The Instigator
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Going to prison is more voluntary than not.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 32807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

Ragnar

Pro

I shall be arguing that the actions which result in prison sentaces, are generally a choice, with their potential negative results common knowledge.

Full Resolution:
Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is generally more voluntary than not.

Definitions (please request any changes or additions, before we begin):
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary...
Voluntary is "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent" (1).
Prison is "a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically: an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes" (2).
Free Will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (3).

Structure:
No rebuttals in round 2. No new arguments past round 3.

Sources:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
DoctorDeku

Con

Let's do this!
I look forward to an entertaining and concise debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar

Pro

Life is in essence a series of choices, leading to different outcomes. We invest with our actions, and reap the results. If someone wishes to go to college, they must apply. If someone wants money, they must find a way to attain it.

While prison seems one of the least ideal places to be, the actions which get someone sent there are known to have that outcome. Even with prison rarely the goal, it is usually a known part of the bargain for whatever is gained. Much like gambling has much potential benefit, but it is common knowledge that the vast majority of people do not prosper from it.

Last December a man in Buffalo actually shoplifted to be caught, with the intent of going to prison to receive cancer treatment (1). This is just one of many reasons someone would openly choose to go, others often have to deal with lifestyle choices (2).

Sources:
(1) http://thinkprogress.org...
(2) http://meninchains.com...
DoctorDeku

Con

DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar

Pro

Recidivism sheds further light on the choice.
Many prisoners are repeat offenders, who have firsthand knowledge of the outcome. Parole violations can easily result in resuming of prison sentences, with that pre-explained on the contact they signed. The three-strike laws in 28 states (1), are avoidable by relocating before committing the level of crime needed to activate them.

In cases of mental impairment, there are several legal defenses based around such (2).

Fashion.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal (3), veteran police officers are having an easier time capturing criminals who idolize convicts by sagging their pants. Fleeing from police adds the additional criminal charge of Resisting Arrest, thus more prison time, yet they sabotage their supposed efforts to escape.

Sources:
(1) http://www.legalmatch.com...
(2) http://dictionary.law.com...
(3) http://online.wsj.com...
DoctorDeku

Con

DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ragnar

Pro

As stated I shall introduce no new arguments from this point forward, only rebuttals should they become necessary. My opponent is welcome to present new arguments, as the rule was in place without the expectation of missed rounds.

I'd like to thank Militant_Pacifist for helping me refine the base hypothesis into a resolution, and DoctorDeku for accepting the challenge.
DoctorDeku

Con

DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ragnar

Pro

In closing, I shall repeat resolution "Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is generally more voluntary than not;" with extended definitions from my round 1.

Assuming the validity of freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention, going to an institution for confinement for persons convicted of serious crimes within the USA is generally more proceeding from one's own choice than not.

This claim is without judgement of why they make those choices. It includes words like 'generally' to focus on the average prisoner instead of ones with exceptional circumstances.


If I have not met my BoP, please vote against me on argument.
DoctorDeku

Con

DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Wait, a 63 year old man is complaining that he can't learn enough about a 15 year old boy he saw online (while talking about that 15 year old boy's ability to suck things)... Scary.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
I am not angry, far from it; I am amused though " you amuse me.

As far as a big joint, the only way to live life properly is clean and sober and free of drugs, including marijuana.

It does not surprise me that you are a stoner at 15, do you parents knows what a suck you are?

Why isn"t your profile complete? What are you afraid of letting people know? You don"t have to put down your real address or anything like that, so you do have a safety factor. Anyway, there are many punks at this site that don"t complete their profiles; somewhat disingenuous in my opinion.

I am an old person with a college degree; it is unlikely that you have even graduated from high school.

So, when you grow up and complete your profile, get back with me.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 3 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
Just some personal advice I think you need to chillax. You know with a big joint and some stoner food.

You will feel much better afterwards mate.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 3 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
Why are you so angry?

And more to the point why are you looking through an incomplete profile to judge me? (you noted quite astutely that I haven"t completed it (perhaps because I don"t want to be stalked by old angry people such as yourself) so how can you get a full picture of who I am from such an incomplete profile?).

If as you claim I am 15 and you are 63, is it really kosher for you to be stalking my profile?

Best wishes MP
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Militant_Pacifist "

You have no idea what you are talking about. I see from your profile that you are another anonymous nobody who doesn"t have the courage to fill out their profile. I am guessing you are a young uneducated child; most likely around 15.

I did not insult anyone except the moron who voted for a debate that did not happen. If you vote on a debate that did not happen, I will call you a moron too.

Your debates " Should schools enforce the dress code, you say no. This proves you are a young and lack proper reasoning. All civilized societies have dress codes, especially for those underage folks like you while in school. Since the underage have no vote in what they can wear in school, the debate is total stupid; but, young child-like people like to debate stupid subjects like the dress code in high school or the lower grades. Pointless nonsense!

As far as the "The Burmese government"s two child policy, it is the western state of Rakhine that has imposed a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families.

RANGOON, Burma " Authorities in Burma"s western state of Rakhine have imposed a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families, a policy that does not apply to Buddhists in the area and comes amid accusations of ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of sectarian violence.

It is not remotely clear what you are debating, which shows your lack of education and age.

The state or Rakhine could enforce it by killing people, which is wrong. Is that what you are trying to say?

The United Nations and the United States have done all they can do to stop it and it has helped; but, do you want the USA to do more. Sorry, we can"t help every ethic battle going on in the world; it is really none of our business.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Ragnar,

I did not debate this subject with you because it is a pointless debate that can have no winner. The subject of "free will" has been debated for centuries, and nobody has won.

And, I am not a kid at 64 (well on June 10) and have a minor in Philosophy, and a BS in Accounting and am a CPA with one semester of Law school at John Marshall law school in Chicago. And, I am not whining. If you want to claim victory in a debate where your opponent did not debate, go for it; but, it doesn't prove anything.

As far as where I post my comments, I can post them anywhere I want as long as they do not violate the terms of agreement, which I don't think I have violated.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 4 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
GWL-CPA disagreeing with someone is no grounds to insult them. I highly suspect that you are either a troll and even if you aren"t your so right wing that you have fallen off the political spectrum"

"My attacks against you are real and have nothing to do with your arguments or question."
In all forms of debating there is only one cardinal rule, and you have broken it. That is no personal attacks " win arguments with analysis, evidence and wit. Not tirades of abuse in comment sections.

Regardless the comment section of a debate is not the right place to do this, challenge the man to a debate where people can assess the worth of your arguments for what they are.

And your use of the R word is disgusting and offensive to all of those with learning difficulties and all of us who know and love them.

On the motion: I think that the question is interesting and might be expressed more clearly.
Perhaps "THBT those in prison are there because of a free choice that they made and not societal coercion"

Good night, FSM bless and don"t feed the troll
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Look kid, you had your chance to accept the debate. If you dislike my argument on this, you had two weeks to vote against it. Trying to claim victory in the comments section, or that you didn't click "Accept Challenge" because you'd win (ruining a perfect lose record), or that anyone who catches you on a mistake is insane and that their name is also a fallacy; well these things speak volumes against your credibility.

While I do not claim victory in this debate is meaningful; doubly so since it was an idea to be explored rather than one I wholly agree with... But this much whining after a debate over is just petty. I know you don't believe you have a choice but to do it, but you do, you can just not flood my inbox again; in fact it's easier to not flood my inbox than to do it.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Your opponent did not debate and presented no arguments, yet one moron "mananlak" votes on the debate that never happened and he is one of your friends and you win a debate that never happened, that is too funny. You should challenge Lexicaholic to the debate; he was smart enough not to vote because your opponent forfeited and did not debate.

Your argument and evidence consists of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of three words:
Voluntary, Prison, and Free Will; and, five internet articles:

1."Ex-Convict Tries To Get Sent Back To Prison Because He Can"t Afford His Cancer Treatment"
2."Do some people want to go to Prison?"
3."Three Strikes Laws in Different States",
4."diminished capacity", and
5."Perpetrator Problem: It's Hard to Run Away In Falling Trousers"

None of the above prove your proposition "Going to prison is more voluntary than not." Two of the above prove that criminals have no free will and do not choose their behavior, i.e. Three Strikes Laws, and diminished capacity.

The concept of "Free Will" has been debated for centuries; I personally believe it is illusionary as do many great philosophers (Determinists) and psychologists (behaviorists) " they believe every action has a cause " cause-and-effect, which means you do not make a choice.

Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with or debated (pro and con)this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayy"m, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Part II

"Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Behaviorism is the idea that all behavior can be traced to specific causes"either environmental or reflexive. This Nurture-focused determinism was developed by John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner.

"The standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart focuses on the implications of determinism for 'free will'. However, he suggests free will is denied whether determinism is true or not. On one hand, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are assumed not to be free; on the other hand, if determinism is false, our actions are presumed to be random and as such we do not seem free because we had no part in controlling what happened."

There is no way to prove whether you have "free will" or not. Yes people do crimes, but they believe they will get away with it, or they would not do it. Their environments conditioned them to believe that they can get away with it; and, a few do. The fact that a few do crimes and get away with the crimes destroys you proposition.

Therefore, to conclude that they are voluntarily agreeing to go to prison is nonsense.

That is why some criminals use guns and try to kill the police to get away " they would rather die than go to prison. So, I guess dying and going to prison are synonymous.

I love wrichcirw"s sarcasm "Nice debate. Well argued, CON." Then DoctorDeku states that he forgot about the debate. So this debate never happened; and, there is no winner.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
RagnarDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good Job Pro. Did a better job of convincing me on to his side. Also had better sources.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
RagnarDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Ragnar won conduct because he didn't forfeit, s/g is tied because in Con's two sentences, I saw no errors, and Ragnar won convincing arguments and sources because he made arguments and used sources.