the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

"As a result, he should lost the debate right here and now." I am sorry but that just made me laugh! Any way I am not going to waist my debate discussing what a debate is as you have done in the last two posts, which is why I posted a comment below. If it doesn't have to do with the debate it doesn't belong in your argument section! WE ARE NOT DEBATING WHAT A DEBATE IS. If you want to debate that with someone that challenge them to a debate on what a debate is. But don't waist my time with your nonsense. No on to the actual debate, I simply have two questions for you and I expect a yes or no answer not some "well it depends on the culture or the way you look at it" Kind of mumbo jumbo crap you have been giving me in the past. So here is the questions all you have to say is yes or no. 1) Do you as an American citizen think that rape is evil? 2) Do you think that in the United States Murder is to be considered evil? "If we were not allowed to advocate illegal activities then that would stifle all ability to change the law. If it were illegal to advocate illegal activities then those who were arguing for women's right to vote in the early 1900's would have been jailed for advocating an illegal activity." It sounds to me that you are implying that there is a striking similarity to women rights advocates and rapists/ murders. The way you have that worded it almost sounds like you hope one day groups like the ACLU and NAMBLA will have fought hard enough to make murder and rape legal. This sounds like evil intentions to me, so now I know why you are debating in the ACLU's defense. You yourself enjoy the idea of a corrupt and evil America. There is no sense arguing with you about something you enjoy so my argument to the people is this ACLU has been defending evil since 1920. Right from the beginning Roger Baldwin (an anti militarism who endorsed communist rule) and Crystal Eastman (a feminist, socialist, and pacifist) established the ACLU. Now you can debate that communism is not evil all day, but I strongly believe in its truest form it is. Look at communist China who executes people for simply having a page of the Bible! But I am not going to make that the base of my argument because it is an opinionated statement. And this debate is not about opinions it is about facts. As I stated in my first argument, the ACLU defended the rights for Nazis to march through a prominently Jewish community in Skokie Illinois. Now I have a few more questions for you, 3)do you believe that Nazis are not evil? Yes or no? Killing Jews and other minorities seems to be evil to me. 4)How about illegal Immigrants, are they evil? I would say that their breaking the laws of this country by coming in here illegally can be considered to be evil because it is dishonest. Again going back to the definition I provided "which does harm, is dishonest, or…" The ACLU also fights tooth and nail to destroy Christianity like removing the 10 commandments, taking God out of the pledge and banning Christmas. All on the basis of the constitution giving us "freedom from religion" which is a lie in itself the constitution gives you the freedom OF religion NOT FROM religion. This country was established on the beliefs of Christianity weather you like it or not! Not one of our founding fathers disputed the fact that the Bible should be taught in schools so their kids would know ware their ethics come from. I am not saying that they were all Christians there were one or two who were not but they still backed the notion that the Bible should be at the core of our country. Our very constitution and laws were also founded on the teachings of the Bible. So don't try to pull your separation of church and state BS, It won't win with me! It never will. They are all lies and full of deceit! You can argue that the ACLU is just trying to not offend people by being politically correct and not saying Merry Christmas. 5)I ask you, which is more offensive the "peace on earth" or "good will towards men" rhetoric? It has nothing to do with being offensive! It has to do with the fact that it has Christ in it and after 2,000 years he is still intimidating people! I don't want to get into abortion too much either because that is a different topic but seems the ACLU has opposed parental notification of adults when their under aged daughter has an abortion it is important to discuss. You can fight that abortion is not murder because it is not alive, so it is not evil but if it was then, why would the definition of an abortion be?; An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. http://en.wikipedia.org... If it wasn't alive why would they use the word death? We know that only living things can die. And hiding something as big as a pregnancy from your parents sounds deceitful to me, after all if you are under 18 you are your parent or guardians responsibility, and they have the right to know ware you are and what you are doing. I also got a good kick out of how you brought up the fact that the ACLU defends the right to bear arms when you yourself are against gun rights! Seems to me you believe guns are evil or something. In that case you would be contradicting yourself on that one. There are a lot of examples, and believe me there are many more so there goes your comment about me only having two examples. All of these I brought up in my last two arguments. But please answer my few questions regarding things being evil or not. After all, the ACLU did defend these things and many more over their 87 year history. So if you can prove that these things are not evil than you can win this debate. That's all the pressure that rests on you shoulders my friend so good luck! It has been a pleasure debating you good luck in all of your future debates and Merry Christmas! PS: NOTE: to philosopherp irate First off in your next debate please don't waist your time defending what you believe a debate is. Almost half of your "debate" you spent boarding the audience with your negative viewpoints about debate.org and criticising my style of debate instead of actually staying on topic and discussing the matter at hand, you said and I quote, "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." Look Mack if you don't like debate.org that much than don't use it. Secondly you accepted the challenge to a debate so don't complain that I have an "unfair advantage" because I had the opening argument, after all you get the last word. So quit crying and spilled milk and stand up for your cause.