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

Government Intervention to completely and utterly destroy any remnants of the Amish way of life.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,311 times Debate No: 28534
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I am not American but after spending years horrified by the Amish way of life I want to express my utter disgust and literal urge to puke at it through this debate (You think the problem of female oppression is in Middle East? Well I think you Americans need to use your good old Police force and Secret Service for the prevention of oppression back home!)

First round is acceptance.

Definitions (in direct context of this debate)

Government Intervention: Direct terrorising, using guns, blackmail and force to brutally ensure that the Amish send all their daughters (and also sons) to school or pay for some extra help with school (since some have a lot of catching up to do), to force the men to let their women be free if the women so wish and to ensure that any Amish member who despises the Amish way of life is completely free to be entitled to a 21st century quality of life not the piece of sh!t quality of life the Amish force them to have. Most importantly to make clear that from the moment of intervention and onwards, they will arrest any an all Amish adults who abuse their wives and children with caning, paddling, ANY FORM OF FORCED INITIATION OF SEX WITH WIFE THAT SHE DOES NOT SHOW ANY CONSENT TO and any other form of abuse under the law of United States of America

Amish philosophy: Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. One of the greatest needs of our time is men who will assume the responsibility that God has placed on their shoulders. Not to accept that responsibility is to lie down on the job, to fail God’s will.

Amish Child Discipline methods: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT NO LESS!

Corporal Punishment: Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with the open hand or with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings.

Please do not bother taking this debate if you do not have in-depth knowledge of the Amish way of life and also not if you are a stupid liberal who will argue that governments should respect all ways of life (I will destroy any libertarian believe me).


I accept.

Begin your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


First question to address: When do Government have to intervene?

Answering this requires us to see purpose of government... To give all a fair chance at success in the nation and to maintain harmony (which is why I am socialist). A government who does not feel responsible for giving all a fair chance is liberal and stupid just like all anarchists. This is ultimately foolish. A government that advocates liberalism is advocating anarchism (an absence of government) because it really is doing nothing by doing nothing... Then saying that is in any way freedom. Freedom is a delusion when you consider liberalism to be freedom in any way whatsoever, the liberty to exploit workers, to abuse women and children is in no way ultimate freedom. The government must violently step in when idiocy has taken over its citizens, whether of a particular cult or the entire nation. A government must not respect its people's liberty over their equality because if it does this it is just like a normal person, succumbing to conformity afraid to rebel and be as amazing as Einstein or Mozart. You think a government that is standard chip-off-the-block liberal will in any way create a harmonious and successful nation? You are bloody stupid if you do, that is all I can say. Socialism is the philosophy of all smart governments. Socialism says that if, for whatever reason, a child born into a certain family is economically in a position of a disadvantage so huge that it is literally impossible for them to compete with the rich of the nation even if they put in maximum effort then the government must brutally step in and make the truth of socialism known to all.

Second question to address: What is so bad about Amish Way of Life to a nation?

Amish are retarded by their very definition, they are a cult of people dedicated to maintain 18th century way of life in a 21st century world.

Retarded:Delayed in level of progress for time having existed.

The Amish beat their wives and brainwash the little girls by making them literally chant "We are servants of men", beat their children and advocate a sex life where the man is the ruler of when and when not it occur regardless of how horny or ill the wife is. They stop girls learning at the age of 15 and ban all electronics so that even when children reach 18 and can make the all-or-nothing decision of whether or not to leave to the outside world they have no experience with simple typing for an office job, qualifications for any high-wage-bracket job and the only skill they really have is either farming and wood-work, for men, and cooking and cleaning for women (if they say they want to leave they are permanently rejected and disowned by all family members). They don't even speak English and some sects of it never teach their children advanced English of any kind leaving them very disadvantaged if they grow to leave the cult. This is ultimately against any and all philosophies of socialism and is thus disgusting I HATE AMISH IN EVERY WAY ONE COULD LOATHE A CULTURE!

Third question to address: Is force necessary?

Yes it is.

Fourth question to address: Why is force necessary?

Because the Amish are stubborn idiots living in 18th century who raise children so brutally disadvantaged to ever compete in a nation of advanced technological skill. This is horrible and cruel to the children who might have had the intellectual capabilities to be the next Einstein or Stephen Hawking yet are left to rot as a vegetable useless to the world because of such an idiotically conservative way of life.


To begin with, as I have often stated, no one wishes to suffer. Not a single living creature. Even those such as masochists, who wish to experience a certain level of suffering, still do not wish to experience what we may call "true" suffering. What they would consider suffering. Given this, all moral decisions should be made under this ultimate premise: Since nobody wishes to suffer, we should focus on maximizing freedoms, while limiting harms, so as to bring about the best possible reality for everyone.

For this reason, government intervention should not "completely and utterly destroy the Amish way of life." Doing so would fail both premises of the aforementioned ultimate moral guideline.

Now, allow me to address my opponent's case. Let me remind the voters that it is my opponent's burden of proof, as the person advocating for something, to prove why allowing the Amish way of life to continue to exist is more harmful than beneficial. If he cannot do so, he has failed, and no such actions should take place. I would also like to bring into light the resolution of this debate; that is, it is one of complete and utter annihilation. This being the case, if I can show there is but one redeeming trait of Amish culture, my opponent cannot justly say we should do away with every single aspect of Amish life. In other words, he would not be capable of soundly saying we should "completely and utterly destroy the Amish way of life". That said, let us begin.

1. When Government Should Intervene

I will be repeating myself a bit here, but as previously stated, the ultimate form of morality is one of preventing harms, while maximizing freedoms. Given this, a government should only intervene when and if something is not at is maximal apex of freedom, or when action can bring about less harm than taking no action. For instance, banning murder is just, because allowing murder to go on creates more harm than banning it, though it takes some freedoms of action. Or in another case, allowing someone kill themselves, because while someone dying is a form of suffering, stripping the freedom to control your own existence is a greater harm.

In other words, when may governments intervene? Only when intervention is moral.

It is in this context I find myself staring down my opponent's claims on the role of government, which I find more than a tad bit puzzling, for as a Communist, and therefore, fellow Socialist in ideology, it would seem perplexing to me that my opponent would provide certain anti-Socialist arguments on the role of government. The purpose of Socialism is, in essence, to create a society wherein one is free to pursue their passion and follow their personal choices in life, so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others. In this sense, Socialism's goal is a more fair society; not equality in of itself. So when my opponent claims that equality supersedes liberty in Socialist ideology, he is either mistaken, or being intentionally misleading. Equality sometimes supersedes liberty, but liberty often supersedes equality as well. Neither liberty, nor equality, in of themselves equate to fairness, or justice. An excellent example is the former Soviet Union, or China under Mao, who's citizens were almost entirely equal; in poverty and oppression. This was not Socialism then, nor is it now, when my opponent advocates for that kind of thinking.

When it comes to Socialism, it would argue two things primarily about the Amish way of life: Are their needs met, and as a follow up, do they have the capability to pursue their passions, and change their life, if they so desire? Subsequent questions may be asked such as "what kind of treatment do people receive", but so long as the answer to the above two questions are "yes", then Socialism has no qualms with the way of life in of itself. And even if the answer to one or more of the above questions is "no", my opponent still has all his work cut out for him, for he must prove how these things are the fault of the Amish way of life itself, and not broader problems with the structure of global or national society. Even then, if he manages to prove it is the fault of the Amish, he still must display why these things are justification to "completely and utterly" destroy the Amish way of life, rather than destroy or reform those specific aspects of it.

2. Negatives of the Amish Way of Life

My opponent has made the bold claim of labeling the Amish "retarded by their very definition". He then provides what I should think is an inadequate, and inaccurate definition of retardation. Allow me to propose my own definition, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary[1]:

  1. The act or process of slowing or impeding.
  2. The condition of being delayed or impeded.
2. The extent to which something is delayed or impeded.
3. Something that retards; a delay or hindrance.
4. Often offensive Impaired intellectual development.

None of these match the Amish way of life. For numbers one through three, they all imply a form of oppression. A lack of choice. When something is "delayed", it has no say in the matter. The same is for when something is "impeded". Both of these are things out of one's control. This cannot be said for the Amish, as there is nothing inherent to the way of life forcibly preventing them from slowing, delaying, or impeding anything. As for the fourth, there is nothing about the Amish way of life which inherently impairs intellectual development.

I would like to remind my opponent that, even if he argues against my definitions, or in favor of his, he still has all his work cut out for him in showing why these things are bad.

My opponent has made several claims about Amish. Beating their wives? Brainwashing little girls? Misogynist chants? Sexual slavery? These are serious claims. Has my opponent provided any evidence of these things? No, he has not. I invite him to do so. Until he does, his claims are merely frivolous banter. Baseless fear mongering. And should be entirely ignored thusly.

3. The Necessity of Force

First of all, let me once again note my opponent has provided no justification or proof of the, dare I say, barbaric things he claims of Amish culture. However, even if I were willing to grant all of it, my opponent is still no closer than he was before at explaining why force is necessary. Merely living in a culture which likes an older way of life, and which, if it is at all true, engages in immoral actions against one another, does not in of itself prove that violence is necessary. What justification does my opponent provide for using force? How does the lifestyle of the Amish show they cannot be reasoned with, or why non-force cannot be used to bring about a better reality? What is inherent about the Amish way of life that requires (requires meaning there is no existing alternative) force? My opponent has made no argument for his case, and therefore, his case deserves to be dismissed.


Debate Round No. 2





Well, there are two rounds left. Hopefully at some point you will start defending your case, as simply shouting "THEY'RE BAD EVIL EVIL DIE" is not a valid argument. I will grant you another round before I continue on without you.

Debate Round No. 3


I have lost this debate and due to my ban shall be forfeiting bnext round xoxo


I see...

Well, I should hope the judges of this debate consider the arguments proposed, as the coming forfeits of my opponent are not entirely their own fault. I am certain, could they be here, they would have posted some form of argument.

I also request the judges dismiss what my opponent has said about losing the debate; that seems more to me to be the result of feeling defeated in being banned, than so much as feeling his arguments were inferior.

In short, please vote based on the arguments presented. I will not be making any more arguments for the remainder of this debate, as my opponent will not be here to counter-argue, and I feel it would be against the spirit of debate to attempt to use their personal situation to my advantage.
Debate Round No. 4


RationalMadman forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
Only after 18.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Stupid, the Amish are peaceful, and each and everyone of them has the choice as to whether they want to live in that environment or not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I just don't under why Pro would spend so much time framing the round and then just... Conduct and arguments to Con for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not put up an adequate case on why the government should intervene to destroy the amish life. As Con stated, Pro made claims but these were unsupported. Con's case was not refuted either in round 3.