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

ROADMAP: Line-By-Line, then Voting Issues. "We are the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. I believe they did get it right. " - That's just because our military scares the **** out of everyone else. And besides, it's not as if everyone else in the world likes us. It doesn't matter if you're "the major power" on a playground if you're the bully. - Apply Syllogism 1. "They're called liberals. Step foot on your typical university and you will see what I'm talking about. " - "Typical University" is not everybody, so it doesn't break OV1. - You're not a liberal, so your argument doesn't break OV1. - This doesn't even touch OV2. "The framers desired less government. Government is too big now. " - It doesn't matter if they desired small government. Constitution doesn't say that. - And besides, they didn't all desire small government. Some wanted big gov. - And besides, you didn't quote the Fed. Papers. No warrants, no argument. "Read my 2nd round argument. " - I did. I couldn't stop laughing. "Re-distribution of wealth. " - I'm assuming this refers to taxes then. Well, to all us people who've watched ZeitGeist, we don't think that this national income tax system is just either. Therefore this fails to prove OB2's requirements. "You're right, liberals don't know what hard work is. That's why they want the government to send them a welfare check at the expense of someone else. " - I don't. I'm a liberal. Thanks for the debate. "Without the Constitution, what guideline would we, as Americans, live by? " - This does not explain whatsoever how the Constitution is a moral guideline. - Hmm let me think. .. . PERHAPS THE BIBLE MEBE? ?? ?? - Or for us atheists, how bout our sense of morality? - Which by the way, you have never proved sufficiently that morality comes from Religion. "Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. " - No it wasn't. - You never proved this. - It doesn't matter if our founders were Christian, they never mixed the two things. "That's Old Testament. .. or Jewish text. Christianity is New Testament. " - The Inquisition was a real life event, thanks. It's why Galileo was under house arrest for the last years of his life, because he wouldn't give up his "pagan belief" that the world was heliocentric and NOT what the Church said, which was that the universe was geocentric. "Why are you discussing capitalism? " - Good question! WHY THE HELL AM I TALKING ABOUT CAPITALISM! ?! !! ! Oh yes, I remember now. Let's look back to your R1. "We have institutionalized free markets and the rule of law in America. Our Constitution represents this. " "Haha, wow you really want that victory! Does debate. org give your life meaning? " - Honestly, I'm here for the debates. I see debate as a game, and a fun one at that. It's much more useful than other games, such as, say, my College Math class, or trying to beat my old mile time in PE. Me saying "Summarization on why you can already vote CON" is just part of my debate style. That, obviously, is quite different from yours. Not to say that yours is bad or whatever; my style just seems more organized for me. - I love your style of attack. It's so innocent. - "If I told you I was here for anything other than the trophies, I'd be lying" "YOU'RE the one that made the claim that we don't know the intentions of the founding fathers. I suggested you go read the Federalist Papers. Now you want me to do the work for you. No. " - Umm we don't. You've stated that throughout the debate. - And we don't know the intentions. OV2. - Debate works in a format where we have to present the evidence or warrants or justifications for our arguments. You just saying "federalist papers" is making the voters on this site do their OWN work, and at that point it's not even you making the argument, it's the voters making the argument for you. - Besides, the Federalist papers are contradictory. Some say big government good. Some do not. THEY WEREN'T EVEN WRITTEN BY ALL OF THE FRAMERS of the Constitution, JUST THREE of them, basically giving the public their opinions of the Constitution and whether or not it should be ratified. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was a debate amongst the framers(. http://en.wikipedia.org...); whether or not to include them. "Read the Declaration of Independence. " - Just because it says so doesn't mean its the truth. "At least there weren't marches in the street celebrating the slaughtering of unborn babies. People also realized why wars were fought and why freedom is valued. " - Bringing up a bigger example does not mean that the original was right. Hitler killed several million Jews. That doesn't suddenly make me killing one Mexican moral. - Abortion is nontopical. "You don't believe in patriotism? " - No, I don't. I believe I cleared that up in my profile. "Then why do you go to school? Why do you get a job? Why are you still living? " - Why does that matter? "No, everything is NOT permitted. That's why we have laws. " - Laws are not derived from God. ____________________________________ In short, he has not proved both of his burdens in the round: First, to show that humans are bad, Second, to show that the Constitution is good. He provides examples of good things, but never links them to the Constitution. He has NEVER proved how ALL humans are bad. Just on that I've already won this debate. But if you don't believe that. .. .. VOTING ISSUES: 1) OV1: He never proved that all humans are bad, nor that the Constitution is absolutely good. 2) OV2: He never proved the intention of the Framers. He brings up the Federalist papers, but first he never cites or quotes anything, nor even provides us a LINK to the papers, so we can't give any ground to him for that. But EVEN IF you think it's common knowledge like he does, the Fed. Papers weren't written by all the framers of the Constitution, so he can't say that the framers intended X Y and Z, because only three people wrote them. And EVEN IF you think that, against historical records, that the Fed. Papers were written by all of the framers, they're contradictory, so they don't matter anyways. 3) Syllogism 1: I wonder why I didn't just go for this and throw everything away. In my first speech I give you a syllogism: Humans are bad, Humans wrote the Constitution, Bad people create bad things - Therefore, the Constitution is bad. As long as the premises of these arguments are true, the conclusion reached must be true. I've won since R2, since he never refuted any of the premises. He brings up this argument in his last speech saying that because we're the world superpower that the Constitution is good, but that doesn't work at all, because then we'd just be judging good or bad based on the events on that time. So that would mean before WW1 the Const. was bad, then in the Depression it was really bad, then after WW2 it was good. That doesn't make sense at all. 4) EVEN IF you believe the examples in his case are good things, he's never provided a link to the Constitution, so he can't use them to prove that the Constitution is good. 5) TURN: He says that humans are bad. All of these "good" things come out of humans. Result: Not all humans are bad. OB2 says he needs to prove the statements categorically true. He has not; he has lost. 6) No warrants for anything. 7) Christianity does not link to Morality. (Inquisition) 8) Morality does not link to the Constitution. 9) Constitution does not link to Capitalism. 10) Capitalism does not link to "good". 11) And EVEN IF it did, we participate in it, so we're good too. Oh yeah, and for his R1 arg where he "proves" that humans are bad, He's just saying we are. He never proved it. This isn't oratory. This is debate.