Instigator / Pro
Points: 16

Leftist Hate The Constitution

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
McSloth
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 41
Description
Obviously the constitution has many amendments, so I would like to focus on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Firstly on why Leftist hate the first amendment. Leftist seem to hate the fact that other Americans can have different views than them, and constantly try to shut down the opposition. For example, a recent event occurred where 20 Antifa members held a protest outside of Republican TV reporter Tucker Carlson's house. They said remarks such as "we know where you sleep at night" and broke his front door. They did this as a protest against his Republican views (which they constantly refer to as "hate speech") and believe this was the correct way to try and oppress opposing views. This was a sad attempt of Leftist trying to play the victim as usual, but it turns out this time they were the criminals. Leftist will not tolerate the so called bigoted Republican view, but will impose violence as a way to make the other side concur with them, fascism at it's finest. Secondly, why Leftist hate the 2nd Amendment. Leftist want guns to be banned in America but have never even held a gun. They think as if guns are only used for sport and for self defense, but they're missing the biggest point of the 2nd amendment. The main purpose that Americans are allowed to bear arms is in case of government tyranny against the citizens, in which case the citizens will be able to have a fighting chance against the government unlike WW2 Nazi Germany and many other cases. Overall, Leftist have poor education on the constitution and insist that the only way America can reach greatness is to change the constitution which allowed America to become the greatest country of all time.
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
All people on the left don't hate the Constitution. This is the problem with making a particular side a monolith. We all fall on a spectrum and saying everyone on one side agrees on something is ridiculous. Also based on your resolution, you have to argue that people on the left hate the Constitution in it's entirety, which is just wrong. I happen to quite like the 14th amendment of the Constitution for example. Also using criminal elements  who happen to fall on a particular side of the political spectrum does not allow you to make assumptions about the vast majority of people who fall on that side of the spectrum who aren't violent. Hopefully in the next round you can post an actual argument and this debate can actually start. 
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Argument extended.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Argument extended. 
Added:
We've reached a new low of debate resolutions.
#4
Added:
They like the freedom of religion part of the constitution when it applies to Muslims. They like the amendments that abolished slavery and made everyone who was born in the USA a citizen. They like the one that gave women the right to vote. They don't hate all parts of the constitution.
#3
Added:
Are there more fleshed out/different arguments still to come? It looks like round 1 arguments have been used in the description
#2
Added:
--> @NoCap
I agree with your argument, but if I were you I would probably alter your actual challenge here.
I've already run into a situation where I thought I very clearly worded my debate and what specifically I was challenging my opponent to argue for. However, the rando who accepted the debate completely ignored everything I wrote in the debate description, as well as all of my opening arguments, and basically just made up his own topic that he wanted to argue about.
Frankly, I see the same thing happening here. Since this is an open debate, the first rando who comes along and thinks "ha, I can prove I don't hate the constitution" will quickly pounce on this, ignore everything you said about the first and second amendments in the debate description, and start rambling about how much they "LLLOOOOOUUUUVVVVEEE" the 298th Amendment making homosexuality compulsory. And then you will be stuck in the boat I'm in, where your debate becomes a fight over if your opponent has the necessary reading comprehension skills to figure out where on the page you posted the debate description at.
So I guess what I'm getting at is; Be careful with titles!
#1
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro makes a (honestly) very poor argument generalizing Antifa's radical actions as those of the Left, then generalizes that Leftists want to ban all guns, and then insults them by calling them uneducated, all without source. Pro rebuttals Pro's generalizations by pointing out just what they are: generalizations. Con then FF's the debate. :(
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con had an argument and had better conduct.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
"All people on the left don't hate the Constitution. This is the problem with making a particular side a monolith. We all fall on a spectrum and saying everyone on one side agrees on something is ridiculous. "
- Con R1 (identifies as male on profile for now)
Con's funny wording causes confusion here and could have turned his semantic play brutally back onto himself, had Pro been here and been proficient at debating. Con meant to say 'not all on the left hate' as opposed to 'all on the left don't hate'. This was an extreme, extreme flaw because it directly contradicted the entire remainder of the R1 and is not a joke of a grammar mistake to make.
I don't understand how forfeiting every Round is bad conduct. It gives the opponent the easiest path to victory possible and thus is severely kind to them.
Con wins arguments because Con states a simple idea; the "Leftists" don't, as a whole, hate the Constitution, as a whole. It was a combined 'reduction-Kritik' whereby Con made his burden fo proof infinitesimally small but not negative (not actually proving anything or needing to).
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forefeit
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro forfeit the entire debate.
I also tried to warn him in the comments that his opponent was going to make the exact argument that he made...