There's nothing wrong with the way I debate. The only reason you insinuate otherwise, obviously, is that you know if you stand your intellectual ground for a second I'll deck you, and your only alternative is this weaselly diversion.
Absolutely you are debating wrong. To you, it is you and me having some imaginary fist fight and in your deluded mind, you knock me out. But true debate covers ideas. This is not you trying to divert by making it personal. It is idea vs idea.
To be sure; and clearly it's not something you're interested in, which is why you're trying to make this a debate about debating, rather than about your asinine position on secession.
Yet to date, you have yet to make your case on why your so called position is best. Matter of fact, one of your admissions is the constitution does not prevent this.
the constitution is very broad... it covers a lot, especially when it comes to free speech, religion, guns and equal rights most America support the enforcement of these rights..... at ALL levels of government should states be able to decide to ban free speech, religion, guns? equal rights? .
that is my point Congress can not pass laws that allow the states to pass such laws violating the constitution but they can pass laws enforcing the constitution on the states .
Actually I've done it several times in other PF threads. Whether I do it in this one depends on whether I encounter an opponent who is, at a minimum, willing and able to comprehend plain English... ...and this suggests I haven't.
This I never get. General Washington was a true traitor yet for some reason he is called Great. Jefferson Davis as president did the same thing. But Washington did not get the public to vote. Davis and the South voted. I call that actual democracy in action. - - - Updated - - - OK, I get it. You are a lightweight. I think you conceded.
Enforcement by whom? Let me ask the age old question. !. Can you force me to obey you? 2. Can I force you to obey me? 3. Can I appoint a person to force you to obey me? By what authority does the enforcer enjoy a greater right than you or I enjoy?
Pretty sad when a lightweight approaches with his head thrust forward and his arms akimbo, and the super-heavyweight backs down. And you know damn well I did no such thing.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and not others, I would do it. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union. Lincoln's number one priority and objective was to save the Union by doing whatever it took. To Lincoln the war wasn't over slavery, but preserving the Union.
There are so many of those who wish Lincoln had failed and who readily admit they hate just about everything else about this country, be it the government, the courts, integration, you name it. It's really kinda funny because they generally fly the Stars 'n Bars and go by the name 'patriot'.
the law can force you to not discriminate if you want to run a public business fro example, can force you not to sell food that is spoiled, contaminated, not what you claimed it to be, ect.... the law can force you to wear your seat-belt, drive the speed limit, drive sober, ect... .
In the end it all boils down to this. The south lost the war, slavery was ended and Lincoln is widely considered the best US President. No internet posting about the right to secede or the legality of slavery will change that although I do love seeing southern sympathisers try to rewrite history. Slavery was and will always be morally wrong and those who argue for the right to hold slaves are morally wrong.
Obviously you didn't know that the Union had slavery for about 89 years. The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years. And when the Civil War was over, and Lincoln was dead...There was still slavery in the Northern or Union states. Its called history...