the ACLU has been defending evil sence 1920

Thats cool that griffinisright wants to engage is misspelled ad hom. attacks and straw man arguments but I am going to keep this debate on a professional level. Griffinisright asks a couple questions and says he expects a yes or no answer. I do not care what griffinisright expects because his questions over simplify the issue to the point of destroying the intellectual context of this debate. I am unsure of what the first two questions have to do with anything in this debate. If griffinisright can explain what relevance they have to the debate I may answer them. "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. " -This is an offensive attack against me personally that ignores the arguments I made. Griffinisright seems to think that discussing the debate we are having is irrelevant to the debate we are having. But in reality all of his attacks against me are not only entirely irrelevant to the debate we are having but are indicative of the sloppy, unethical debate I accused him of engaging in earlier. In response to his third question, I refuse to answer it because it is a purposeful misunderstanding of my original argument. Its not a matter of whether or not I agree with what Nazis advocate, its a matter of whether or not they have a right to march and assemble public ally. Regardless of what I think about the Nazis, they have just as much a right to assemble and march as any other group. As I argued earlier, it would be disastrous, and quite evil, to outlaw unpopular speech. The ACLU, by defending unpopular speech, is a good organization. In response to his fourth question. Illegal immigrants are not evil. Breaking the law is not necessarily evil because it is possible for laws to be unjust. Breaking unjust laws, as I believe illegal immigrants do, is not evil. Furthermore, I refuse to abide by a wikipedia definition of evil. The greatest minds of humankind have been debating what is evil for thousands of years and I refuse to let it be simplified down to what wikipedia has to say about it because griffinisright cant be bothered to look anywhere else. Dishonesty is not evil. There are many instances in which dishonesty can be, if not good, at least not evil. Sometimes the government needs to lie to protect national security secrets. It can be at least not evil if not good to lie to protect a friends feelings. "The ACLU also fights tooth and nail to destroy Christianity like removing the 10 commandments, taking God out of the pledge and banning Christmas" The existence of Christianity does not rely is in no way related to whether or not there is a ten commandments display in front of certain courthouses, or is it dependent upon the words "under god" being in the pledge of allegiance. Christianity is a rich and vibrant religion that is based around a personal connection between a person, their faith, and Jesus Christ. The focus on such temporal icons like giant stone monuments sounds a lot like creating false idols and graven images (one of the ten commandments, look it up.) Furthermore, since griffinisright thinks that the ten commandments and the phrase "under god" are specifically Christian, then I do not need to win the argument about "freedom from religion," because the government putting up the ten commandments is establishing Christianity as the official state religion and that is certainly uncostitutional. Also, the freedom of religion necessarily implies a freedom from religion. If I am a Jew then I have the right to be free from having Christian beliefs imposed on me. If I am a Christian then I have the right to be free from Islam. You cannot be free to practice your faith if you are not free from others imposing their faith on you. "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." -This argument is incorrect in so many ways that it would take me a whole 'nother post to answer it. All I will say about it is that it is irrelevant because what the founding fathers did or did not do is not relevant to whether or not the ACLU defends evil. Any argument he makes about them will commit the naturalistic fallacy by deriving an ought, a claim about what is evil, from an is, what the foundind fathers did. "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!" -I really don't care what you think or what will "win with [you]" because I am debating for the judges and people who are reading this debate. Whether or not you are convinced to change your mind at the end of this debate is irrelevant to.....everything. "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." -What I believe personally is immaterial to this debate. All that matters is what is presented in this debate. Moreover, the ACLU fought for the right of people to access pro-gun literature, something I do personally agree with. The point of my argument was that despite your insistence that this debate is not about whether or not the ACLU is a liberal organization, you seem to be a very conservative person and are angry at the ACLU because they are a liberal organization and defend what you perceive to be liberal points of view. I attempted to show that the ACLU is not a liberal organization but a pro-rights and pro-constitution organization. "There are a lot of examples, and believe me there are many more so there goes your comment about me only having two examples." -Then give them. I have constantly engaged griffinisright's examples while he has refused to engage me in mine. When he does not respond to my arguments but I respond to his, I should win the debate, or at least be far ahead. Finally, I will not ignore my meta-debate arguments. Firstly, I have given plenty of reasons as to why they should be considered and griffinsiright has not answered them. Just as a referee penalizes a team in a sport can penalize a team for cheating or playing the game unfairly, you, the judges, should penalize griffinisright for not only cheating but debating unethically and sloppily. Secondly, debate is a unique activity in that it is self-reflective, meaning that we can discuss the debate we are having as we have it. If we do not discuss the debate we are having than that will ensure bad debates in the future because we never stop and reflect on what is good debate. Griffinisright 1. engages in personal attacks against me, not only is this extremely poor argumentation, it is against the rules of debate.org 2. he has yet to ever offer a sufficient defense of his own resolution, that means he loses 3. the arguments he does make are unethical in that they ignore or purposefully misinterpret my arguments and are designed to give him an unfair advantage over me. This sort of argumentation should not be permitted and should merit a loss in this debate.