The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Everybody Should Obey The Rules

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 64392
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Everybody should obey the rules. Without rules, crimes would happen all of the time. Many people do not do things we would consider crimes simply because of the punishment. However, without rules and laws, most people would never pay for anything in the store. If the stores are not paid, they can not keep up their business anymore. If they can't keep up their business, the producers of merchandise won't have enough money to produce their good. Therefore, a lack of rules would cause an economic crash.
Not only that, but without rules, people wouldn't even know that they were doing bad things. If a person is brought up to believe that something is acceptable, they will find it acceptable. Therefore, if there are no rules, people would not only commit crimes, but find these crimes acceptable.
As you can see, rules are very important. Therefore, everyone should follow the rules.


Thank you for starting this debate! I'd like to start off by giving a couple contingencies. To win this debate, all I must do is prove that not everybody should have to follow the same rules. For you to win, you must prove that all people should obey all the same rules.

1st: Rules do not apply to all, and therefor should not be obeyed by all. While rules are important, who defines the rules? I would assume that anybody that has any power would create the rules, ex. Schools, Government, Religious leaders. Since not every one goes to the same school, all schools will have some variation in their rules. Therefor, since it is possible for a rule not apply to a student body, then not everyone should have to follow the same set of rules.

2nd: There are some schools that are more prone to things like cheating and stealing, so there rule codes should be stricter than schools that do not have the same issue.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to address your interpretation of this debate. I did not say that everyone should follow the same rules. I simply put that everyone should follow the rules. This means the rules given depending on who is in authority over you. Nowhere did I mention everyone following the same rules. Therefore, your arguments do nothing useful to prove your position.
Everyone should follow the rules. Not necessarily the same rules, since different places have different rules. Rules were made for a reason. Some rules are to protect us. For instance, if a mother gives a rule in her household stating not to mess around with matches, she is doing it to protect her child from harm. If people did not follow the rules, many people could end up being harmed.
The con side also failed to counter my previous arguments, and I would like to remind everyone that not following the rules could end up in an economic crash and a lack of a conscience. Even the most simplest rules are there for a reason, especially the traditional rules such as the rule against murder. I repeat that this does not mean that everyone has to follow the same rules, simply the rules given by a person who holds authority over that person.


To begin, I will rebut you initial statement. If you say, "everyone must follow THE rules..." Your implying that their is only one set of rules. You were unclear, and unfortunately for you that means my entire argument still stands. I did not mention that side of the argument because it was not time to rebut, which is why I don't understand pecan pie you think you busted me. There are several types of rules, with several types of interpretations. The one example you gave does not define the entire debate. What about social rules? Should we all be cookie cutter because of social rules? No, we should break through, and become individuals. This article relates to entrepreneurs, ";

If you believe that not everybody should follow the same rules, then your argument should have been, "everyone should follow the dynamic and individualized rules placed in front of them", however you didn't, therefor my interpretation still stands.

Conformism isn't a good thing, and in today's society it is more important than ever. Let's go to your mother-example. My mother always told me to never question anybody who had authority over me. Yet I challenged that, and that is why I am successful at all, because I didn't follow the rules. i was never disrespectful, but I understood that not everybody above me has my best interests in mind, nor do they always know what is best for me.
Finally, "The con side also failed to counter my previous arguments,"

This is ridiculous, and I'm officially calling you out on it. You do not counter arguments in the initial round. The first round is for rebuttals.

" would like to remind everyone that not following the rules could end up in an economic crash and a lack of a conscience. "

It could, or it could lead into economic success. You failed to prove this argument, so it is invalid, along with the rest of your arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


I said that everyone should follow the rules.According to the dictionary on google at, a rule is one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.Notice that this mentions a particular activity or sphere,not just regulations and principles.When I gave my statement,I meant that everyone should obey the principles or regulations pertaining to an activity or sphere as the definition states.With this definition,mentioning the rules does not mean the same rules.
I completely agree that people should be original and break free of the normal.However, following the rules does not restrict originality.It simply guides people through their life.You have mentioned social rules.However,rules pertain to whoever is in the activity or sphere.In this case,I would consider society and it's social rules as a sort of sphere. Not everybody chooses to follow social rules, and if they choose not to, they do not suffer any punishment.If they don't want to, they don't have to participate in society and it's rules.After all,that would be like demanding everyone play baseball and go by its rules.
It is okay to question authority and understand that they don't know everything.Even if you dislike what authority is doing, you can still follow the rules.If you don't like the leader of your town,you can leave the town and get out of their sphere.I believe I proved my economic crash.If there were no rules,people would not have to buy from stores.Many will instead just take whatever they want.When stores don't get enough money to keep up their store due to what is now called stealing, they will not be able to buy as many products.When they can't buy as many products,the makers of these products will not make as much money.Similar things to this situation may happen as well.
Also,I am sorry.In the last debating website I was in,the counterargument went with the rebuttal.


I agree with your definition, but once again, who's set of rues do we follow? The key word in that definition is governing. Should the whole world be governed by the same set of rules? Also, you misinterpreted the definition.

Alright, and in your second and third paragraphs you essential just argued for my case, so i'm not sure pecan pie you included it, however I'll take it since you abandoned your argument and agreed with mine.

Under your definition and argument, there would have to be some some type of universal code which we would all be forced to follow. There are several types of rules, so let's talk about religious rules. For example, in many religions it is against the rules to worship idols, however for a while it used to be mandatory to salute the flag. This could be considered a form of worshiping idols. Who's rules do we follow? You simply cannot follow both set of rules, and therefor I must urge you to vote Con.
Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ygdjh 1 year ago
Sorry, this is only my second day on this website!
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
There's no country that I know of which follows the 10 commandments. Most of them are irrelevant anyway.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
The ten commandments are a good place to start. Keeping them will lead to a long and prosperous life. Breaking them will have the opposite effect.
Posted by ShikenNuggets 1 year ago
While I personally agree with Pro, he could have presented his argument better.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: this is a obvious win for con in simple logic and debating.