Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

10
33
I agree with this view I disagree with this view
Debate Score:43
Arguments:37
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree with this view (9)
 
 I disagree with this view (28)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39806) pic



By having an excessively open mind, you risk the possibility of your brains fall

For example, the ACLU is the poster child of an excessively open mind. They once filed a law suit on behalf of NAMBLA. Now, if that isn't evidence that their brains fell out, I don't know what is ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

I agree with this view

Side Score: 10
VS.

I disagree with this view

Side Score: 33

I agree with this point of view. I posted it so I must agree with it. Right? ;)

Side: I agree with this view
1 point

The ACLU tries to protect the American's civil rights. how noble. I mean, it would be great if they tried to eliminate any restrictions on weapon use. after all, Americans do have the right to bear arms, correct? so what's wrong if a mentally ill person gets his hands on an AK-47? he's an American and he has rights.

here's the truth people, we have rights, but we also have common sense.

NAMBLA issue: They posted information on their site on how to successfully molest little boys. as a result, many NAMBLA members were molesting little boys. the courts arrested those responsible for this website and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the courts saying that it was a violation on their rights to free speech. Common sense people, we should not be teaching and encouraging others to molest little boys.

NAZI issue: The National Socialist Party of America (Neo-Nazis) wanted to march down a street filled with holocaust survivors. Now, nazis were allowed to march anywhere they wanted once they filled out the right paper work, but the courts had refused to let them march down this particular street because the people who lived there were HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS. These were little old people who witnessed their parents get shot right before them. They saw people starving on the ground and getting gassed or thrown into ovens. The Neo-Nazis would have caused an outbreak of PTSD. Not to mention that younger Jewish Americans were ready to fight back and not let them complete their march. But the ACLU lacked common sense and decided to defend the National Socialists' free speech right. The Nazis got their permit and then decided to back down on the last second when they realized how many Jews were ready to kick their ass.

there are about a thousand other cases like this. it is organizations like the ACLU that make philosophers weep (Plato). They seem to lack common sense. These people are against searching for bombs in subways and airlines. Do they remember 9/11 at all? The Constitution doesn't say "these rights are written as concrete and apply to everything that could possibly happen. even if we're all about to die, these rights still stand". No, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted differently. especially when it comes to people who's lives are at stake.

Side: I agree with this view
ledhead818(637) Disputed
2 points

No Americans do not have the right to bear arms. The second amendment is one of contested and widely interpreted section of the bill of rights. The text is very vague and many people interpret, including the ACLU, many legal scholars, and myself, the second amendment to specifically refer to militias, not individuals.

Regarding the NAMBLA case, the suit was a wrongful death suit over a single case of child rape, not "many" as a result of NAMBLA. I personally find NAMBLA offensive, but I don't see how they are not allowed to post a guide talking about how to molest children, but other people can post guides on illicit activities.

The ACLU is not "teaching and encouraging others to molest little boys." NABLA is, which many people including myself find disgusting. But just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. We also shouldn't be teaching our children that it is okay to eat unhealthy foods and not exercise, but McDonalds is perfectly within its free speech right to air commercials encourage kids to eat their 'food.'

Arguing that what the Neo-Nazis wanted to do is morally reprehensible is pointless. It obviously shows a complete lack of compassion and empathy. But just because people find your speech offensive, does not mean that you should be prevented from saying it. The ACLU does not "lack common sense," it lacks an irreverence of constitutional rights.

"No, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted differently. especially when it comes to people who's lives are at stake."

I think you need to give the constitution another read, and do a bit of research on the philosophy of rights as held by the framers of the constitution. You do not understand the meaning of civil rights if you think they can be taken away under any circumstances.

Side: I disagree with this view

Common sense should be used when reading the Constitution. It wasn't meant to be taken literally ;)

Side: I agree with this view
1 point

Sorry the second amendment is crystal clear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'll break it down yet again:

You need an army/militia to exist securely in the world as a nation/state. We were a british colony. The militia that protected us, the english army, became our enemy when we declared independence. When that happened, the english army began confiscating guns so the colonists couldn't start a rebellion. If our citizens weren't armed our revolution would have failed.

I know it's hard to swallow, but the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the American people can overthrow the government if it ever were to become tyrannical.

That is the only reason.

edit for clarity, a "well regulated militia" means a trained army as opposed to an unregulated militia which would be random citizens with guns.

Side: I agree with this view
Cerin(203) Disputed
1 point

I partially agree with your sentiment. I don't think many (if any) people are fans of NAMBLA or Nazis. And I agree that they sometimes back the wrong horse for what they believe is a greater good.

My favorite example is their position on SPAM. They object to bipartisan efforts to penalize it. When you object to a topic that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, you really have to take a second look at your philosophy.

However, the one thing I definitely agree with ACLU on is their belief in the rule of law. It's a slippy slope to say courts should use "common sense" in order to "legalize" the prosecution of organizations like NAMBLA and Nazis. If these people truly present a tangible harm to society (which I believe they do), then a law should be crafted through our Democratic process to address it.

Side: I disagree with this view

While an open mind is extremely valuable and important, a mind that is excessively open is unable to form its own opinions and hold true to a set of values and beliefs.

Side: I agree with this view

I do not agree with NAMBLA in any way. I agree that these nitwits deserve a fair trial in any court. Being homosexual myself I am shamed by their actions and most especially that they are arrogant enough to march in all our parades. Disgusting, utterly disgusting. It's no wonder straight people think what they do at times. Yes, they has brainz...shamefully, they don't use them.

Side: I disagree with this view
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

the ACLU wasn't giving them a fair trial, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the courts because NAMBLA had allowed a step by step process on how to molest little boys on their website (which was then used to molest little boys). members were arrested and the ACLU decided to file a lawsuit saying that their rights to free speech were violated. apparently, telling people how to molest little boys is a free speech right, but i think this country should also have some common sense on what's appropriate and what's not. Plato would have wanted this.

Side: I agree with this view

I concur 100% ````````````````````````````````````````````````

Side: I agree with this view
1 point

I love Ron White for a few reasons. His opinion that once you molest a child, you don't have rights... is #1.

Side: I agree with this view
2 points

I never would have thought I would see someone be criticized solely for having an open mind. While many conservatives dislike the ACLU because they perceive it as godless and liberal, their goals are rather noble. The exists to protect the civil rights of all Americans afforded them by the constitution. Because of their adherence to this goal, they have defended the rights of such socially despised groups as Neo-nazis and NAMBLA. With the former, they defended their right to have peaceful protests. With the latter, they argued that they are not liable in a wrongful death suit of the rape and murder of a child, just because the murderer had once visited NAMBLA's website. The thing that I think is really admirable about the ACLU is that they will fight tooth and nail for your rights even if they dislike you, and even if the majority of society dislikes you. By ensuring the protection of hated minorities, they provide the vital role of ensuring minority rights.

Furthermore what I really respect is that they defend people no matter the cost. In the case of Neo-nazis they were arguing for their free speech rights that other groups else have. The ACLU lost about a third of its membership and much of its funding. While the ACLU may vehemently and rightly disagree with the Neo-nazi's intolerance, they will fight for their right to say it even at their own detriment. Only allowing socially favored groups to have rights leads to fascism.

I completely disagree that being too open-minded is a mind thing. Being open minded is what allows to live in a cooperative and functioning society and focusing on being more tolerant toward everyone is the only way we can create a better America and a better world.

Side: I disagree with this view

No, what I said was "an excessively open mind." The point is that people with an excessively open mind usually don't use common sense. The rule of thumb is that if you see something as an absolute, then it is probably wrong. Things are usually shades of gray; not totally, and purely, black and white.

Side: I agree with this view
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

"The point is that people with an excessively open mind usually don't use common sense."

That is an unsubstantiated generalization.

You said an excessively open mind is bad and the ACLU is too open minded. I took a stance against both points, and you responded to neither of my responses. Do you actually debate on this site or do you just make ridiculous debates and respond with pointless statements and non sequiturs?

Side: I disagree with this view
2 points

The ACLU is one of the few legal/political/activist organizations that puts its money where it's mouth is. The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for people we personally dislike.

Side: I disagree with this view
1 point

Definitely. I really love that the ACLU will defend people's right to free speech while publicly disagreeing with what they are saying. It is funny how many people yell "I have free speech" whenever someone criticizes them, but don't support free speech rights of people whom they criticize.

Side: I disagree with this view
1 point

Yeah, I'm reminded of the case where the ACLU even defended Rush Limbaugh, who's made a career out of saying the ACLU is worse than Hilter.

Supporting Evidence: ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense (www.foxnews.com)
Side: I disagree with this view
1 point

if anything is wrong then we shouldn't defend it what NAMBLA did or supported with wrong intension wasn't correct at all and if any org. raises its voice against that then its for agood cause .....

so what ACLU did ,i don't think was wrong

Side: I disagree with this view