Debate #3 independent_thinker vs jallman comments

talloulou · 05-02-06, 05:27 PM

So far I put jallman in the lead on this one but you both are doing a great job.

vauge · 05-02-06, 05:33 PM

No question about it - excellent job and challenging subject.

ngdawg · 05-03-06, 11:15 PM

Indy made a glaring mistake: "We have a right to life."
In discussing civil liberties within the constitution and federal laws, there IS no right to life granted in any lawbooks or the Constitution.
The participants need to remember that even opinions need some backing and need to be worded as such.
Lot of reading for my old tired eyes, but it's pretty interesting.

talloulou · 05-04-06, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Indy made a glaring mistake: "We have a right to life."
In discussing civil liberties within the constitution and federal laws, there IS no right to life granted in any lawbooks or the Constitution.
The participants need to remember that even opinions need some backing and need to be worded as such.
Lot of reading for my old tired eyes, but it's pretty interesting.

What about the 14th amendment?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

cnredd · 05-04-06, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

What about the 14th amendment?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The error you've made here is that you fail to notice the word "law"...

Having an individual placing religous figures or exercising their religious beliefs does not make what they do, say, or show "law"...

Nor does their supervisors or management feel that allowing it means the same as "endorsing it"...

Someone putting up religious symbols in a public setting is an expression...one that IS allowed through the Constitution...

Yet there is nothing in the Constitution that says that anyone is allowed or not allowed to be offended by it...

ngdawg · 05-04-06, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

What about the 14th amendment?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
In other words, whatever 'right to life' you might have, a state within legal rights, can take it. There is no guaranteed right to life.

talloulou · 05-04-06, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
In other words, whatever 'right to life' you might have, a state within legal rights, can take it. There is no guaranteed right to life.

So there is a right to life until the law takes it away.

I know the 5th amendment talks about capital punishment so there's no way that the "death penalty" was seen by the authors as conflicting with the 8th amendment which talks about cruel and unusual punishment. However I do think as less and less people are put to death each year in less and less states a solid case could now be made that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, couldn't it? Doesn't cruel and unusual change with the times depending on how civilized or uncivilized our society becomes? I definitely think in terms of punishment cruel and unusual has changed over time with history.

independent_thinker2002 · 05-08-06, 03:25 PM

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make a closing statement. Now that the debate is over, I would like to thank Jallman for the debate. He was a worthy opponent, who in my opinion, had the tougher side to defend. He did an excellent job!

As far as the "basic right to life" thing that was being discussed, I would like to make myself clear. Civil Liberties are a social construct, based on opinion. Society will decide as to what is "cruel and unusual" and to what power they want to give the government over their liberty. But when you talk about what the most basic civil liberties are, life has to be at the top of the list. The Founding Fathers aren't the ones who decided what civil liberties were for eternity. They defined them for their time. Capital punishment is having that right revoked. I could say that is reasonable if the government were infallible. But since the govt. is fallible, I hardly think they should be able to end my life on a mistake. That would be an unwarranted infringement upon the most basic civil liberty. Big government isn't just about pork barrell projects welfare. Big government is also about Big Brother. How big do you want them to be?

jallman · 05-10-06, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make a closing statement. Now that the debate is over, I would like to thank Jallman for the debate. He was a worthy opponent, who in my opinion, had the tougher side to defend. He did an excellent job!

As far as the "basic right to life" thing that was being discussed, I would like to make myself clear. Civil Liberties are a social construct, based on opinion. Society will decide as to what is "cruel and unusual" and to what power they want to give the government over their liberty. But when you talk about what the most basic civil liberties are, life has to be at the top of the list. The Founding Fathers aren't the ones who decided what civil liberties were for eternity. They defined them for their time. Capital punishment is having that right revoked. I could say that is reasonable if the government were infallible. But since the govt. is fallible, I hardly think they should be able to end my life on a mistake. That would be an unwarranted infringement upon the most basic civil liberty. Big government isn't just about pork barrell projects welfare. Big government is also about Big Brother. How big do you want them to be?

Actually, I am sorry we did not get to continue our debate. I am home now after a trying time...There was an untimely death in my family and I had to return home immediately. As you can imagine, there was not much time for anything else except making proper arrangements and to spend time with family. I would look forward to debating again sometime as I was really excited about getting to debate you.

Jerry · 05-10-06, 05:20 PM

I can’t seem to find the debate itself. Help?

And if I may make a suggestion, rather than the pole saying “who won”, I think it should say “who changed your mind”.