CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
How much should we care about what the country was founded upon?
In America, a lot of political discussion refers to the morals that this country was founded upon. But should we really focus on that? We've already deviated from a lot from how the country was in 1776. On both civil issues, such as race relations (slavery) and women's rights, as well as plenty of economic and other issues, we are not longer abiding by the same morals and values that our country was founded upon.
In my view, we should value the history of the country, but should focus on the values that we think are right, and not so much the values of those alive hundreds of years ago. They can overlap, but they don't have to. And I don't think "our country was founded on it" is a good reason to justify something.
The state of the world and the prevailing dogma of the, then advanced nations, was the backdrop to the formation of America's Constitution. As you state the world, it's values and threats have changed dramatically since the 1700s, and it is important to recognize the necessity to change with a changing world. Principles and values can be retained, but modified to keep in step with a different set of circumstances.
The same morals that guided the founders have obviously changed, toward what I deem to be moral progress. Some more fundamental ideas, such as man's rights to life and liberty, are unchanged. What has changed in their regard, is the more inclusive definition of man to encompass all of mankind.
IMO the morals that any society adopts reflect the values of that society and its leaders. When values change within a society, the result can be either positive or negative to its members. Positive changes can be regarded as those that strengthen the society's ability to provide liberty and opportunity to its members. Negative changes most often are seen to weaken that ability. Because change can be negative, it must be approached with all of the thoughtful care and serious reflection that was used by our founders.
I am aware. However, often when a change is suggested, those that oppose call to the fact that it opposes the views that the country was founded upon. I am simply trying to explain why I find that to be an invalid argument.
Sex Slavery does exist in this country with has zero to do with Chattel Slavery ! Slavery is Slavery no matter how you look at it. Now with said why does the country still have slavery?
As I have acknowledged, sex slavery does exist in this country. However, at the founding of this country, we employed chattel slavery, the most brutal form of slavery ever employed. It was legal, morally acceptable, and the backbone of our economy.
Now, the forms of slavery that exist in this country are not legal, not acceptable, and non systematic the way chattel slavery is.
I recommend you research chattel slavery, because "slavery is slavery no matter how you look at it" is not a historically or factually accurate statement.
Sex slavery is brutal, but the form of slavery they exist within is not the most brutal form of slavery.
Sex slavery is indeed not legal or widely accepted, but that is the nature of crime. Murder is not legal and widely accepted, yet it still takes place. Same with theft, assault, rape, etc.
Are you looking to get into a conversation on the nature of crime and why it occurs?
But what you are really concerned with is the most brutal form of slavery.
It's not a matter of what I am concerned with, it's a matter of what is relevant to the conversation and the debate topic. You have deviated (ha) from the topic of whether or not this country has strayed from its founding state.
All slavery is brutal so why does it still exist in the world today ?
For many of the same reasons that all sorts of crime still exist in the world today. Do you wish to change the conversation to the nature of crime? If so, you should start a new debate on that.
What you want to say is slavery is okay as long as this country doesn't have Chattel Slavery. Because at least that brutal form is gone. You just won't accept that slavery still exists in this country.
Because we are on a debate topic about deviations from the way this country was founded, and the fact that this country was founded upon chattel slavery but has since abolished it (and made all forms of slavery illegal) proves that we have deviated.
I have answered the question. Abolish is a term referring to formally ending something. By making it illegal, they formally ended it.
Informally, attempts are made at ridding this country of the horrid practice but said attempts have not yet fully succeeded.
Now if you keep asking the same questions (ones I have already answered and which are irrelevant to the debate topic) I will keep responding with the same answers.
You are supporting my argument. I am pointing out that these thing have changed. As such, stating that we should do something because it lines up with the morals and ideas of those who founded the country is invalid.
You have stated Obama's words exactly. I can't dispute the word of a noted Leftist as Obama is. Because you see it is his ideology that drives him and his hatred for this country.
Many values of today's society have deviated from the past. My point is that just because something was accepted by the founders of the nation doesn't mean that we should continue to uphold it.
This is in response to an argument often used in issues such as gun control... along the lines of "the founders of our country wanted everyone to have guns, so therefor we should all have guns."
Yes! Considering the fact that we have evaluated traditional marriage to see it as illogical, we have adapted. This is the type of parallel I am making.
Quite a few ways. For one, treating half of the human species as if they were a commodity is quite illogical. Two, the concept that society can not allow other legal relationships for fear of undermining heterosexual ones is quite illogical. Three, the idea that relationships between consenting adults are not deserving of Constitutional protections is quite illogical. Four, the idea that only two people of the same ethnicity can marry and that the government should legally enforce that is quite illogical. I could go on.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with Due Process and Equal Protections, the clauses referenced by the Supreme Court when they made Same-Sex marriage bans unconstitutional nationally.
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days"
Well, gay marriage is a completely separate deviation from "traditional marriage." But my point is one of logic: Without using religious teachings, can you explain why gay marriage is immoral?
As has already been said, it doesn't, but it doesn't need to. Marriage was ruled to be a civil right in Loving v. Virginia, and therefore is protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses.
As for the requirements of marriage, as of right now it is two consenting adults.
Why is it then that the 14th Amendment does not view traditional marriage as rape ? This country was founded on Judaeo Christian values and according to the Bible as the PirateDog says traditional marriage was rape. So why wasn't that written into the 14th Amendment ?
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days"
Deuteronomy 22:28
So why was this not mentioned in the 14th Amendment ? Do tell
Additionally, him quoting did not indicate that "traditional marriage" is rape. It indicate that within "traditional marriage", the woman is the property of the father, and that rape therefore is a crime against the father, not the woman.
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days"
Deuteronomy 22:28
Where is this in the 14th Amendment ? I want to know where it is !
Additionally, him quoting did not indicate that "traditional marriage" is rape. It indicate that within "traditional marriage", the woman is the property of the father, and that rape therefore is a crime against the father, not the woman.
Rape still occurs under traditional marriage because you just verified it ! Your words are you ready ? "traditional marriage", the woman is the property of the father, and that rape therefore is a crime against the father, not the woman."
Rape still occurs under traditional marriage because you just verified it !
It can occur.
Your words are you ready ? "traditional marriage", the woman is the property of the father, and that rape therefore is a crime against the father, not the woman."
Which means that rape can occur within traditional marriage, not that rape is an integral part of traditional marriage.
Many, but the ones referred to in your comment: Slavery (Chattel slavery to be precise) and the lesser state of women in society (particularly as it relates to civil rights).
Again, you need to listen to what people say. You asked what traditions were deviated from.
Women used to have little to no civil rights, and that was a very real part of the societal structure during the founding of this country. It is even evident in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
