CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
9
OMFG!! Jesus all the way, baby!
Debate Score:14
Arguments:13
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 OMFG!! (5)
 
 Jesus all the way, baby! (6)

Debate Creator

excon(17248) pic



Dominionists want to establish the US as a Christian theocracy. Roe is just the beginning.

Hello:

Clarence Thomas has said as much. The Supreme Court now has several Christian Dominionist members.  Next, they are going to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, which gives people access to contraceptives. 

Roe is just the beginning. Wait until the Republicans have control of the US House, Senate, and Presidency. They will pass a national ban on abortion, and if Obergefell has been overturned, pass a national ban on gay marriage.

Inter-racial marriage is on the chopping block too.

We are on our way to a dystopian nightmare, and I only hope that I am wrong.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/roe-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage/
excon


OMFG!!

Side Score: 5
VS.

Jesus all the way, baby!

Side Score: 9
1 point

Dominionists want to establish the US as a Christian theocracy

Communists want to establish the US as an authoritarian police state. Muslims want a Muslim theocracy. It's gonna be established as something, so it might as well be established as something that isn't woke or Communist

Side: OMFG!!
excon(17248) Disputed
1 point

Communists want to establish the US as an authoritarian police state.

Hello Lunch:

The difference is, Dominionist's have 3 seats on our Supreme Court.. The commies ain't got any..

Dude!

excon

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!
1 point

In relatively recent history America was discovered, pioneered, settled and developed by Christians.

In this context it is only fitting and proper that the Christian principles and ethics upon which our great nation was established is permanently cemented as the foundation and administrative structure for all time.

The inhuman and non-Christian practise of savagely vacuuming an unborn child from its mother's womb and disposing of its body like so much garbage goes against God's law and should be outlawed in any civilized society.

.

Side: OMFG!!
2 points

Great news: you're wrong. Mostly.

Look, love or hate abortion, the fact is that it's just not covered under the Constitution of the United States. I'm pro choice within limits and even I have to admit that Roe v. Wade was predicted on a portion of the 14th amendment that was made the fuck up by a activist hiding under judge's robes. Fuck, the plaintiff went on to recant her testimony and insist that she was committing perjury when she claimed she was raped. Folks, any other case would have been overturned immediately. All of this is to say: abortion isn't a constitutionally recognized right. Never was. And, thanks to the Democrats continued inaction over 50 years and multiple periods of supermajorities, never will be. (May I remind you that the Democrats maintain control of Congress and the White House, and if they gave an actual fuck about marriage and reproduction rights over votes, they'd be desperately trying to get an amendment passed to protect gay marriage and abortion... But they're not doing that.)

So! What do we do with an issue that is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States? Gee, if only there were an amendment for that very issue... Oh right, number ten. The rest of the amendment goes: are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To be clear, this might be the only amendment more abused than the second for the past century. This applies to more than reproductive rights, gay marriage, contraceptives, etc, this applies to virtually every modern industry in existence. Do I wish they had started with the IRS? FUCK yes, but I have to take what I can get when it comes to neutering the authority of the feds.

This was never anything more than a states issue, and I'm glad to see it go back to its rightful place in the legal spectrum. The great news about that is, it's way easier to influence your state representative than your federal representative. I only wish there were a better legal precedent to set here for future lawsuits to sue the federal government down to the size it's supposed to be.

So! Why then are we not going to see a national ban on abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, etc? 2 reasons. One, the federal government no longer has the authority to do so unless they actually amend the constitution. And 2, the Republicans are not so stupid as to commit political suicide by attempting a nationwide constitutional ban, not could they get the support if they tried. The Democrats need you to think that they'll try, because the only way they're going to retain any seats this midterm is if you're more afraid of what the Republicans might (but won't) do than the flaming nuclear train wreck that the Democrats are actively causing.

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!
2 points

You grew up in a Christian theocracy. School shootings were unheard of, people left their doors unlocked, comedians didn't get punched on stage, people respected their elders, and the parties could agree on basic morality.

What you see today is the result of the left's attempt to reject any objective moral framework, which creates divisions and power grabs based on identity and political ideology. Without a moral framework agreed on by the majority, the country self destructs and falls into decay and decline. The moral framework agreed on when you were young was Christianity. Every President when you were young would talk about his Christian faith because without that declaration, he could not win an election. That was the case because America was essentially a Christian nation.

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!
seanB(950) Clarified
2 points

I agree with most of this, but the US was always a secular nation with special protections for freedoms that a lot of other countries at the time didn't have. One of those was freedom to practice any religion, or irreligion.

That being said, I do reckon an agreed upon moral framework is necessary. I won't say objective because I can't be certain objective morals exist. But what I do know from travelling is that Western societies are far more developed, advanced, free and safe than almost all others. So, what is that unifying moral code that helped them get there?

Well, I might argue it's freedom of expression, open debate, individual rights, the rule of law, and self determination under the protection of constitutionally engrained legal axioms. What does that look like on the day to day? Respectful debate; moderation of mind; varied education; individualism; free markets for commerce and ideas; accountable polity; and some unifying force.

America right now is really missing that unifying force element. What unites Western countries and gives them something to strive towards together? That's the big question right now. Whoever finds the answer will rule the free world. But I can tell you that it's no longer Christianity (if it ever was at all).

Perhaps it's the idea of positive endeavour towards creating stable democracies and free societies at home and around the world. That's something that can unite people with the right motivations and speeches and redirections of people's attention Or perhaps it's something else.

But whatever the answer is: at the moment, social media, virulent neomarxism and a slew of other inner problems make common ideals seem naive, even trite to a lot of people.

Too many opinions and not enough mediation, for my taste. Honestly, people need to be willing to conscience firstly that they may be wrong about some hard-held beliefs (not just leftists or rightists but everyone), and secondly, people need a moderating voice, a central man or woman, a third option.

This left-right thing is only getting more polarised and extreme in my view and you're completely right that such a schism destroys countries. So, the question becomes: how can I start bridging ideas and having open, respectful debates, even if it means considering and making concessions to some views or ideas that on first glance make me cringe or recoil.

Surely it's better than the alternative?

Abortion up to a limit - moderate

Common sense regulations on guns for a "well regulated militia" as per Great Amendment Number Two - moderate

Disallowing kids from being maimed by gender nutcases but still allowing adults to be trans if they themselves choose - moderate

Opposing mass migration but still giving people opportunities to come across the border to escape violence and go through proper channels - moderate

Giving women equal pay for equal work but also giving men more rights in divorce and whatnot - moderate

Banning anti-democratic indoctrination in schools but teaching anti-democracy through the lens of the historical failures of communism and authoritarianism in general - moderate (and extremely necessary)

This is what we need, really. Middle ground. A compromise.

Side: OMFG!!
Pennywise(58) Clarified
1 point

But I can tell you that it's no longer Christianity

So you admit Christianity might have been the unifying factory.

(if it ever was at all).

Every President in American history has professed to be a Christian. Explain why that is to me.

Side: OMFG!!
1 point

Clarence Thomas has said as much. The Supreme Court now has several Christian Dominionist members.

Good.

Next, they are going to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, which gives people access to contraceptives.

The right supports contraceptives that you pay for yourselves, so you made this up from out of thin air.

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!
excon(17248) Disputed
1 point

The right supports contraceptives that you pay for yourselves, so you made this up from out of thin air.

Hello hater:

Nahhh..

Facts of the case:

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court.

The Question:

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on the use of contraceptives?

The Conclusion:

It DOES by a 7–2 majority.

FREE ain't got nothing to do with it. Get a book.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

excon

Side: OMFG!!
Metroid(60) Disputed
1 point

It DOES by a 7–2 majority.

FREE ain't got nothing to do with it. Get a book.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

Nothing you posted even challenged the point that right wingers in 2022 aren't against contraceptives. In fact we prefer you use them.

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!
excon(17248) Disputed
1 point

so you made this up from out of thin air.

Hello Hole:

Thanks for the softball. And, thank you too, google.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha

excon

Side: OMFG!!
Pennywise(58) Disputed
1 point

I clicked your link. There's literally nothing on it you stupid piece of shit.

Side: Jesus all the way, baby!