The US Constitution Legislates Morality

Rebuttal 1) I have not changed the definition as Pro claims. Social acceptance is much different than societal acceptance. Social acceptance is the acceptance by one’s peers, whereas societal acceptance is acceptance by the aggregated community. I am claiming that morality is social not societal, whereas Pro can’t seem to differentiate between the 2. My interpretation of the definition stems from the article the definition was pulled from. Pro’s interpretation stems from a semantic shift of the words in the definition. The article clearly states "in small homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are sometimes made among morality,... [and] law.... So, even for these anthropologists “morality” does not often refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society…. Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds." 2) As I’ve already stated; a. “society” refers to the aggregated community b. “some other group, such as a religion” refers to a sub-community. Religion was given as an example, because a religious group is a sub-community. Just as the agreed upon definition explains the individual source of morality, so does it explain the sub-communal source. c. “An individual for her own behavior” refers to an individual’s personal moral code. 3.) When someone converts to Christianity they adopt Christian morals as their personal code. 4.) The preamble does not say the constitution applies to “We the People” it instead states that the People/Citizens established the constitution for the United States/Federal Government. 5.) As I already pointed out, the printing of money does not have an ethical basis, it has an economic basis. We already tried letting the states print money, but that caused inflation, so we switched to a centralized currency. It was a correction of an economic issue, not a moral issue. 6.) Pro claims that I have used semantics on the words “rights”, but in reality Pro was using semantics to attack the words I used rather than addressing my actual points. 7.) Pro agreed with me that if an individual’s moral code conflicts with an organization’s moral code, that the individual’s code trumps the organization’s code. Pro saw this as an affirmation of the resolution. In reality a politician, cannot choose to ignore parts of the constitution they disagree with. By agreeing with me on this point Pro has unintentionally seceded the debate. 8.) The 2nd amendment is not a moral judgment; it is a practical one, because gun bans don’t work. As I already stated the 2nd amendment has its history in the start of the revolution. The 2nd amendment is not only to protect ourselves, but to overthrow a tyrant should one arise. Closing Case Throughout this debate Pro has relied solely on Semantics in order to prove the resolution. The only real argument Pro has made was in his rebuttal for BRISCOE vs. KENTUCKY; in all other rebuttals Pro has resorted to semantics in order to avoid addressing my actual arguments. Throughout this debate pro only provided 2 sources; a.) an irrelevant passage from the bible, as a rebuttal to BRISCOE vs. KENTUCKY b.) a source for the phrase “We the people of the united states”, as a rebuttal to the claim that the constitution only applies to the government. Pro has failed to address most of my arguments, and has resorted to semantics to avoid addressing the other arguments. Pro’s entire argument in favor of the resolution is a semantic interpretation of the word “conduct”. In round 1 pro moved to win the debate based solely on the definition of morality, without introducing an argument. Pro relied on semantics to affirm the resolution, and failed to meet the BOP.