I think your comments have pretty much established that you are only hearing and talking to yourself. I am not debating this any longer. My vote stands as it is.
That is not how science works. If you share DNA with species of an animal regardless of the amount, this can only happen if you are related to said animal on a genetic level, which makes you also an animal. Again, what causes me to vote for the Pro is that they based their arguments on backup scientific evidence, which Trumps any dictionary arguments you made. And since you did not refute the evidence Pro provided, that is considered in a professional debate as consenting to that point. Also, the Criteria asks who gave BETTER sources, not the amount. Nothing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
Sir, I viewed both of your debates. Pro used Oxford University's definition of an animal as a living organism that feeds on organic matter. In addition, he gave another source that proves that we share DNA with other animals. Your sources come from purely word-based definitions, not scientific ones. You also tried using behavioral differences, which does not work as a species is not purely defined by behavior. You also seem to be unaware of the law of contradiction. You cannot share DNA with an animal and not be an animal yourself.
Regardless, the fact remains that The Pro established their stance based on science, whereas you established your argument based on the dictionary. Hence, your lack of scientific rebuttal and overreliance on irrelevant word definitions resulted in my vote.
You do realize that by your own admission. You purposefully made an unfair vote that was outside the criteria. I fail to see the validity in getting upset for being called out on actions you have been WARNED ahead of time not to do. Frankly, it says a lot about your character. To be warned that toxic behavior will not be tolerated, and yet you still do it anyway to be a dick. Completely unrespectable.
I think the vote TWS1405_2 is unfair because he claims I am "pro-criminal." And does not give any reasons for his vote. For example. He claims that Con did better conduct. But Con nor I disrespected each other in the debate. We both acted professionally. Overall I think it's clear that the vote was made with a clear bias; as I said, he would do rather than an honest vote based on the arguments.
Sir, you only said that AFTER I told you, I would tell the Mods about your conduct. Before that, every previous request to vote based on criteria and not personal opinion was ignored. So no, I did not lie. You also claimed I would lose long before you said you could vote as long as it was in the criteria. Cleary, your attempts at calling me a liar have failed.
Sir, you see why I am concerned? I have never once said that TWS1405_2 could not vote. However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would, he has all but assured me "you will lose," Which is biased and not fair to Con or Me. He also made it clear that he is against me not because I presented a bad argument but because he thinks his past experiences make him more knowledgeable on the subject, which is not what he, as a voter, is supposed to vote based on.
It is not that he has to vote for me necessarily. It is simply that I do not think he is being fair or even evaluating my argument, as he called them "weak" with no supporting evidence before proceeding to insult me for no reason. I only ask for a fair vote based on the arguments and evidence presented.
I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria. You have not addressed any of the points I made besides baselessly calling them weak and made it clear through your own hostile demeanor that your vote will not be in a logical manner. Still, rather a biased one, and have repeatedly made it abundant that you lack the maturity to have civilized conduct. In short sit, you are a living example of a lack of integrity. To allow you to vote when you display a clear lack of understanding of the rules of professional debating would defeat the very purpose of professional debating. You are meant to vote not on personal bias, hatred, or because you don't like someone.
You vote based on who presents a better argument, legibility, sources, and conduct. I have asked you repeatedly to conduct your vote in the manner prescribed, and you have not only refused to do so but made it clear that you intend to vote against me out of spite, which is unfair to Con and me. You can vote; however, the Mods are now aware of your intentions, and should you cast a vote and the reason for it is not thorough and based purely on the arguments presented, I will report it again, and the Mods will intervene. It is not hard to act as an Adult. All this anger is one-sided, and you are the source of the issue, sir; please stop being toxic and actually let the debate be fair and fun. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the disrespectful comment that has been reported. I have also gone ahead and let a Moderator know about this discussion, your conduct, and the confirmation of your bias should you attempt to vote. Good day.
Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective. Making claims with no evidence is called hearsay. Whether you have a degree in criminology or have worked in the justice system has no relevance. As a voter, your job is to vote solely on the criteria given, which is not meant to be based on opinion, experience, or past work history. Only better arguments, Legibility, sources, and conduct. Are you able to do so, sir? Because this discussion has so far revealed, you to be, in fact, immature, biased, and above all disrespectful. I am very tempted to notify moderators of your conduct and warn them of your unfair biases. But I want to be fair, so are you willing to act right, or will you be biased and disrespectful?
You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion, especially when You make it clear it is coming from the perspective of someone who hires people. My main argument in this debate has been to prove that background checks that allow businesses and landowners to discriminate against those who try to find housing and employment should not be permitted.
I have presented strong arguments showing that over 70% of post-bail jobs are negatively impacted. Additionally, I showed that the denial of proper employment and housing, which happens to millions of Americans with criminals, results in over 44% not lasting a year before reoffending. If you have read my submitted evidence and still say more is needed to convince you. Then you have no intention of considering my arguments in any serious capacity.
Secondly, You claim "on has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweigh the benefit." Yet Con's sources only demonstrate that should a company hire the wrong person; The company can face litigation. It does nothing in terms of addressing the points that I have made. Points that you seem to ignore as well, I might add. As far as risks outweighing The benefits is concerned, the fact that you will take the cons' side when all they have shown in terms of risk is civil lawsuits but completely ignore my risks which include the resurgence of crime and the inability of ex-cons to survive past a year before committing crimes again. Only serve to prove that you are not being fair in this debate when voting.
This is especially true when you consider the fact Con so far has not addressed the landowner portion of my arguments and only partially when it comes to employment. Even then, it is hardly a rebuttal as they address none of the stats that prove my points and instead say that since people have to consent to a background check, lawsuits can occur if the wrong person is hired. That, if anything, makes Con's argument weak and rebuttals non-existent. I am not saying you should not vote for Con. But what I am saying is to vote not based on personal opinion like you have clearly demonstrated up to this point; vote best on the arguments themselves. If I am pulling sources and staying consistent and my opponent has not rebuttable or even addressed the points I made. Then they have clearly not made the better argument. Be fair, not biased, is all I ask.
I understand that opinions vary regarding the cause of the war, and not everyone believes it was solely due to slavery. However, I am only interested in a serious and professional debate. Anyone with a basic education in history knows that the war started for one of two reasons: 1) The South feared that Lincoln's presidency threatened the institution of slavery, making it the central reason, or 2) Southern states felt the need to secede because they believed their states' rights were being oppressed by the Federal government. Any other view is not based on the history of the civil war and is thus ignorant.
I'm sorry that my rules do not allow for ignorant and baseless assertions to be argued on but I am not interested in hearing nonsense I am interested in debating in a serious and professional manner, Since that does not seem to be your criteria then the debate is not for you then simple as that.
No one has challenged it yet and the time in between arguments is three days apart so you should have plenty of time if you are interested in debating this.
Your claim is illogical, as the slave trade in America was racially motivated and not related to Jewish matters. Furthermore, the primary debate surrounding the American Civil War for the past century has been whether slavery was the main cause or if it was due to the federal government forcing the South to secede in defense of its rights. Consequently, I am perplexed by your expectation for me to create a narrative that is not only false but also historically inaccurate, just as you are uncertain about why I should make Con argue that the Confederacy fought for states' rights instead of slavery.
"Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life."
I'm afraid that's incorrect. The Constitution doesn't state that depriving someone of life is unconstitutional; it only asserts that loss of life, limb, or liberty without due process is unconstitutional. Additionally, this applies solely to US citizens, and since citizenship begins at birth, unborn children do not meet this criterion.
Additionally, despite the scientific evidence that a fetus is alive, the US Constitution neither mentions nor prohibits abortion. States determine the legality of abortion, and even in states where it is illegal, women who have unlawful abortions are not charged with murder. While you are entitled to view abortion as a murderous act, current federal and state laws do not align with this perspective.
"The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed."
The Declaration of Independence is unrelated to the civil rights listed in the US Constitution because the former was written in 1776, primarily for the purpose of announcing and justifying the separation of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. In contrast, the US Constitution was drafted in 1789 to replace the Articles of Confederation, which failed to maintain a stable government for more than a decade. Consequently, nothing written in the Declaration of Independence serves as a basis for the US Constitution and vice versa. It is essential to understand this distinction before making claims about civil rights.
"The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification."
This statement is entirely incorrect, as the Constitution explicitly states otherwise. "The Congress shall have the Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/ Take time to review your understanding of the US Constitution before making bold claims, such as it not mentioning any justifications for the laws it contains.
" That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing."
In reality, you are making baseless statements about a constitution that, according to your own testimony, is not based on the Constitution itself but on unrelated sources. This is why you make false claims, such as the laws in the Constitution not justifying themselves, which I have debunked using the Necessary and Proper Clause found in the US Constitution itself.
"So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution? You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from the belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?"
My evidence is that the Constitution's language clearly states that religion is not a basis for making state decisions, such as laws. You have not provided any evidence from the Constitution itself to support your argument. Additionally, you have admitted that the Constitution does not mention religion as a justification for its foundations, yet you continue to argue based on irrelevant sources that contradict the Constitution's wording. I never claimed that the Constitution's framework lacked any moral projections from the Founding Fathers. I simply stated that they did not incorporate religious beliefs, as they were firmly against the idea of combining state and religion, whether through an institution like a church or otherwise.
The more appropriate question is why you attempt to make claims about the Constitution and its principles using unrelated sources. Logic dictates that if one argues a legal document has religious justifications, they should extensively research the Constitution and provide quotes from the document to support their position. However, you have not done this and instead rely on external sources, claiming that the Constitution does not justify its own foundation, which is inaccurate.
In reality, you are merely cherry-picking sources that are not from the Constitution to gain credibility, as the Constitution either does not support your beliefs or specifically goes against them. The separation of religion and state is made clear in the First Amendment regardless if you acknowledge this fact or not.
Whether or not you believe Pro's opening argument was plagiarized (I will not take a side in that debate), I must say that I do not agree with Pro's claims. Although the points listed may be accurate, regardless of potential plagiarism, they do not necessarily prove that America does not operate as a democracy due to these practices. First let's look into the definition of Democracy.
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:" This definition states that there are two types of democracy: direct and indirect. The USA does not fall under the category of direct democracy but clearly fits into the latter as it is governed by elected representatives. While issues such as campaign financing and lobbying may still exist, this does not change the fact that the entire US government is elected and therefore meets the standards required for a government to be defined as a democracy. Thus, the pro's argument, while well-defined and sourced, is flawed as far as I am concerned.
On one hand, I fully agree with the pro's position on a personal basis, as I also believe that prisons should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. Additionally, I personally disagree with the con's implication about "deserving" rehabilitation. The justice system operates systematically rather than on a merit basis; therefore, it should not focus on whether an inmate "deserves" rehabilitation regardless of their crime. Instead, we should strive to create an effective system that rehabilitates convicted criminals as much as possible, rather than needlessly and pointlessly punishing them.
Despite this, Con presents a well-structured and compelling argument, which I respect regardless of my personal feelings. On the other hand, Pro began with a strong argument but forfeited all subsequent rounds. Depending on Pro's response in the final round, I may consider disregarding the forfeits as Con suggests. However, as it stands now, I am inclined to vote for Con.
I appreciate your vote, but I must disagree with your statement that I did not provide sources. In the first round, I presented evidence proving that objective and subjective morality are in direct contradiction with each other. Consequently, the pro contradicted themselves by claiming morality is objective while also insisting that subjective morality exists through people's mental frameworks and opinions.
Additionally, in contrast, pro in this debate listed no sources at all. It is important to note this. Thank you for participating in this discussion regardless.
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof."
The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." For the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or the 10 Amendments covering American civil liberties, so there is no constitutional analysis on the subject. Additionally, federal law supersedes state law, meaning if the Constitution supported or prohibited abortion, states could not make their own rulings. However, abortion remains a state-level issue rather than a federal one.
"I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution."
As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution. However, if that is the sole basis for your understanding, you entirely miss the essence of the Constitution's purpose and its true directives. Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim.
"Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator"
The Declaration of Independence does mention our inalienable rights granted by a creator. However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights. Therefore, American law is not based on any religious foundation, as the founding fathers established a secular government rather than a theocratic one.
Again, you are using quotes that, although they may have been said by the founding fathers, amount to nothing more than hearsay. Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion.
"The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation"
No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews.
" After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible."
What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective. Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.
"There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors."
That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment.
Overall, your argument is flawed due to a contradictory understanding of the First Amendment's separation of church and state, as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the separation of powers between the Federal government and the States outlined in the Tenth Amendment. Additionally, your argument relies on irrelevant and inapplicable statements from the founding fathers, which you mistakenly equate to law.
As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals.
I vote for Con because Pro has not provided any effective rebuttals to the points made by Con. Furthermore, Con highlights that Pro's entire rebuttal strategy is based on dismissing their evidence regardless of its validity. This leads me to question why Pro initiated the debate at all.
This is an engaging debate; however, it seems both Pro and Con have misconceptions regarding the law and civil rights. Pro argues that abortion is a human right based on the principle of freedom of choice, asserting that denying women the option to decide whether to continue their pregnancy constitutes torture. Consequently, they believe abortion is a civil right and should be legalized. The issue with this argument is that human rights are not universal and must originate from existing laws for the claim of a right to be valid. Since abortion is not federally legalized, it cannot be considered a human right. Therefore, claiming that denying its legalization violates human rights is incorrect.
Additionally, the starting point of Pro's argument is the claim that healthcare is an undeniable human right for all individuals. However, this assertion is false, as no amendment in the Bill of Rights states or implies this to be true.
Lastly, for the pro, the 14th Amendment does not grant women the right to an abortion. It primarily concerns the right to claim citizenship for those born in the United States or within its jurisdiction. All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are considered citizens of both the United States and their respective states. No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws. The quote you provided about the 14th Amendment is inaccurate and therefore invalid.
The Con's misinterpretation stems from their reliance on the Bible. Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims.
Additionally, although the opposition argues that "after reviewing the laws of our nation and the rights granted by those laws, it follows that the unborn are humans with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that abortion does not take away from the created rights of a woman," they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights. If this were true, abortion would have been considered murder long ago, and the federal government would have banned the practice. The debate regarding the constitutional protection of unborn children under the law remains highly contested, with no definitive ruling to date. Consequently, it is advisable for the opposition to rely on existing legal documentation rather than interpreting quotes from the founding fathers when arguing for the rights of unborn children.
So far, the Con side has presented a more convincing argument in this debate. Although referencing God, the founding fathers, and the rights of unborn children may have flaws, the Con effectively advocates for equality and a woman's right to choose whether to engage in intercourse. As a result, making abortion illegal would not infringe on their rights in this aspect. On the other hand, the Pro side's counterargument appears to be that the Bible is unreliable and that unborn children are denied their rights before they even have them, despite the law stating otherwise. While I agree with their initial argument, the overall rebuttal fails as unborn children are not legally recognized as citizens until after birth.
I recommend that both Pro and Con thoroughly study the laws before engaging in this debate. Nevertheless, the debate itself is of high quality!
pro is supposed to make their argument for why what they say is true and con is supposed to rebuttal said argument. weather you choose to counter my argument against your original point or make another point in your favor that overrides my original rebuttal is up to you.
I think your comments have pretty much established that you are only hearing and talking to yourself. I am not debating this any longer. My vote stands as it is.
That is not how science works. If you share DNA with species of an animal regardless of the amount, this can only happen if you are related to said animal on a genetic level, which makes you also an animal. Again, what causes me to vote for the Pro is that they based their arguments on backup scientific evidence, which Trumps any dictionary arguments you made. And since you did not refute the evidence Pro provided, that is considered in a professional debate as consenting to that point. Also, the Criteria asks who gave BETTER sources, not the amount. Nothing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
Sir, I viewed both of your debates. Pro used Oxford University's definition of an animal as a living organism that feeds on organic matter. In addition, he gave another source that proves that we share DNA with other animals. Your sources come from purely word-based definitions, not scientific ones. You also tried using behavioral differences, which does not work as a species is not purely defined by behavior. You also seem to be unaware of the law of contradiction. You cannot share DNA with an animal and not be an animal yourself.
Regardless, the fact remains that The Pro established their stance based on science, whereas you established your argument based on the dictionary. Hence, your lack of scientific rebuttal and overreliance on irrelevant word definitions resulted in my vote.
Sounds good. Just DM me when you want to, and I will set up the debate. The topic will remain the same.
If you're willing, I would be more than happy to debate with you on this topic since the Con did not do much. I would be a con on this debate.
Sounds good. But I don't know how to do that. Thanks for participating. It was fun.
You don't know what respect is. But it's pointless arguing with you. You only want to run your mouth and be a troll. IM done listening to it.
You do realize that by your own admission. You purposefully made an unfair vote that was outside the criteria. I fail to see the validity in getting upset for being called out on actions you have been WARNED ahead of time not to do. Frankly, it says a lot about your character. To be warned that toxic behavior will not be tolerated, and yet you still do it anyway to be a dick. Completely unrespectable.
thank you sir.
I think the vote TWS1405_2 is unfair because he claims I am "pro-criminal." And does not give any reasons for his vote. For example. He claims that Con did better conduct. But Con nor I disrespected each other in the debate. We both acted professionally. Overall I think it's clear that the vote was made with a clear bias; as I said, he would do rather than an honest vote based on the arguments.
Thank you. I will follow your good advice.
Sir, you only said that AFTER I told you, I would tell the Mods about your conduct. Before that, every previous request to vote based on criteria and not personal opinion was ignored. So no, I did not lie. You also claimed I would lose long before you said you could vote as long as it was in the criteria. Cleary, your attempts at calling me a liar have failed.
Sir, you see why I am concerned? I have never once said that TWS1405_2 could not vote. However, I did ask him to make sure his vote was based on the criteria and not his personal opinions. He's not only given no assurances that he would, he has all but assured me "you will lose," Which is biased and not fair to Con or Me. He also made it clear that he is against me not because I presented a bad argument but because he thinks his past experiences make him more knowledgeable on the subject, which is not what he, as a voter, is supposed to vote based on.
It is not that he has to vote for me necessarily. It is simply that I do not think he is being fair or even evaluating my argument, as he called them "weak" with no supporting evidence before proceeding to insult me for no reason. I only ask for a fair vote based on the arguments and evidence presented.
I try to be as quick and efficient as possible. Sometimes to my own detriment, lol.
I never disputed your ability to vote. However, there are rules against voting outside of the criteria. You have not addressed any of the points I made besides baselessly calling them weak and made it clear through your own hostile demeanor that your vote will not be in a logical manner. Still, rather a biased one, and have repeatedly made it abundant that you lack the maturity to have civilized conduct. In short sit, you are a living example of a lack of integrity. To allow you to vote when you display a clear lack of understanding of the rules of professional debating would defeat the very purpose of professional debating. You are meant to vote not on personal bias, hatred, or because you don't like someone.
You vote based on who presents a better argument, legibility, sources, and conduct. I have asked you repeatedly to conduct your vote in the manner prescribed, and you have not only refused to do so but made it clear that you intend to vote against me out of spite, which is unfair to Con and me. You can vote; however, the Mods are now aware of your intentions, and should you cast a vote and the reason for it is not thorough and based purely on the arguments presented, I will report it again, and the Mods will intervene. It is not hard to act as an Adult. All this anger is one-sided, and you are the source of the issue, sir; please stop being toxic and actually let the debate be fair and fun. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the disrespectful comment that has been reported. I have also gone ahead and let a Moderator know about this discussion, your conduct, and the confirmation of your bias should you attempt to vote. Good day.
Sir, opinions made from experiences are never objective. Making claims with no evidence is called hearsay. Whether you have a degree in criminology or have worked in the justice system has no relevance. As a voter, your job is to vote solely on the criteria given, which is not meant to be based on opinion, experience, or past work history. Only better arguments, Legibility, sources, and conduct. Are you able to do so, sir? Because this discussion has so far revealed, you to be, in fact, immature, biased, and above all disrespectful. I am very tempted to notify moderators of your conduct and warn them of your unfair biases. But I want to be fair, so are you willing to act right, or will you be biased and disrespectful?
You are free to think that my rebuttals are weak, but without a proper explanation, that's a biased opinion, especially when You make it clear it is coming from the perspective of someone who hires people. My main argument in this debate has been to prove that background checks that allow businesses and landowners to discriminate against those who try to find housing and employment should not be permitted.
I have presented strong arguments showing that over 70% of post-bail jobs are negatively impacted. Additionally, I showed that the denial of proper employment and housing, which happens to millions of Americans with criminals, results in over 44% not lasting a year before reoffending. If you have read my submitted evidence and still say more is needed to convince you. Then you have no intention of considering my arguments in any serious capacity.
Secondly, You claim "on has demonstrated through the EEOC and the various jurisdictions of law that outlines that the risk does outweigh the benefit." Yet Con's sources only demonstrate that should a company hire the wrong person; The company can face litigation. It does nothing in terms of addressing the points that I have made. Points that you seem to ignore as well, I might add. As far as risks outweighing The benefits is concerned, the fact that you will take the cons' side when all they have shown in terms of risk is civil lawsuits but completely ignore my risks which include the resurgence of crime and the inability of ex-cons to survive past a year before committing crimes again. Only serve to prove that you are not being fair in this debate when voting.
This is especially true when you consider the fact Con so far has not addressed the landowner portion of my arguments and only partially when it comes to employment. Even then, it is hardly a rebuttal as they address none of the stats that prove my points and instead say that since people have to consent to a background check, lawsuits can occur if the wrong person is hired. That, if anything, makes Con's argument weak and rebuttals non-existent. I am not saying you should not vote for Con. But what I am saying is to vote not based on personal opinion like you have clearly demonstrated up to this point; vote best on the arguments themselves. If I am pulling sources and staying consistent and my opponent has not rebuttable or even addressed the points I made. Then they have clearly not made the better argument. Be fair, not biased, is all I ask.
Sorry, some of my sources are reused unintentionally, there was a mistake when I was doing the editing
This is a debating app, not a musical. People are not interested, so you should give up on this.
please clarify what you are arguing for or against and I will consider accepting the challenge as of now it is not clear.
sorry for the initial forfeit guys that was not intentional.
thanks all for voting and hearing both sides of the argument
I would love to debate this subject but unfortunately, the rating is too high for me to be able to.
thanks for agreeing to the debate it was a lot of fun and I look forward to hearing your closing argument.
I understand that opinions vary regarding the cause of the war, and not everyone believes it was solely due to slavery. However, I am only interested in a serious and professional debate. Anyone with a basic education in history knows that the war started for one of two reasons: 1) The South feared that Lincoln's presidency threatened the institution of slavery, making it the central reason, or 2) Southern states felt the need to secede because they believed their states' rights were being oppressed by the Federal government. Any other view is not based on the history of the civil war and is thus ignorant.
I'm sorry that my rules do not allow for ignorant and baseless assertions to be argued on but I am not interested in hearing nonsense I am interested in debating in a serious and professional manner, Since that does not seem to be your criteria then the debate is not for you then simple as that.
No one has challenged it yet and the time in between arguments is three days apart so you should have plenty of time if you are interested in debating this.
If you believe the South left to protect its states' rights or that slavery was not the cause then challenge the debate.
Your claim is illogical, as the slave trade in America was racially motivated and not related to Jewish matters. Furthermore, the primary debate surrounding the American Civil War for the past century has been whether slavery was the main cause or if it was due to the federal government forcing the South to secede in defense of its rights. Consequently, I am perplexed by your expectation for me to create a narrative that is not only false but also historically inaccurate, just as you are uncertain about why I should make Con argue that the Confederacy fought for states' rights instead of slavery.
sorry ill post now, did not get notified until now.
yes I dd vote again my orgibal was deleted because I misunderstood legibility and its meaning.
okay sounds good.
"Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life."
I'm afraid that's incorrect. The Constitution doesn't state that depriving someone of life is unconstitutional; it only asserts that loss of life, limb, or liberty without due process is unconstitutional. Additionally, this applies solely to US citizens, and since citizenship begins at birth, unborn children do not meet this criterion.
Additionally, despite the scientific evidence that a fetus is alive, the US Constitution neither mentions nor prohibits abortion. States determine the legality of abortion, and even in states where it is illegal, women who have unlawful abortions are not charged with murder. While you are entitled to view abortion as a murderous act, current federal and state laws do not align with this perspective.
"The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed."
The Declaration of Independence is unrelated to the civil rights listed in the US Constitution because the former was written in 1776, primarily for the purpose of announcing and justifying the separation of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. In contrast, the US Constitution was drafted in 1789 to replace the Articles of Confederation, which failed to maintain a stable government for more than a decade. Consequently, nothing written in the Declaration of Independence serves as a basis for the US Constitution and vice versa. It is essential to understand this distinction before making claims about civil rights.
"The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification."
This statement is entirely incorrect, as the Constitution explicitly states otherwise. "The Congress shall have the Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/ Take time to review your understanding of the US Constitution before making bold claims, such as it not mentioning any justifications for the laws it contains.
" That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing."
In reality, you are making baseless statements about a constitution that, according to your own testimony, is not based on the Constitution itself but on unrelated sources. This is why you make false claims, such as the laws in the Constitution not justifying themselves, which I have debunked using the Necessary and Proper Clause found in the US Constitution itself.
"So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution? You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from the belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?"
My evidence is that the Constitution's language clearly states that religion is not a basis for making state decisions, such as laws. You have not provided any evidence from the Constitution itself to support your argument. Additionally, you have admitted that the Constitution does not mention religion as a justification for its foundations, yet you continue to argue based on irrelevant sources that contradict the Constitution's wording. I never claimed that the Constitution's framework lacked any moral projections from the Founding Fathers. I simply stated that they did not incorporate religious beliefs, as they were firmly against the idea of combining state and religion, whether through an institution like a church or otherwise.
The more appropriate question is why you attempt to make claims about the Constitution and its principles using unrelated sources. Logic dictates that if one argues a legal document has religious justifications, they should extensively research the Constitution and provide quotes from the document to support their position. However, you have not done this and instead rely on external sources, claiming that the Constitution does not justify its own foundation, which is inaccurate.
In reality, you are merely cherry-picking sources that are not from the Constitution to gain credibility, as the Constitution either does not support your beliefs or specifically goes against them. The separation of religion and state is made clear in the First Amendment regardless if you acknowledge this fact or not.
Biologically, it is established that all living organisms have a limited lifespan; therefore, it is guaranteed that we will all die at some point.
no problem thanks for making a great debate.
Whether or not you believe Pro's opening argument was plagiarized (I will not take a side in that debate), I must say that I do not agree with Pro's claims. Although the points listed may be accurate, regardless of potential plagiarism, they do not necessarily prove that America does not operate as a democracy due to these practices. First let's look into the definition of Democracy.
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:" This definition states that there are two types of democracy: direct and indirect. The USA does not fall under the category of direct democracy but clearly fits into the latter as it is governed by elected representatives. While issues such as campaign financing and lobbying may still exist, this does not change the fact that the entire US government is elected and therefore meets the standards required for a government to be defined as a democracy. Thus, the pro's argument, while well-defined and sourced, is flawed as far as I am concerned.
On one hand, I fully agree with the pro's position on a personal basis, as I also believe that prisons should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. Additionally, I personally disagree with the con's implication about "deserving" rehabilitation. The justice system operates systematically rather than on a merit basis; therefore, it should not focus on whether an inmate "deserves" rehabilitation regardless of their crime. Instead, we should strive to create an effective system that rehabilitates convicted criminals as much as possible, rather than needlessly and pointlessly punishing them.
Despite this, Con presents a well-structured and compelling argument, which I respect regardless of my personal feelings. On the other hand, Pro began with a strong argument but forfeited all subsequent rounds. Depending on Pro's response in the final round, I may consider disregarding the forfeits as Con suggests. However, as it stands now, I am inclined to vote for Con.
it's all good. Thanks for understanding my point.
I appreciate your vote, but I must disagree with your statement that I did not provide sources. In the first round, I presented evidence proving that objective and subjective morality are in direct contradiction with each other. Consequently, the pro contradicted themselves by claiming morality is objective while also insisting that subjective morality exists through people's mental frameworks and opinions.
Additionally, in contrast, pro in this debate listed no sources at all. It is important to note this. Thank you for participating in this discussion regardless.
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof."
The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." For the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or the 10 Amendments covering American civil liberties, so there is no constitutional analysis on the subject. Additionally, federal law supersedes state law, meaning if the Constitution supported or prohibited abortion, states could not make their own rulings. However, abortion remains a state-level issue rather than a federal one.
"I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution."
As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution. However, if that is the sole basis for your understanding, you entirely miss the essence of the Constitution's purpose and its true directives. Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim.
"Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator"
The Declaration of Independence does mention our inalienable rights granted by a creator. However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights. Therefore, American law is not based on any religious foundation, as the founding fathers established a secular government rather than a theocratic one.
Again, you are using quotes that, although they may have been said by the founding fathers, amount to nothing more than hearsay. Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion.
"The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation"
No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews.
" After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible."
What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective. Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.
"There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors."
That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment.
Overall, your argument is flawed due to a contradictory understanding of the First Amendment's separation of church and state, as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the separation of powers between the Federal government and the States outlined in the Tenth Amendment. Additionally, your argument relies on irrelevant and inapplicable statements from the founding fathers, which you mistakenly equate to law.
As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals.
I vote for Con because Pro has not provided any effective rebuttals to the points made by Con. Furthermore, Con highlights that Pro's entire rebuttal strategy is based on dismissing their evidence regardless of its validity. This leads me to question why Pro initiated the debate at all.
This is an engaging debate; however, it seems both Pro and Con have misconceptions regarding the law and civil rights. Pro argues that abortion is a human right based on the principle of freedom of choice, asserting that denying women the option to decide whether to continue their pregnancy constitutes torture. Consequently, they believe abortion is a civil right and should be legalized. The issue with this argument is that human rights are not universal and must originate from existing laws for the claim of a right to be valid. Since abortion is not federally legalized, it cannot be considered a human right. Therefore, claiming that denying its legalization violates human rights is incorrect.
Additionally, the starting point of Pro's argument is the claim that healthcare is an undeniable human right for all individuals. However, this assertion is false, as no amendment in the Bill of Rights states or implies this to be true.
Lastly, for the pro, the 14th Amendment does not grant women the right to an abortion. It primarily concerns the right to claim citizenship for those born in the United States or within its jurisdiction. All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are considered citizens of both the United States and their respective states. No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws. The quote you provided about the 14th Amendment is inaccurate and therefore invalid.
The Con's misinterpretation stems from their reliance on the Bible. Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims.
Additionally, although the opposition argues that "after reviewing the laws of our nation and the rights granted by those laws, it follows that the unborn are humans with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that abortion does not take away from the created rights of a woman," they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights. If this were true, abortion would have been considered murder long ago, and the federal government would have banned the practice. The debate regarding the constitutional protection of unborn children under the law remains highly contested, with no definitive ruling to date. Consequently, it is advisable for the opposition to rely on existing legal documentation rather than interpreting quotes from the founding fathers when arguing for the rights of unborn children.
So far, the Con side has presented a more convincing argument in this debate. Although referencing God, the founding fathers, and the rights of unborn children may have flaws, the Con effectively advocates for equality and a woman's right to choose whether to engage in intercourse. As a result, making abortion illegal would not infringe on their rights in this aspect. On the other hand, the Pro side's counterargument appears to be that the Bible is unreliable and that unborn children are denied their rights before they even have them, despite the law stating otherwise. While I agree with their initial argument, the overall rebuttal fails as unborn children are not legally recognized as citizens until after birth.
I recommend that both Pro and Con thoroughly study the laws before engaging in this debate. Nevertheless, the debate itself is of high quality!
pro is supposed to make their argument for why what they say is true and con is supposed to rebuttal said argument. weather you choose to counter my argument against your original point or make another point in your favor that overrides my original rebuttal is up to you.
feel free to make your first argument.
says you need to make the first argument
how am i supposed to give an argument? sorry i am new.