The Instigator
hihihaha
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bmlxoxo22
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Could a government do bad things to protect their citizen?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 35078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

hihihaha

Pro

Sometimes, we all do bad things to protect ourselves. But could governments be able to do bad things, such as killing? I say, yes, because of the citizen's protection and to make a good government. There are 3 examples that I would give; the trail of tears, president Barack Obama killing Awlaki, and lastly, the immigration officers. They all did bad things, for their own people. What do you think?
bmlxoxo22

Con

No I completely disagree with this statement. For starters, since we are talking about the government there are obligated to do what they do as long as its in the constitution. if its against it then wheres the justice in the world? second, we expect the government to always follow the rules. the government needs to set a good influence on the world. if the government didn't follow the rules than that would show every other citizen in the country that its ok to do so, and clearly its not. there would never be peace if such a thing happened.
Debate Round No. 1
hihihaha

Pro

Awlaki is a terrorist and he killed an excessive amount of people in 9 . 11. Obama killed him ( which is a bad thing) without giving him a chance to go to a trial because he already had enough resources. In this case, the government can do bad things to save people from getting hurt.
bmlxoxo22

Con

your idea of "bad" is different from the meaning. your definition of bad in this situation could be described as protective or defensive. but anyways, Obama himself shouldn't have killed him. he should've taken matters into legal hands. the right thing he should've done was let the troops kill him.
Debate Round No. 2
hihihaha

Pro

But, it would have been harder to capture him than kill him. If he didn't kill him at that time, more people could have died from the U.S, and Awlaki could have killed thousands of people just like the 9. 11.
bmlxoxo22

Con

Easy doesnt always mean better. Obama set the example that it's ok to do something the way you shouldn't just because it's easier. He could've made a better LEGAL plan to kill him. An example of what Obama did could be cheating on a test. It's easier and you get an easy A, but it's still wrong to do it.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.