The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
XDebatorX
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Government By Casino Lottery

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 3 votes the winner is...
MasturDbtor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 20460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

We should have a government by casino lottery.

It should be an assembly of whoever shows up to play the lottery at the National Casino. There people will propose policies, and then people will take bets on them. A "wheel of destiny" will then be spun to determine whether or not it passes.

If we do this it will eliminate bias from politics, because the outcome of political decision-making will be random, and people will naturally bet for what they think will be more likely to pass. Since there is no bias as people are not actually choosing policies based on politics but rather in an attempt to make money people will have a bias towards betting towards policies that will be helpful more so than not, since there is no bias to shift people towards bad policies.
XDebatorX

Con

What the opponent said

System of government based upon chance (spinning a wheel) where people only benefit based on the amount of money the put on a policy or law etc. Policies and laws based upon chance.


Rebuttal


Chance based Society (laws and major political decsions based on probability) and effect on Morality

This system of government you propose where you said "the outcome of politcial decision making will be random" is very dangerous and detrimental to society to say the least. The fact that you propose MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES such as abortion and gay marriage (both of which i condemn) be based upon a spin of a wheel makes me question if you truly pondered upon this. Laws would be all over the place, there could be contradictory laws ex the legalization of drugs and the banning alchohol.

The part where you seem to provide justification (eradication of bias) for this ideology is illogical. You say that the politicians will bet for policies that will be more helpful, this is false. It doesn't matter which one they bet on because it is simply a matter of money and chance. Instead of betting all on one, it would actually be more smart for them to bet on a lot of policies a group and split the money since their chances of winning become much much higher. THE ISSUES DON'T MATTER ITS SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE MONEY. Morality would completely go out the window...

I will ask you a question if you think everything I addressed so far doesn't make sense to you: Would you be willing to live in society where ANYTHING is possible?? Would you be ok if murder, rape, drug legalization etc were by chance legal?

I ask PRO for more justifications regarding this ideology if he still insists it is true and to refute my arguments against this ideology.




Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

My rebuttals:

1. My opponent considers abortion and gay marriage major political issues. Since when is a medical procedure and a contract signed between consenting adults major political issues. I don't personally care, but I'd bet that people be allowed them, because that's where we're headed in our cultural values.

And that's a good example right here. People will tend to bet with the flow of the cultural values, not against them. This will lead to greater harmony among people and less disagreements over silly issues like abortion hysteria and anti-gay prejudice.

Regardless of what the law says things will continue to change naturally in the culture. You can't really do anything about it. However, if you had no government groups would fight each other. The best way is for the government to just be a "go with the flow" government that rubberstamps the prevailing cultural values.

People will of course place their bets more on those things they expect to happen, and people will expect things to happen that are in flow with the cultural values. This in turn will make the public more interested in paying attention to how the culture is changing and taking responsibility in their own personal and family lives to leave an impact that is positive towards what ever they are betting. The result is people become more agreeable and together, but people are more apt to take notice of each other's problems and difficulties and consider them knowing it could have implications for the future of cultural trends and hence the value of their bet on a given public policy.

It also means that when the majority makes a mistake in guessing how the trends will go and how they will lead to public policies the minority of people who guessed right get rewarded and then carry more weight on which policy passes in the future.

Look at America today. There is political apathy everywhere. Creating a betting politics will get more Americans interested in learning about public policy, and the trends underlying its evolution.

And to refute the point about murder or rape being legal. Theoretically this could happen even in America's government now. The legislatures just need majority votes, and the president or governor would need to sign the bill.

In this case a few times that would randomly happen. But it would be short-lived because the system would tend to flow with culture and no culture can continue with such things legal. These random occurances of "bad" policies would challenge citizens in their everyday lives to be ready for anything should the need arise. Think of the random bad bets being chosen as "tests" and "training".

Anything can happen in a culture, in a society, so it is logical to have a mechanism that peppers in a few bad policies and policy effects as "testing scenarios".

But since most people will bet for things that are likely to be proposed by others these rare occassions will only be rare.
XDebatorX

Con

Con is simply readdressing points I already refuted earlier and hasn't refuted my previous comments especially in bold and underlined. This idea you have of rape and murder being legal for "training" is immoral and corrupt. You also say that gay marriage and abortion aren't major issues?? They are the major issues that this website asked you to give an opinion on before you signed up!
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

Points:
1. All difficulties people face in their lives help people to build character and to learn from their experiences. Having a government by chance means people have plenty of opportunities for things to change in challenging ways. It will prepare the nation for anything. That some of these experiences may at times be unpleasant is a small price to pay for preparedness.

2. Just because this site asks for our opinions on them doesn't make them "major" if "major" is taken to mean "critical". No matter how much people may care about abortion or gay marriage the government's stance on those two particular issues is ultimately minute in the grand scheme of things.
XDebatorX

Con

It is not giving the society preparedness, it puts them in a state of unease, anxiety, inequality and complete chaos. If laws are random then why are there laws?? Why is their even a government if everything occurs by chance. You don't have solid Justification for a chance based society. How does the money benefit anyone if stealing could be uplifted??

Also many of the issues are major because if they are implemented or rejected they have moderate to drastic effects on the society and people don't necessarily agree. That is what makes an issue major!!


THIS KIND OF IDEOLOGY IS CRAZY!! AND ISN"T JUSTIFIED!!

I STRONGLY URGE TO VOTE PRO FOR A LOGICAL SOCIETY NOT BASED ON CASINO GAMES

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by XDebatorX 5 years ago
XDebatorX
I mean PRO in the starting of argument
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 5 years ago
InsertNameHere
MasturDbtorXDebatorXTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con hardly even made an argument. The choice here is obvious.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
MasturDbtorXDebatorXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con needs to use more logic in his arguments and lay off the bold print. Arguments and conduct to the pro even though this should have been an easy win for the con...
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
MasturDbtorXDebatorXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refutes nothing.