Everybody Should Obey The Rules
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.google.com..., 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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: this is a obvious win for con in simple logic and debating.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.