the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

First, I will list the numerous instances of the ACLU doing something good and beneficial and then refute griffinisright's specific arguments. 1. Loving v. Virginia -The ACLU successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, ending a terribly discriminatory and racist practice. 2. In 1925, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and in 1981, in Arkansas, the ACLU fought, unsuccessfully in 1925 and successfully in 1981, against the teaching of creationism and the Bible as fact in science classrooms 3. To those who think that the ACLU is only a radical liberal organization, they defended Colonel Oliver North, who was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, whose conviction was based on coerced testimony. 4. In 2006 the ACLU fought for the rights of Washington residents to access pro-gun and pro second amendment websites at public libraries. The North Central Regional Library District had blocked pro-gun websites and the ACLU, in conjunction with the Second Amendment foundation, argued that was a violation of library patron's first amendment rights. The ACLU is a necessary organization in the United States because often it is the only organization willing or capable of fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and freedom from illegal and unconstitutional practices by the government. Often times the ACLU does this pro bono, meaning that the ACLU is often the only recourse the poor have against violation of their rights. According to griffinisright, the ACLU: "removing the 10 commandments from the front of courthouses " -Good, if creating a giant monument to a specific set of religious beliefs that are found in a specific religious text in front of a government building is not the government establishing, or at least showing support for, a specific religion then I do not know what is. Griffinsiright may respond that the ten commandments are part of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam since they all incorporate the old testament. First, it is just as wrong to establish three official religions instead of one. Secondly, the obsession with the ten commandments is a uniquely Christian phenomenon. Muslims put much more focus onto the teachings of Muhammad than on the Old Testament and in the Jewish faith, there are hundreds of commandments given in the in the Torah (the Old Testament) and the Ten Commandments do not necessarily have a privileged place when compared to the other commandments. "The ACLU opposed parental notification of parents when their under aged daughter has an abortion." -It is difficult to address this without opening the whole can of worms that is the abortion debate, but I will try. Parental notification laws are to reproductive rights what poll taxes are to race laws. They are Jim Crow laws, for lack of a better term. By that, I mean they are at attempt to make abortion de facto illegal without violating the law that says that abortion is a right. Regardless of whether or not you think abortion is good, it is never acceptable for state governments to pass laws which are meant to undermine the laws of and rights guaranteed by the federal government. These laws make abortion de facto illegal because in many instances the parents would prevent the teenager from getting the abortion. Or, alternatively, the teenager would not seek an abortion because of reprisals from their parents. Even minors have rights that their parents cannot take away and parental notification laws end up denying a minor's the right to an abortion. "The ACLU took the boy scouts to court because they swore allegiance to God and used public land for their events without paying for it. " -The ACLU's argument was that religious organizations, specifically those that are discriminatory, should not receive preferential treatment in their access to federal land, simply the same access everyone else gets. That hardly seems to be evil. "The ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois." -While is is certainly not desirable to have Nazis march in Skokie, the only alternative would be allowing the government to ban unpopular forms of speech or banning particular forms or types of speech in specific locations. The alternative of banning the Nazis from marching would always be worse than allowing them to march. I am not going to, at this time, present counter arguments against griffinisright's other instances of the ACLU supposedly "defending evil." He presents a grossly inadequate defense of hits own resolution. No where does he explain why what the ACLU is doing is evil. Giving health care and education to immigrants hardly seems "evil." Moreover, he seems to refuse to give a context or history or explanation for any of the ACLU's actions. Not doing so is profoundly lazy and unethical debating. His incomplete arguments rely on the ignorance and prejudices of the audience in order to achieve their effect. The only way his arguments could make sense to anyone is if they are already pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, and pro public displays of religion. Because of this, he should lose for two reasons. Firstly, such harmful arguments and debate practices should be punished. If an argument can only function if the audience is completely ignorant of the matter at hand and harbor certain prejudices then those arguments should be rejected on face. Good arguments firstly need to be explicitly explained and justified. The proof for an argument needs to be clear so that the audience can judge for themselves the strength of the argument and so I can refute it to the best of my ability. Furthermore, arguments should not rely on the audiences ignorance. Good arguments, good policies, and true beliefs can only come from informed argumentation that appeals to the knowledge. Since griffinisright's arguments only function if the audience is ignorant of the circumstances under which the examples he uses happen then his arguments should be rejected. Secondly, his arguments are inadequate to defend his own resolution. One sentence claims cannot prove any point. Griffinisright should not be permitted to offer a sufficient defense of the resolution in any of his previous posts, that was his duty in the original post. Because he had an essentially unlimited amount of time to craft his arguments before posting them and starting the debate, he should be held to the highest argumentative standards. Moreover, I have a limited amount of time and a limited number of instances in which to respond to his arguments. If he is allowed to wait until his later posts that would have the effect of severing me out of my posts and hedging me out of the round. At best I would have a single opportunity to respond to his arguments which would be profoundly unfair and should also be a debate practice that must be rejected and punished at every instance. Finally, griffinisright's single sentences exclude me from the debate because it takes me ten times as many words to explain the context and refuse the examples he presents as it took for him to give them in the first place. I was forced to delete some of my arguments because I was over the character limit. The length limits of debate.org posts prevent me from adequately explaining and refuting all of the barely explained arguments he brings up. Such unfair and unethical debate practices, like all such practices, should be punished by a loss because they prevent me from having an equal opportunity to win the debate. As a corollary of the above argument, I reserve the right to offer refutation or further counter examples to any of griffinisright's arguments in the event that he provides proof for his arguments and an explanation for why the actions of the ACLU are evil.