I can't use Wikipedia, here are other websites to support my claim.

(2) Wow, we're not even talking about the First Amendment anymore. I guess it might be my fault for trying to support my God. Anyways, I see that this debate is pretty much over. I wish my opponent good luck once again, I'm sorry if I insulted him at all, and may the best debater (Is that a word?) win!
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
This debate has a flaw in basic principle. To explain the flaw in detail simply, any law can be written so it can never be broke. How does this type of repair or fix of a law shape itself, is it legal or is it in an illegal to fix a law so it can never be broken? Does it make some-one commit a crime or less crime?
BryanMullinsNOCHRISMASTMAS2 is expressing a grievance to the general welfare. I"m not saying right or wrong on the grievance that is being described by him.

Like I said hopefully I am giving United States Constitutional representation. A petition in some way of new Amendment due to facts shown of broke First Amendment may be I order. Can basic principle and legal precedent be written to alienate the point which must form a state? By test of law.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
@John_C_1812 Not sure what you mean by that, but thanks. Message me if you need one of my votes (though I can't guarantee it'll be in your favor, as I try to take arguments into account).
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
As a wise but young adult your support for the debate process is honorable.
I am under the impression that you may one day be found content, or have been instructed to be content by political process that the United States Constitution go unrepresented. The United States Constitution along with the First Amendment are by fact both press, writing on paper, in the said broken amendment, with the introduction or use of the First Amendment, they must both be honored, meaning the United States judicial separation or the first written change made on it, the amendment is not a grievance as implied by many, as the separation process is held in tacked inside press and can still hold no pubic self-value as evidence unless it is given public representation.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISMAS2 it is an excellent debate a piece of Constitutional advice. Is it possible the First Amendment is missing something by State of the Union of basic principle and legal precedent which creates the optical allusion it is broken?
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Again Crazy456Rhino the debate is Constitutional flawed in basic principle and application of legal precedent. As it is challenging the United States Constitution and its First Amendment, as being broken, so a common defense is required. In this understanding a First Amendment violation is made by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2. The accusation of the legitimacy of Jesus is not debatable unless he describes one. He did. Any child who is murdered is a witness description to establish a generic Jesus.
In regard to the first Amendment Religions are not dishonest the proof he is saying is that religions are in fact free. Meaning they are without any self-value, It is this fact and only the people in a religion who may be proved to be dishonest. The guilt of people is unconstitutionally being transferred to religious state that unites the congregation.

No BryanMullinsNOCHRISMASS2, the non-existence of Jesus is not fact. You Bryan are associating the unconstitutional death of a child as Jesus. The point of this distraction is acting as a limit on other facts and redirects religious notion, Jesus is not a universal law of nature which would explain Jesus with a limit on a person"s ability to create a Jesus were there once was non, to try and prove a point of state.
This is in direct contradiction to scripture that has a limit as witnessed by accounts describing Jesus as a Criminal of an unknown complex crime, claim to title son of GOD, or possibly, sun as Light of GOD, who had been sentenced to death. The nature of the Crime withheld from the public for whatever reasoning.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
I'm glad you took my suggestion for making 4 round debates, Bryan. Just need to work on arguments, and I'll be voting in favor of you more. (You could also make a rule that BoP is shared.)
Posted by Crazy456Rhino 3 years ago
@BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 First of all, both of those roughly mean the same thing. The Bill of Rights are laws, and ISIS doesn't follow the law. Also, speaking of hypocrites, you kinda are one. Just read my argument I just posted. -_-
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Con the First Amendment applies globally it is an open test by law The United States Constitutional separation process holds the sponsorship of this test by basic principle and legal precedent of law.
If you are in fact will to place effort to structure an answer to the test an impartial Court would here such grievance. If grievance is not granted by Congressional petition, an open declaration of independence can be made public on behalf the United States Constitution as a common defense. This is not free speech it is the liberty of Speech as a self"value is declared as a common defense to the United State of Constitution.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Due to fact that the United States Constitutional separation process is challenged by way of first Amendment.

Constitutionally the existence of Jesus is not an incidental it is a contingent of the establishment of a representable GOD. One such as an axiom or another religious claim marking GOD as a fact that is incapable of producing human offspring of any kind.

This does not limit the existence of Jesus, only the fact any human claim to a lordship on Jesus behalf to GOD as simply being a living relative. Which is really expressing the confession made in scripture as to why Jesus crime had been so complicated that other criminals didn"t even understand it nature.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
@Tree_Of_Death those two religions are dishonest too, because no god ever exists

@TheUnexaminedLife no wonder you're called "The Unexamined Life" is because your assertions are Unexamined and impossible to prove.

Jesus still does not exist, you illusion all hypocrite
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
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: So the resolution is "The first amendment should be fixed". Though since Pro believes it should be fixed, there must be a problem with it. Pro says there's a video warning that liberals would protest. He then says religion should be removed, but I'm not sure how that ties in to the First Amendment being wrong. Ultimately, there's no reason given for why the First Amendment should be fixed. He had to show what was wrong with the amendment, and what it should be changed to in order for me to vote for him. His argument has one huge gap. Con fell into Pro's red herring regarding religion, though, so he doesn't have any arguments. But seeing as how there's nothing wrong in the First Amendment, there's no reason for it to be changed, ergo Con wins. (If you feel my vote's insufficient, let me know. It's kind of hard, since no on-topic arguments were given.)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.