Christians Deceived US On Harm Caused By CSA With Intent To Suppress Premarital Sex

In this round my opponent has succeeded in nothing except creating a laundry listing of conspiracy ideas in a chaotic manner. His quote states "When the facts conflict with the belief, change the belief ... not the facts." Yet what facts has he presented to us? Reading over his arguments after analyzing the hell out of them for the past day has shown me that a superfluous amount of his statements are distorted facts based on the simple principle of cognitive dissonance and perhaps personal wants concerning children. I have found that he has presented us with absolutely no real evidence beyond the basics such as the fact that marital exemption clauses exist or existence of certain cases. Yet all of his connections are based solely on his own extrapolation with no one to support any of the outlandish claims made. I implore the Voters to visit his second speech and visit the links he provided then simply asses if the major claims stated as supported truth are within the document. Because of his lack of evidence I will try my very hardest in this last speech to make give accurate and credible sources which explain exactly what I am talking about and/or referring to. In case anyone does not know, using the F3 key will help you quickly find previous claims made or help you search a document.XIX) Resolution Not Affirmed, Voters IssueThe resolution: Christians deceive U.S. on harm caused by CSAPro must prove this true, however based on the words given he cannot win this debate. The word “Chirstians” stands out as blatantly obvious, If Christians deceived the US that would have to mean every single Christian, which is impossible. Logically it could also mean 51% of Christians, however that would imply that half of the world’s Christians have deceived the US on this single issue, this is also impossible. Because he cannot satisfy the Res. He must automatically lose because he has not affirmed the resolution.However, let’s move onto the big case issues:XX) Claim that conservative Christians are heading this conspiracy has been conceededI have stated that Christianity as a whole is incongruent in its beliefs and is always at odds with itself, (Use F3 for:”Christianity is not unified” in speech). I stated that Conservative Christians are no exception. The only manner he responds was analytically (F3:” Nothing is as simple”) not providing evidence for any form of conservative unison. Because of his lack of Clash we must apply the rule that in debate “Silence is Compliance” and he therefore concedes that this is true. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org...)Here is the important part, if conservative Christians are not unified, then there can be no concerted effort to suppress evidence. He therefore cannot affirm the Resolution.XXI) Passing of these bills was not because of Christian Conservative groupsReason a.) Pro argues that conservative Christian groups have started used their power and infulence to raise the legal age of consent however this cannot be true because the Conservative group was never an influencial group until the mid 1900's:"Historians in recent decades argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American Politicsand culture since the American Revolution,However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s."- http://en.wikipedia.org...Based on this fact we can clearly see that no conservative movement took place.END subargumentThe Child Sexual Abuse laws were not an act from Evil Women’s Christian Rights groups as the opponent would have you believe, it was an act from feminists and women’s rights groups in general. We can see this because when the CSA laws were passed America was in what is now known as the 2nd (80’s)and 3rd (90’s) feminist wave which sparked global feminist movements. We can clearly see its results in laws that were passed such as: Equal Pay Act of 1963, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Women's Educational Equity Act , Comprehensive Child Development Bill of 1972, Fair Labor Standards Act , 1965 affirmative action policy to cover discrimination based on sex,And also a major victory in The Equal Rights Amendment which added an amendmentTo the constitution reading: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."We can also see the success of the feminist movements in the court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court, Reed v. Reed, Roe v. Wade, Weeks v. Southern Bell,Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co, Eisenstadt v. Baird , Corning Glass Works v. Brennan…..there are a lot more cases, see the wiki site on the second feminist movementThere was massive social and governmental change during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd feminist movements in the US and around the world. The ones I listed are just the ones I found on the second feminist movement (80’s) to see these, visit wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org... Now what else might the feminist movements have wanted passed to further women’s rights? Congress passed the first Child Sex Abuse acts in 1973 and we have found that presently:“Rates of substantiated cases of sexual abuse declined steadily throughout the 1990s with a total decline of 47% between 1990 and 2003.” – U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesClearly this was an act from feminists and not Christian Conservative groups.END argumentXXII) The marital exemption clauseSo, why does the marital rape clause exist exactly? The reason the clause exists is because of 4 main reasons:1a.) the High Courts of the U.S. federal government cannot constitutionally contradict itself or the legal system in general. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (U.S. Constitution Supremacy clause)1b.) The establishment of marriage as a right to sex with the partner is longstanding, prevelant and rooted in law accepted by past cases.“the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship : the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife.First Known Use of CONJUGAL RIGHTS1768” (see: http://www.merriam-webster.com... )There is one thing that all legal definitions concerning marriage have in common, either through written word or cultural consensus…aka common law, and that is the idea that marriage definitely entails having sex with the other party1c.) If congressed banned marital sex with any married person because they would be governing what a religion can and cannot do, this is grounds for the entire bill to be removed.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Conclusion: When feminists proposed the final draft of this bill for congress, they understood these facts full and well. Naturally there was doubt in their minds as to if they could win in another legal argument to outlaw sex in marriage against an anti-feministic lawyer(s). Even if they managed to win it could be struck down a month, year, or decade from the ratification. So what did Feminists decide to do? Agree to the greater good. At least molestation was banned and any child possible of being legally abused would have to be a spouse requiring parental consentP.S. The Rind study doesnt proove SCA is false, sugests term changes.pls extnd args