The American judicial system is a horrible, greedy corporation.

You: "But it makes more sense to say that I am against the greedy corporation that is the American legal system than it does to say that I am for my own argument..." No, because then your oppenten would be arguing in favor of 'the greedy corporation that is the judicial system.' You: "Madelyn O'Hara was the reason prayer was banned from schools, and was an example of how the supreme court has drastically affected our schools, and in an unfair fashion. This has nothing to do with our constitution except for it being an example that they can interpret the constitution however they want." Good. Schools don't need to be endorsing or restricting any religion. I'm sure you would object if schools were leading the children through Muslim religious ceremonies. It's not that you can't pray in school, it's that the school cannot specifically endorse prayer. You: "Yes, that was my point. As in, the problems not affecting your life therefore they don't exist to you. That is an example of ignorance." I'm not magically able to know all problems. Since I have not experienced them myself and have not been presented any valid points, I am still ignorant of any problems that might exist. That is not my fault. You: "The government isn't supposed to establish a national religion, and that is it. Other than that, the constitution says nothing of religion in public. I can't pray in school, or even have a moment of silence now because it offends some arrogant person, but why is it that an atheist can write and orally dictate as many papers as they want on their opinions of religion. If I were to write a paper on my faith and devotion to Christ, I would not be allowed to read it unless I edited it to not offend an atheist." You can pray in school all you want, the school just can't ask its students to pray. Also, they still have moments of silence for some things. At least at my school. It's not illegal to. You can write as many papers you want about Christ, as long as they follow whatever guidelines your teachers have given you. You would be allowed to read it as well, assuming there were in-class readings of said papers, which was very rare for me at least in school. You: "The same people who wrote our constitution created public schools to teach children to reads the Bible, and created a national day of prayer, etc." No, they didn't. Other people at the time did. Do you think it would be right if your children were taught in school to read the Qu'ran and worship Allah? I know I wouldn't want that, would you? You: "No, evolution and old earth are very much taught as fact, although they very much are theory. In truth, science and evulotionary theory are at odds, not science and faith. Science explains how not why, but sadly a scientists personal bias often affects what ends up in the textbooks." Wow. There is a WEALTH of evidence for both evolution and an old earth. Since you gave no evidence to the contrary and I'm short on space, I'll leave it at that. You: "Don't worry, I will be starting that debate soon, and I welcome you to join it." I would gladly. If you go to my profile, you can also specifically challenge me, if you want to. You: "She is one of many examples of this happeneing, and a valedectorian is generally allowed to say anything...except for to share her faith? She didn't have it pre-approved because, as she said, they wouldn't have approved it. So that lesbian chick on TV can criticize Christ, but I'm not allowed to mention him in my V speech? Lol...equality? yeah right." The school probably didn't want it to seem like they were supporting religion. If you've read the speech, it was basically a sermon. If she had not agreed with their edits, they would have had to address the issue beforehand and probably let her do her speech. You: "Um, the government can support religion all they want to, they simply cant establish a mandatory state religion. Read our constitution for what it says not what you want it to say." Then perhaps it _should_ say that the government cannot explicitly support or disrespect a religion. You only are in favor of government support for religion because that religion would be Christianity. If it were any other religion, you would likely oppose it. You: "And the government is counting on people to do stupid things. How many people die every year from alcohol and tobacco, or opiate overdose? We live in a place where we tell our kids not to have sex, but we have Sex and the City and Real sex 15 on basic cable. Hypocrisy is rampant, and nobody cares as long as it makes them happy or makes them a profit." The government knows that people will do stupid things, but they are not 'counting on it.' The judicial system is not the one producing sex in the city, it's not the one promoting drug use. hypocrisy may be rampant, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of the judicial system. You: "If you really can't see the finanial motive behind many of the Judicial system's actions, then I think you must be naive." A> Legislators don't get paid based on arrests their laws cause. B> Gov can just print money if they need more. You: "They get paid alot. Why do you think that is? Oh, and I suppose you think that a member of our government is beyond bribes huh?... Virginia traffic law is just one example : http://www.petitiononline.com...; I'm not arguing "No member of the entire judicial system is greedy or horrible," I'm arguing about the entire system. As you yourself must know, the system is equipped to deal with problems like this when they arise. With enough support, you can get the law removed. You: "I have a friend who thought like you until they took his life away from him over a relationship he had with a girl 2 years younger than him- 17 years old." That specific law is meant to _protect_ children. Since the age of consent is probably 16 where you are, only your friend was able, by law, to consent to sexual relations. While I don't personally agree with this law, most of society still does, and it makes far less sense to say that it was made based on greed or malice than the will to protect its citizens. You: "Many people can handle 70 mph. Most accidents are from people going slow, not fast." If they're going below the speed limit, much less damage was caused than if they were speeding. You: "There isn't even any data to suggest that if I got into an accident at 70mph, it could have been avoided at 55." There is logic to suggest that, though. Since the car is moving faster, you have less time to react. You: "It isn't about penalizing offenders, it is about making money plain and simple." No, it's about keeping the roads safe for you and me. There has to be _some_ speed limit, and it has to be something nearly anyone can handle. You: "Drawn child porn is protected as free speech" This is because the law is there to protect people. No one is being harmed by pictures, and the government does not have the authority to tell you or me what we can or cannot draw. You: "It's ridiculous to say that morality isn't what the law is based around." The law is based around keeping the citizens of the country safe. you gave an example of murder - this happens to be both widely considered immoral and harmful in reality. However, it's only the latter part the law must care about. You: "Abortion is legal" Because it is unclear whether or not an unborn baby is a citizen, it is also unclear whether or not the law must protect them. You: "Klan gets more civil liberties than a high school student" No. High school students are allowed just as much freedom of speech as everyone else. The US Judicial system is a robust, helpful, protection-giving institution. While it may not be the best it can be, it is neither horrible nor greedy. It's been nice debating with you. I look forward to possible debates in the future.