Morality should not be a deciding factor in American politics.

I apologize for missing the third round; I am in the process of moving and was not able to get online and post my argument in time... Back to the debate! Pro opens by claiming, "We change our views from time to time, making moral consistency in the US quite impossible." However, Pro's suggestion for the basis of law making - pragmatism - is ALSO inconsistent. Therefore we have established that both morality and pragmatism is subjective and transient. I have also made the point that morality lies behind the concept of pragmatism, making it a considerable factor in legislation even by my opponent's own proposed standards. If I were the President and needed to make a decision, I would take pragmatism into consideration: What choice produces the best possible consequence for the people of my country? But WHY does/should the President take pragmatism (what produces the most optimal results) for his country as a whole anyway? Because it's the MORAL thing to do. To make legislation based on dogmatism (the opposite of pragmatism) would be immoral as it may not produce the best results for society. Thus the very morality that makes pragmatism the optimal standard for legislation also negates the resolution. Pro next states, "We don't go door to door and ask voters if they think a policy is morally right or morally wrong; we have elections to best determine what the people want." Pro has failed to demonstrate how said voting process ensures the wants of the people and whether or not it is truly a democratic process. For instance, would it be a process of individual voting or delegate voting? There are arguments for and against either process. Pro continues to say that I have provided an "off the wall example" of 90% of the population supporting a tax that would be least beneficial to the 10% that oppose it. Look around, Pro -- we live that reality every day! He says, "The 'wants' of the people aren't the only things to consider; of course, we also have to remember the pragmatics." However, it's quite obvious that Pro ignored my argument that pragmatism is debatable: what's most pragmatic to one group of people obviously isn't what's most pragmatic for the other group. Pro has yet to explain which group's pragmatism is more important; he only said that we'd find a democratic way of figuring that out (without providing a specifically democratic solution). Taking society as a whole into consideration doesn't make the answer any more black and white; Proof is the fact that general partisanship mainly supports two different ideologies, both of which claim would be the most beneficial or pragmatic to society. A Republican may choose that affiliation based on both pragmatism (economic gain) and social issues (their conservative beliefs). A stance on social issues is generally dictated by morality - not pragmatism. Consider the example of gay marriage. If Pro's point that rights were solely about equality were true, then it would be non-sensical for one to oppose gay marriage; doing so would mean that they don't respect their own right to be married. Sure an opponent of gay marriage may feel that everyone has the equal right to marry someone from the opposite sex; however, the reason as to why that shouldn't be extended to include the same sex are rooted in what they believe is moral - not pragmatic. Pro also says it's simply in our best interest to value certain things because everybody else values them as well. That isn't always true; people don't have the same exact values. Additionally, we punish law-breakers because they have violated the rights of others. In other words, nobody is arguing that because people generally value the same things [property and life] that they have become RIGHTS. However, Pro is ignoring the fact that violating these rights is immoral. His basis of pragmatism only establishes why things *become* rights, not why violating them and thus the law is wrong (morality). Pro writes, "Rights are usually regarded as legitimate if they benefit self-interest. Thus, regardless of morality, rights will exist..." I've got two words: Abortion Debate. As I've pointed out, both sides of this issue can use pragmatism to explain why they stand on one side or the other. Similarly, one can use these pragmatics to determine what becomes law. The issue here is considering the morality - or immorality - of breaking the law. Plus, just because a larger group believes one side is more pragmatic doesn't necessarily make it moral or true. Pro has continuously ignored the fact that pragmatism is also subjective. Next Pro brings up the issue of guising our political aims under the mask of "morality." First, Pro is completely ignoring the fact that it may be the most PRAGMATIC OPTION for us to lie about our goals, thereby negating his entire point once more using his own standards. Second, who says it's necessarily a guise? Consider this quote by Elie Wiesel: "Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant... That place must - at that moment... become the center of the universe." Pro would say that this is true because of self-interest; if we were in the situation of the oppressed, we'd want someone to help us. However, Pro would also suggest that we shouldn't help others if it's not pragmatic for us. This is not taking into consideration the philosophy that, "Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they are inconvenient." Many people feel that legislation is also about the principle of upholding rights regardless of how they affect our individual self-interest. Consider a situation during which Isolationism might be the most pragmatic stance to have in the present; however, in the future we were the ones who needed help, and as "pay back" for our selfishness, another more stable nation did not help us as there was no favor to be returned. This is an instance of pragmatism being inconsistent. It also depicts our country as having no principles other than selfishness, which not only violates the moral code of collective individuals, but may also cost us pragmatically in the future as well in terms of international relations. Therefore establishing certain principles based on morality, even if that morality changes, at least makes a statement about our intentions both political and otherwise. Pro offers a hypocritical argument when he states, "I'm not saying pragmatics can cater to the needs to every single person; it probably can't; but enforcing a single narrow system of morality is definitely not going to do that; it doesn't account for every person's wants because of its rigidity - pragmatism on the other hand, is a flexible policy." In other words, he admits that pragmatism is "flexible" i.e. inconsistent and transient just like morality. So what's the difference? Essentially Pro is arguing that the most moral policy to follow both personally and politically is the one that is most pragmatic for the people, which obviously negates the resolution at hand. Pro says "Being caught and punished for violating property rights outweighs the pragmatic benefit of stealing to begin with." This is a statement without any consistent basis or proof. If I violate a law and the penalty is paying a fine, violating that law may be pragmatic in the sense that it was "worth it" to me to break that law because the fine does not really affect my well-being or economic status. However, it would still be immoral to break that law in the sense that it may have infringed upon the rights of others. Pragmatism in this case is essentially saying that it's okay to be immoral so long as it benefits the individual. Our legal system does not support this mentality and instead seeks to establish laws that are as most beneficial to society as a whole based on current moral inclinations. My logic equation stands.