The American judicial system is a horrible, greedy corporation.

The topic of the debate was "The American judicial system is a horrible, greedy corporation," which you are in favor of. It might be ambiguous on the debate creation page, but at least now you know what it means. It lets you choose pro or con so that you could have made the topic "The US Judicial system is so sweet that I want to crap my pants" and chosen con, hoping to find someone who thought that it was so sweet that they want to crap their pants. You: "That is your opinion based on your own experiences. It is easy to ignore the problems that don't affect your life personally." It's also easy to ignore problems you are ignorant of. Since no one has brought up any major injustice of the judicial system, I don't happen to know of any problems I should be caring about. While you had some complaints, I saw none of them as valid. I am satisfied with the judicial system, and have not heard valid complaints. I am addressing all of your complaints. You brought up Madelyn O'hara - a GOOG search didn't really show me any good sources, and Wikipedia has no article on her, but from what I saw, she had something to do with school-sanctioned prayer being abolished. So I guess I'll go ahead and explain that one to you. Religion is not a matter the government is supposed to have an opinion on - we have a secular government. Having mandatory prayer in government-run public schools violates this principle at the core. Religion is a matter left to the parents and the individual, not the government. Evolution is not taught as 'fact,' it's taught as 'theory.' Which is pretty much the closest to 'fact' we can scientifically get. And yes, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. _unlike 'intelligent design.'_ ID has no scientific evidence to support it, so it is not a theory. Schools do not teach hypotheses, since they are untested hunches, which have no academic worth. Also, Brittany McComb's mic was shut off mid-speech because she was not following the script she and the school agreed upon. Read all of http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com... if you need more than I've said about that one. You said: "Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court has done a terrible job of interpreting our constitution. Nowhere does it say that the preisdent of the United States can't walk through my school belting Jesus loves the little children if he felt like it." He can, as can any guest to the school. Of course, not if he's visiting the school AS president, since that would be clear government support for a specific religion. Of course, that doesn't stop him and others from doing it all the time in speeches and what not. Chances are, there would be no criminal charges. He might be scolded by the school for causing a ruckus, though, since that's likely against school policies. School officials are the only ones not allowed to assert their religious beliefs, and only because they are teaching by the authority of government, which is not allowed to make religious assertions. It doesn't become magically OK to drink when you turn 21. Personally, I don't think alcohol should be disallowed at any age. The legislators who wrote the laws, however, were not driven by profit. Laws are made to protect people. Like prohibition (which eliminated gov. profit), these laws exist to protect you and me from the instabilities of mind altering substances. People do dangerous things when under the influence, especially youths who are not yet as responsible as they will one day be. I don't know how well they've worked so far, but I know the motive could not have been greed. Legislators don't get paid depending on how many arrests their laws cause. Also, the government does not sell tobacco products, as far as I know. And legislation continues to be pushed to phase out tobacco now that the health risks are known. The other drugs that are illegal are illegal because of the social instability that comes with all mind-altering drugs. While I don't think this is a good reason to illegalize them, our legislative system does not have the same political standpoints that I do. Also, the first 2 results of "virginia traffic laws" were nothing ridiculous. Please provide a link if you want me or the readers to consider it in the debate. The government need not do such tedious things to make money. They can simply increase taxes, print more money, etc. If they were truly greedy, they would be doing those things, rather than doing things with quite reasonable alternate goals, like protecting people from the dangers of mind-altering drugs. Perhaps the laws don't work as well as you'd hope, but at least they're trying to do what they see as best for their society. In that sense you can almost call them greedy, since they the government of a prosperous people is a prosperous government. However, it seems you're arguing that they don't care about their citizens, which hold their future, but will readily throw you in jail and take your money just because they can. You said that it's the judicial system's fault that people aren't responsible because they count on people being irresponsible. However, they are not counting on you being irresponsible. They, unlike you, do not assume that any person with a loaded gun must be suicidal. They don't require us to commit crimes to make their money, especially since legislators don't get paid based on the number of arrests their laws cause. Greed is not a factor in the legislation process. You: "Accidents result from stupidity, not speed. Gov makes it easy to lose right to drive, hard to get it back." Also, speed is a huge factor when it comes to safety on a road. The faster you're going, the quicker you have to react if you lose control, the more damage that an accident will cause, etc. Also, they will take away your driving privileges for so little for the safety of you and those you would be driving near. They make it hard to get it back so that you will have to learn a lesson, stop doing whatever irresponsible thing got you to lose it in the first place. This is a much better explanation than, "They just want more money in court fines!" At least I think so, it's the voters' decision. You: "Child porn = protected, no 10 commandments in courtroom" Actually, as far as I knew, even drawn child porn (lolicon) is illegal. I could be wrong there, but so what if I am? While you could potentially argue that it's a moral issue, it is probably not a Judicial issue. Just like lying is not and should not be legislated against. The 10 commandments in a courtroom would make it appear that they have anything at all to do with the law, when they don't. You: "Police protect Klan rallies" Klansmen are citizens too. Police have to be there at Klan rallies because of the intense hatred our country has for the Klan. Violence would erupt if they were not there. Also, the government isn't making any kind of 'profit' here, so are you saying that it's simply malice and hate driving them in this case? I think protection seems like a much more reasonable explanation. I suppose that's for the voters to decide. You: "Find stats yourself" If you want them considered in the debate, you have to provide them. Since you're not presenting them, I get to fully ignore this point. You: "we should all have equal rights, but we don't. All you have to do is watch the news to see how biased and intolerant our legal system really is" You have yet to show what rights you or others don't have that another groups does have. Also, the news isn't some source of truth, it's full of bias. Notice how you'll get much different views watching one network than another.