What was the debate concerning a Bill of rights?

Answer 1

This is a very broad question, and I regret that this will be at best a condensed answer and at worst a misrepresentation of very well thought out positions, but some of the opposing viewpoints are:

First Amendment - Debate over this amendment is generally not partisan and usually centers around good taste (i.e. should pornography or explicit or subversive works be banned or censored) or damage to the greater good (i.e. what right do people have to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if it endangers the public.) Recently debate regarding the free practice of religion in the public sphere has veered into partisan lines. Conservatives insist on the freedom to display religious paraphernalia in the public sphere when it is Christian (i.e. the Ten Commandments on a courtroom steps or a nativity scene outside a federal building) but in a striking display of hypocrisy insist that minority displays of worship (i.e. building a Muslim community center near Ground Zero) be curtailed by good taste. Liberals generally insist that all religion be taken out of the sphere of government, including the above examples, and in more extreme cases attempting to eliminate "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the like.

Second Amendment - Conservatives generally believe that this amendment defends the right of all citizens to own any form of weapon with limited regulations or controls, or in extreme cases with no limitations whatsoever. Liberals generally believe that the right of citizens to own weapons is curtailed by the violence that can be inflicted without regulation - i.e. cop-killing automatic weapons should be banned and there should be limits on allowing children or felons access to weapons or the ability to conceal weapons. In extreme cases liberals may interpret this amendment as allowing only for the National Guard to hold weapons, and that private citizens are indeed not guaranteed the right to bear arms.

Fourth Amendment - This is increasingly being seen as a matter of national defense. In general, conservatives believe that increasingly draconian methods of search and seizure (i.e. warrantless wiretapping) are necessary and wise to defend against terrorist attacks while liberals tend to believe that civil liberties are far more important to the functioning of a society than personal safety, even if it endangers the homeland.

Sixth and Seventh Amendments - Similar to the 4th, conservatives may insist on opposing due process, for instance extraordinary rendition or the keeping of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or unmarked overseas prisons in order to keep the homeland safe, while liberals will insist that jurisprudence is more important than safety.

Eighth Amendment - Recently back in the news in regards to the debate over the procedure known as "waterboarding" and whether that constitutes torture. Again, conservatives will insist that either waterboarding is not torture or that if it is, such torture is necessary to protect the United States while liberals will argue that waterboarding is clearly torture and thus banned by the 8th Amendment.

Tenth Amendment - In recent conservative doctrine this amendment is often used as a cudgel to deflect Federal Laws regarding gay marriage or taxes, with the argument that such matters are best left to the states. Liberals often oppose the notion that states have the right to defy federal law. This divide was also made recently apparent in the Arizona Immigration Law.

Answer 2

About half of the Bill of Rights talks about criminal cases, so one good point to bring up would be that the bill of rights gives criminals too many rights..