The Copyright infringement law suits

Welcome I welcome my opponent to debate.org. According to Con's profile, we are both the same age, 63, so it's appropriate that I accept her challenge. I look forward to a spirited debate. The Resolution Con has not spelled out the debate resolution. The gist of her arguments is that her opinions on a number of topics are in better accord with Christianity than the opinions of her opponents. Since she is Con, the resolution must be inverted to "Con's opponents represent Christian beliefs better than Con." The title of the debate features "copyright infringement law suits," but /con makes no mention of such suits. Until Con makes some linkage to the title, I will ignore it. Con's Case 1. Con begins by asking "I wonder if [Michele Bachmann] by any chance, got to read the Bible at all." con clearly implies Bachman has not. In an interview with the Christian New service, the following interchange occurred: CNS: When was the Word made Flesh? At the conception? And when did Jesus get a right to life? Bachmann: I think the answer would be John 1:1. The Word was God and the Word was with God from the foundation of the Earth. So, prior to our even being here on the Earth, the Father and the Son were together because all things were created by Jesus Christ and with the Father and held together. And I believe in a triune God: ... [continues at length discussing the Bible] http://winteryknight.wordpress.com... Clearly Bachmann has read the Bible. 2. Con asks with respect to health care "In what way can we show for our neighbor better than to let them have what they (the members of the congress and the senate) are already enjoying?" The teaching is a requirement for "Christians to be charitable, not a requirement to take money money from one group of people and give it to another group. That is theft, no matter that it is done with good intention. 3. Con asks, "Is it socialism to hope for all Americans to have access to what already all members of congress and the senate have?" No, socialism is not defined by what a person hopes. Socialism in the sense referenced is defined by redistribution of wealth forced by government. Traditionally, socialism was direct control of the means of production, such as having doctors work for the government. the modern twist is to require individuals comply with rules. The Health Care Bill was about 3000 pages, and it expected to spawn 100,000 pages of additional regulations. That is detailed compulsion. 4. Con claims " the Supreme court giving the corporations the right to legally manipulate our policy making" The Court ruled that the constitutional right of free speech applies to people acting collectively, either when acting as a labor union or as corporations. All free speech is advocacy is "manipulation" of policy making. Nothing in the Court decision authorized bribery, and Con provided no evidence that the decision went beyond free speech. Con says "all humans are prone to be bribed and when the policies of this country make it legal and call it lobbying, well is not that something that those politicians who quote the Word of God, doing so as blaspheming?" Blasphemy is a "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Advocating some position with respect to pending legislation cannot be blasphemous because legislation with respect to an establishment of religion is prohibited by the Constitution. 5. Con asks, "Is anybody in this community asking those very same questions?" I have heard the question of what Jesus would do about Obamacare. To my knowledge, the notion that lobbying is blasphemous is unique to Con. The Affirmative Case Destruction of Wealth R1. I claim that government imposition of socialism by extreme regulation is contrary to the Christian tradition because it substantially reduces the wealth of society. All experiments in establishing vast ruling bureaucracies demonstrate that the result is make preservation and expansion of the bureaucracy the primary goal of the bureaucracy. Examples include East Germany compared to West Germany, North Korea compared to South Korea, and China compared to Taiwan. I am not claiming that Obamacare amounts to authoritarian rule. My claim is that when bureaucracy replaces free markets and individual choice, that inevitably the efficiency of the society suffers. that has been demonstrated by the examples. There is no basis in Christian tradition for impoverishing society by bureaucratic rule. Establishment of a Ruling Class R2. The Chistian tradition requires charity, not forced transfer of wealth. Forced transfer of wealth requires establisment of a ruling class that determines from whom the weath is extracted and who it goes to. The is nothing in the Christian tradition that empowers the establishment of a ruling class to which individuals are subservient. For these reasons the resolution is negated.