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

I negate, "Humans are bad. The Constitution is good. Deal with it." Definitions. Bad = immoral. Good = moral. These are based off his case, where he mentions morality quite often. Two observations. 1) "Deal with it" has two meanings. The first is literal, in which it tells people to actually take an action to change, usually, things to solve a problem. The second is exactly the opposite, in which it says "Change your mindset, because [subject] is true and you are not." Since his case basically says the constitution is good and people aren't, we can safely assume that my opponent is using the second definition. 2) When he says "are" and "is", they are categorical statements. Therefore, he has to prove every instance of both of the statements in the resolution true. If he fails to achieve either burden, I automatically win the round because the topic is not completely true. 3) He brings up good examples of what America has done in his case. I'm going to assume that he's trying to say that every single good thing we do is based off of the constitution, as his case ALSO says "humans are bad". Two overviews. Since these attack the underlying assumptions in his case, if he does not adequately respond to even one of them, he already loses the round. 1) You can't ever prove absolute statements when it comes to people. You can't say all Nazis wanted to kill Jews. You can't say that all Vietnamese are communist, you can't say every Russian is like Stalin, you can't say every guy with a turban is a terrorist, you can't say every Chinese guy that works in the information industry is working to overthrow the US government by supplying secrets to the Chinese government. Actually anybody can, but just not truthfully. Nobody can just generalize about EVERYBODY. Just because Hobbes and some other writers say so doesn't mean they're right. And even if they're right in some instances does not mean all instances. 2) There is no way we can determine what intents the framers of the Constitution had. There is never a way to tell truthfully of someone's intentions. Just because I buy an iPhone does not mean I want to look cool. Maybe I just want one cause I think they look cool due to my own aesthetic sense, but you may think I did it to look cool around other people, and your entire family may think that, and your entire side of the country may think that, and maybe everyone else thinks that too – but that doesn't mean I did it for that reason. And just because they read so and so authors and just because they were Christian does not mean they had X, Y, and Z values. Unless of course, I'm seeing Christians wrong and they actually believe that their past actions, from the Inquisition to the Crusades, were all absolutely justified. If Christians believe that, please tell me. Cause I honestly believe that all Christians don't believe that. Oh wait, there's generalization going on here too. Hmmm…… 3) His case isn't talking about the constitution at all. All his "good" impacts are from something else. I'll destroy links when we move into the line-by-line. Case. Contention 1: Syllogism Humans are bad. (His case) Humans wrote the constitution. (Given) Bad people create bad things. (Given) Result: The constitution is bad. To even give him the assumption that the constitution is good, we have to assume that everyone involved with writing the constitution were something more than humans, like supernatural beings perhaps. I would like to see some anatomical evidence for this. Or, if not, if we take that the framers were indeed human, then the statement "humans are bad" is false is wrong, because it's not absolute. Contention 2: Another syllogism Constitution is good. (His case) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Given) We have amended the Constitution. (Given) Amendments are counted alongside the Consitution as the highest law of the land. (Given) We are humans. (Given) Humans are bad. (His case) Result : Constitution is bad I'm going to assume that the framers weren't reborn and took part in another body in the making of all the other amendments of the Constitution. This means that the Constitution is bad, since it was tainted by us "bad humans". Line-by-Line. First P: "We do not live in a utopia" -Not all humans good =/= All humans bad. Not all chinese people wideopen eyes =/= All chinese people slitty eyes. "I could not agree more, and for several millenia, since the Garden of Eden itself, humanity has been on the decline." -I wasn't aware the Consitution included the text of the Genesis and Paradise Lost? "[M]an is not, by his nature, compassionate. Man is not, by his nature, generous. Man is not, by his nature, moral." - Our nature, if any of you would like to know, is to outside running around all day without clothes so we get our Vitamin D, and live nowhere outside of southern Asia and parts of Africa. Man, by his nature, is gregarious and likes group activities. Nature.... Man's nature IS to be compassionate. It's to help out others of his own kind, not this buisness and insurance and "modern" **** that we have today, not to deny people healthcare just because it earns you more money, not to do all this sort of immmoral ********. Man's nature IS compassionate. It's what we've become today that's not our nature. Our nature is NOT to get up at 5 in the morning to wake up to a cup or two of starbucks, NOT to climb into a cage of death metal, NOT to move our ankles to travel some miles, and NOT to sit in a grey cubicle with electric light all day. Nature.... What we do is not equivalent to our nature. I only wish it was. "Man is the weakest of all creatures, for he alone has a higher purpose, and he alone fails in his sacred duties." - I apologize, I'm atheist. Please explain "higher purpose" and "sacred duties" to me. And why they link or impact to absolutely anything in this debate, and why it proves your point that humans are bad. I'm a debater, not a theologian. That's why I'm on debate.org and not some other site. Second P: "The founding fathers knew this." - They couldn't have. They were human. "[…] poured over the wise script of […] and even the pessimistic Hobbes." - Funny how Locke wasn't in here. Cause his writings were taken into consideration as well, PLENTY more so than Hobbes, and Locke believed that humans were good natured. It's BECAUSE Locke was considered into the creation of the Constitution that we have a democracy today; Hobbes's writings dictated society was best when it was controlled by ONE SINGLE LEADER, AND NOT A LEADER ELECTED BY A PEOPLE, WHICH WERE ALL "CONFUSED" AND "SINFUL". Hobbes does NOT lead to a democracy. Third P: "[…]the underlying theme of America[…]" - Theme of America? Say what??? So in his case he says "the individual over the group" and here he's generalizing EVERYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES? what the heck "when these limits are appropriate, the achievements of our nation would be limitless" - loloolololol oxymoron. - explanation please. Fourth P: "[T]he moral longings of our conscience would find no expression" -I find better ways to show that I'm moral other than handing over to a tax-free institution 10% of my money. Such as ACCEPTING PEOPLE FOR THEIR BELIEFS. "Without the guidelines and teachings of religion […] The framers knew that man must have limits if his goodness is to be revealed. He must be fenced in order for him to run free." WHAT THE F***!?!!!!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS? Okay I BEG you to answer this question next round – Am I arguing that ALL humans are bad or just the ones outside the catholic church? Cause if the answer is yes, screw this debate. I'll let you glorify Christianity ALL YOU WANT. I'll continue next round. I want you to answer me about what my position is supposed to be.