the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

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.