Humans are bad. The Constitution is good. Deal with it.

(important) EXTENSIONS: - OB2: He needs to prove the statement categorically true. Since there are two separate things that he needs to prove in order to win this debate, if he fails to do either one then you automatically vote CON. - OV1: He can't prove absolute statements. He keeps saying "Humans do X Y and Z" and "They A B C", where A B C X Y Z are actions or beliefs. Well, it doesn't matter if he says so and he says the Constitution says so and he says the Bible says so and ee tee see, it has no weight in the round until he actually shows some sort of evidence. I can say "Humans know squares have 15 sides" all I want; it doesn't matter how obviously right or wrong that statement may seem to you. Obviousness takes no place in debate. What is obvious to one of you may not be obvious to another. - And everything else in my case that he doesn't respond to. CONT OF R1: "But these men were not mental midgets. They were smart. And they got it right." - They couldn't have. They were human. "What we desire is license, not liberty[...]" - Apply OV1. "Today, we are "girly men"[...]" - There is nothing wrong with girly men. - This is out of context. "We are ignoring the intentions of our framers[...]" - Apply OV1. - Apply OV2. "(The entire sixth paragraph)" - Oh I get it, all of us on debate.org are just lazy whiny drones. - Prove it. "...government IS the problem." - Government is set up by the Constitution. GG, auto-loss. "Our Constitution represents this." - Please give me your exact interpretation of the Constitution and what it leads to and what can be attributed to it, and everything that it supposedly represents. I'm having too much fun to run theory on you. "Let me tell you [...] That's theft!" - What is this referring to? "The magnamity[...] an acre of ground." - Constitution does not link to this. ""the only land we have ever claimed in war are the gravesites of our fallen."" - Internal Link Turn: He says "we have never conquered an acre of ground" then brings up this quote. At this point I really don't know which side he's supporting; he's turned and double turned and contradicted himself so many times I'm not even going to bother going back to count. - i.e., we invade, have some soldiers die, and DING! ITS OURS! wtf? good, my... "a nation of hardworking people" - LOLLOLOOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLL "Did we get here by chance, or (really long thing)" - Umm there can be more than just these two things. Perhaps a combination? - Where does the military link in to the Consitution? - How does ANY of this link to the Constitution??????? - Please give warrants that all success can be derived from the Constitution. RE to his R2: OV3: Separation of Church and State. Don't bring religion into this. There is no correlation. OV4: His case is set up like this: CHRISTIANITY---MORALITY---CONSTITUTION---CAPITALISM. Let's look at the individual links. 1) Christianity is not absolutely moral. I think we saw this well enough with Moses ordering mass killings, rules like stoning people to death if they work on Sundays, and other things like the Inquisition. 2) The Constitution isn't a "moral guideline", it is THE LAW OF THE LAND. The document doesn't tell us, "Oh, you ought to set up a government like this...", no, the US Constitution says "You WILL set up a government according to these articles. 3) Since when did Democracy and the Constitution lead to Capitalism??? 4) I really don't see how capitalism came out of Christianity. 5) I also don't see how morality leads to capitalism. 6) Nor how Christianity leads to the Constitution. OV5/Summarization on why you can already vote CON: Let's assume for this next overview that he's won all the links I attacked in the previous. He still does not win the round, as he has not proven either of his two burdens: First, he must show that all humans are bad. He already has not done this, as I've shown in my R1 an argument that went CLEAN DROPPED: THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE HUMAN. My opponent glorifies them and says that they're "smart" and "on the right track", so it's obvious not all humans are bad. Second, we can use this argument to turn his other one, where he says "Constitution is good". If we assume that all humans are bad, then the Constitution cannot be good, as we are all "sinnned" and "corrupt" and all those other nice terms he's used to describe Homo Sapiens so far. Either both humans and the Constitution are good, or they're both bad. Either way, he loses as one of his burdens he will never be able to meet. "Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers." - Perhaps you should cite and quote them so they have some weight in the debate. "Humans are "bad" without moral guidance. The Constitution is a moral guideline." - First statement is unwarranted. - Second statement is unwarranted. - My R1: "Humans wrote the Constitution. Bad people create bad things." Therefore the Constitution is bad. Done game. - Apply OV4.1 "The problem is[...]" - lol what? it's a document that sets up the three branches and how to amend the Constitution. How the hell do we misunderstand this? "(Rest of that paragraph)" - OB2 says you need to prove it categorically true.I don't think any of that. I'm American. GG. "the American Revolution..." - Is nontopical. "[...]our rights emanate from our Creator[...]" - Proof please thank you have a nice day. "[I]n the 18th century[...]It's time we believed in them once again." - And what moral and joyous times they were indeed, slaughtering natives. "America needs to stand tall and proud." - I thought pride was a sin. "There is a higher purpose." - No there isn't. "As human beings, they know[...]" - I DON'T. ARE YOU DEHUMANIZING ME? "[...]with the fellow members of their species." - That's not how capitalism works. "[...]but they devise theories to remove[...]" - Let's get this straight. He says that the universe is rational. Ge implies that scientists are rational and they figure out rational explanations. AND THEN he says scientist create rational explanations that lead away from rationality. I honestly don't get what he's trying to say here. - And none of this applies. This does not make humans "bad". - And even if it does, he never specified the impact, so you'd be intervening as a judge. "they also know that these values are derived from religion[...]" LOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOOLLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOL - This is so hilarious. Okay first of all, no, they're not. Cross apply everything I said in OV4. And then add on these: He says that Christianity dictates that everyone deserves a voice, yet in the Bible it says that we shouldn't allow women to speak in church, and then he says that every life has an intrinsic value, while in the Bible Moses orders people to kill their neighbors just because they believed in something non-christian, and finally he says that women have an equal value to men, but that's not true either, because if Christianity actually supported the idea that women are equal to men, then they would've just kept the story of Lilith in the Bible. Instead, a SECOND story was made to supplant that, Eve's, where EVE WAS MADE FROM A PART OF ADAM. A SPARE PART. "Atheists are the ones who wish to make themselves feel better about their immoral actions and their "free", sinful lifestyles." - Enlighten me with your exclusive holy powers. Thanks in advance. "After all, if God is not, everything is permitted." - And everything IS permitted. That means God is not. GG. "science provides MORE evidence" - Please show me how thx. I shall summarize in my final speech.