Instigator / Pro

Mall

1492

rating

335

debates

40.9%

won

Topic

#3762

You pick the topic.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 09.17.2022 05:49PM
Last updated date: 10.20.2022 10:13AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 20,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Novice_II

1890

rating

debates

93.37%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.

Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .

***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THR SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***

Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1

Mall

09.17.2022 05:56PM

Pro

Our topic today

Novice_II

09.19.2022 07:24AM

Con

Topic: "THBT Christianity should be made illegal in the United States."

Round 2

Mall

09.19.2022 04:14PM

Pro

Any law not passed, rape, abortion, slavery, murder should be illegal because something did not happen called the "passing of that law".

Following that which is the cause or purpose connects the two when discussing what should and shouldn't be.

I shouldn't be staying up late at night being that I have to get up early in the morning. Why? It would prevent my early wakefulness and I'm trying to have an early rise, duh. No contradicting and no non sequiturs.

For example, my inhaling these fatal toxic fumes , I should be dead. The effect following the cause logical follows and necessitates.

Something should not be legal in the United States based on the law system of the United States. A different system, we're talking about something different. The United States has a government called the United States government or affectionately "Uncle Sam", ok.

This government has democracy to vote in elected officials to orchestrate the legality process. This government has democracy which in turn via those elected parties or directly through petition, vote in on laws.

There's a whole legislature, congress to pass or veto laws.

Whatever laws that are passed by the United States government should in fact be legal.

That's just simply what it would mean.

Something should be illegal and that thing is legally passed are in opposition. It doesn't compute.

The laws put in effect via congressional, legislative, political arenas, that process ,the cause should be legally in effect as that what it means to put them in effect.

A vote, a pass on a law should be legalized because it would of meant the government has passed it. For instance, consuming alcohol and recently, marijuana use.

Any law not passed concerning an act obviously should be illegal because something did not happen called the "passing of that law" for that act.

Novice_II

09.20.2022 10:13AM

Con

First of all, pro argued against his own side, so I don't know what to say.
Second, we are not debating whether passing laws should be legal, we are debating whether Christianity should be made illegal. You can pass a law that legally makes something illegal, that should not have been made illegal. We are debating the normative ethics in which you should argue that we ought to make Christianity illegal. No argument has been given for this, so the resolution defaults to con.
My argument is that the United States should not make Christianity illegal because the first amendment guarantees the freedom on religion and speech/expression.

RationalMadman

10.20.2022 03:27AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro used a kritik or semantic trick that he has utilised in 'rape should be legal' debates but this time the sides were flipped and therefore Mall ended up actually making a case for it being legal.

Mall argues that all things relating to law are legal, so it blatantly backfires.

ILikePie5

10.20.2022 02:23AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Another easy vote in my opinion. Con wins.

S/G: I award this to Con. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Pro on the other hand had run-on sentences (like the last couple of sentences). There are numerous sentence fragments and comma errors that make it difficult to understand their argument.

Conduct: This is a tie as both sides were respectful to each other and there was no cursing or inappropriateness.

Sources: I am going to give this to Con because they provided a source unlike Pro. The source is the text of the first amendment, which explains the government cannot ban religion. This helps support their argument that Christianity shouldn’t be banned for solvency reasons.

Arguments: This one goes to Con as well. The S/G by Pro really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Pro makes an argument over legality and illegality. Specifically,

“Whatever laws that are passed by the United States government should in fact be legal.

That's just simply what it would mean.”

However, this argument is contradictory to their position in the debate as Con points out. Con is the one that rightfully points out the Constitution prohibits banning of religion, and so it shouldn’t be banned.

Con wins.

Ehyeh

10.19.2022 06:07PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

"first of all, pro argued against his own side, so I don't know what to say.
Second, we are not debating whether passing laws should be legal, we are debating whether Christianity should be made illegal. You can pass a law that legally makes something illegal, that should not have been made illegal. We are debating the normative ethics in which you should argue that we ought to make Christianity illegal. No argument has been given for this, so the resolution defaults to con.
My argument is that the United States should not make Christianity illegal because the first amendment guarantees the freedom on religion and speech/expression. "