CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:18
Arguments:42
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 OK, you wanna overturn gay marriage. I got it.. What else? (15)

Debate Creator

excon(1571) pic



OK, you wanna overturn gay marriage. I got it.. What else?

Hello:

If you could, what else would you wish for?? Prayer in school, perhaps?  How about ending abortion forever, and getting rid of those dreaded birth control pills??

Off the top of my head, those are the first things that come to MY mind, but I'm more interested in what comes to YOUR mind..

excon
Add New Argument
4 points

I want a law against fake news including a clear standard or definition of a threshhold of proof for violating it, with a statute of limitations of filing within a year the fake news was created. And then I want the punishments to include:

fines - either punitive, or to counter profits made off the false news, and

jail time - if it can be shown to propagate hate crimes or invalidate the democratic process.

For example, and I'll offer this one for conservatives favor, if there really is solid evidence the Hillary Clinton's campaign originated the Obama not a citizen stuff then she should face fines and prison time.

outlaw60(8159) Clarified
1 point

LMAO the Leftist wants jail time for the 1st Amendment but i thought you on the Left were all about the Constitution these days.

Grenache(3939) Disputed
1 point

Nope, what I propose is more akin to libel and slander laws. .........................................

outlaw60(8159) Clarified
1 point

I get it you want full government control over media but not Leftist Media. Sounds like you are all about Communism and State Run Media there Boston Boy !

Grenache(3939) Disputed
1 point

Nope, I make it clear in the proposal that anyone caught making up fake news would be subject to it. That's not government control, that's public safety.

outlaw60(8159) Clarified
1 point

I think i get what you want Boston Boy no negative news against the Progressives and then America should become a Cuba with punishments for those that oppose the State. Can you make it any clearer that you are a Communist !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grenache(3939) Disputed
1 point

Share all the negative news you want, you just can't make it up out of thin air. If the Left is so incompetent and horrible anyway then you should have tons you can publish about them without actually making stuff up.

1 point

I think of all of these, this one is a very good idea. Holding news stations and reporters accountable for knowingly spreading false information and promoting fake news needs to be a law. If they want to do an opinion piece that's fine but they need to advertise it as such and use the rest of their shows for truth and information that is actually researched.

outlaw60(8159) Clarified
1 point

Well Mint i have to say you are leaning real far left and you show it.

An opinion piece that's fine but they need to advertise it as such and use the rest of their shows for truth and information that is actually researched.

Who is going to research the truth and the information ? Government ?

What your saying is America needs a State Run Media like a 3rd world country !!!!!!!!!

outlaw60(8159) Clarified
1 point

LMMFAO Hillary should be put in prison for attacking your Boy King Obama but what about Bill you dummy !!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Clinton helped sink his wife's chances for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy by belittling Barack Obama as nothing but a race-based candidate.

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, "Game Change."

The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.

After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, "the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear."

Grenache(3939) Disputed
1 point

I made it clear, either side or anyone at all who creates fakes stories would be subject to this. I'm willing to throw any damn liar under the bus. So why are you only willing to throw the Left liars but give the Right liars a pass? Hmm?

John_C_1812(79) Disputed
1 point

Do you mean a new law almost like slander or fraud but only interpreted differently. The issue makes litigation of double jeopardy for the same crime possible in several new ways, in two or more place outside of the courtroom, making it easier, more likely that the public seeking justice in Civil and criminal proceedings will publicly shaping double jeopardy as the new unknown publicly acceptable white collar crime.

The democratic process invalidates democracy that is why the United States was a judicial impartial Republic. When we look at the world events are political shaped by selling of democracy instead of constitution.

The object is over Constitutional Amendment meaning a legislation addressing the disparagement of Freedom and Liberty as addressed in a distance in writing between the Declaration of independence and United States Constitution

Grenache(3939) Clarified
1 point

I think you make some excellent points actually, but they don't negate the concept. I don't write laws for a living. Surely the people that do could define it so it either doesn't overlap with libel, slander, or fraud laws, or if it is a higher or lower level of charge just like how there are levels to manslaughter and murder.

The Constitutional argument section I disagree with though because the fact laws can exist against libel, slander, fraud, and not already be violating the Constitution means surely a fake story law falls within that same class.

John_C_1812(79) Clarified
1 point

Sorry, I somehow posted the same argument twice. Writing law as a professional and writing Constitutional laws are not the same. Being paid money does not make the law Constitutional. as a point of reference United States Constitution with a law written as Amendment to the United States Constitution is not the same as judging a law on its Constitutional merit and validity.

Grenache(3939) Clarified
1 point

I think my comment on the near identical post above this cross applies.

I want Canada to take more immigrants and give us a break. They have 30 million people. We have 330 million people and less land.

1 point

The world will do what it plans to do .... we (Christians) simply will call it what it is =

Homo merrige < God has nothing to do with it

abortion < murder

prayer in school ? pfft !! < most prayers are to the wrong god for the wrong reason < God is not obligated to answer the non-believer

PS: I will pray to my God wherever and whenever I so desire < thank you Jesus

1 point

Okay FRAUD who wants to overturn gay marriage when the Kangaroo Court made it legal in all 50 states.

John_C_1812(79) Clarified
1 point

Outlaw60(8129)

A Kangaroo Court in all 50 states cannot make Gay marriage legal. Legislation will simple no longer have to record and document witnesses objections based on discrimination. This is in hopes of limiting the cost of the paperwork of the large number of objection on the morality a basic plagiarism creates. As this plagiarism is a bait to limit and control criminal accusation by public use of double jeopardy.

The point of objection is that a witness need not describe innuendo of morality. Most specifically sexual innuendo. A burden of Title has been transferred to the public by Civil Court, the criminal court system has accusation of discrimination. Discrimination Vs Fraud. There is other crime, the separation process is not a local law or crime, and it became a federal Constitutional crime testing impartial separation. A test of GOD to hold political office. To describe the issue local, State, Congressional office, and Executive office are held captive by this issue making legislation around the topic almost impossible. We most often expect this crime to be performed by a person seeking to sit in the office being held.

Basic principles involved in test. Can a gay man and lesbian woman be married in an impartial test of marriage? Does the marriage depend on public consent or private consent? With a threat of use of force does the United States Constitution have a public right to common defense on behalf of its own general welfare? Can this be described as a test of GOD, when GOD is separated from religion presented in legal way as a tangible axiom and not religion only?

1 point

Ending abortion is constitutionally impossible, abortion is a self-incrementing confession to a felony crime that is transferable to any-one in the public who makes that confession. So, what can be done Constitutional to place a legal limit on the self-incrimination and extensive litigation paper work. By basic principle and legal precedent removing the public self-incrimination to the felony crime. As it is the self-incrimination alone that describes the crime.

There will always be legal concern. However the constitutional issue between Gender Specific Amputations and abortion,is the self-value, of public self-incrimination, to allow law to turn self-incrimination on the public fuels a lack of medical privacy.

1 point

Maybe a law making it a criminal offence to have a bad comb over and a separate law to make it an offence to use a living breathing hairy beast to cover ones head ; and finally a law against using alternative facts .

1 point

States of Constitution and prayer.

A Constitutional understanding of prayer in school.

First State, praying is talking to God out loud, talking to God silently, talking to God in font of other people, or talking to God with other people.

Second State, a separation of church and state does not take place when a public school is open Mon – Fri then closed Sat – Sun. Even when the social network that oversees public schooling allows religious services to take place on Sat – Sun elsewhere. Religion still exists Mon – Fri in school. The only know legal separation of church and state exists in an impartial judicial separation. Meaning a judicial court with a common defense created for the general welfare.

Third State, the pledge of allegiance is an affirmation not prayer. It becomes an Oath by choice of the person whom recites the pledge. It is made a prayer only by those who bring religion with them. It is witnessed as only prayer by those who wish not to be bound by the self-value the Affirmation sets.

Forth State, It is constitutionally impossible to remove prayer from school, as praying is a verbal expression of a process that holds self-value in the public.

Fifth State, Religion is not dependent on prayer to exist, religion is only dependent on publicly shared belief to exist.

Want to add any states of prayer?

1 point

Grievance I

A woman can never legally be President of the United States.

The State of fact. When a person is voting for a President the Title is describing a representation to the United States Constitution by witness account. This is an official legally documented. With an oath describing job description. Meaning misdirecting a witness is an act of perjury.

A democracy is promoting perjury when the law is directed to allowing any vote of this kind to take place. Legal representation has a natural limit set by the gender of woman, she can never legally establish, as a woman she could testify on behalf of all men. This belief and has no merit by fact in basic principle. A woman was only instilled with this idea by likelihood of marriage not law.

The limit created naturally by her own gender is that she could only represent all woman under oath by one of the most basic principles known, a person’s gender. The condition is provided that she could obtain all votes need to establish that a public consensus allowing her this ability is granted by democracy. Then allowing her the legal right of representation of all woman. The limit was never place on a private ability for a woman to represent the United States Constitution in any way.

A constitutional separation of one woman offering relief from burden of President is Prasedera.