The Instigator
suzyy97
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
cwtschettter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Government is necessary in a society

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...
suzyy97
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 61762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

suzyy97

Pro

I believe that government exists because it is part of God's plan and will. (God being the God of Christianity). I believe it is necessary for any given society to function properly and that it pleases God when it follows the principles of the Bible.
cwtschettter

Con

Government is not necessary for society to survive. Humans have nice and good general morals and don't need a structured society. Religion has slaughtered millions of people. Police brutaility is wide spread through out the world. I also believe that my opponents argument is invalid because it can't be prove that God exists. Every man or woman should be able to run their own lives without a oppressive government censoring human rights.
Debate Round No. 1
suzyy97

Pro

God's existence cannot be proven, this is true. God's existence can also not be disproven. That is where faith comes in. But the existence of God is not what we should focus on primarily in this particular debate. However, The Bible has implanted government since the very beginning of creation, and I believe there is a reason. A society without government would result in chaos. Yes, everyone has a conscience and knows when he is doing wrong, or committing a crime. However, just think about all of the crimes and wrong-doings performed even with such an advanced and modern government set in place for example in, America. Countless numbers of people are put on trial and declared guilty of numerous heinous acts every single day. Imagine a society without a government instituted to straighten these issues out. I am a right-winged conservative (which probably does not come as a surprise), and I do not agree that the government should have such a control over the people to a point where it controls our lives. But structure and organization and the laws that are provided with a government are indeed necessary for a functioning society.

"..should be able to run their own lives without an oppressive government censoring human rights."
Now, I agree that we should "run our own lives" if what you mean by that is that we have a free will. Oppressive government is something I am against as well. However, can you maybe go more in detail about what exactly you mean when you refer to the "censoring of human rights"? maybe some examples of these censored rights?

:-)
cwtschettter

Con

In Detroit currently the City is shutting down water to people who can't afford to pay their water bill. Human beings are being denied water which is a human right. We are not an advanced government, if we are so advanced why are the police departments in cites like Ferguson kill unarmed people. These enforcers of law are actively brutalizing the people they are "protecting". If we are so advanced why are lower class people struggling to survive. All the government does is control even during the regimes of presidents who say the believe in small government. The NSA surveillance controversy is not something that would happen in a "advanced" society. Every body's definition of advanced is different. I meant that the government spies on us and controls the news media since to me, A Human right is a right to correct information. Government was invented just so the rich land-controlling people could suppress the little people. Countless people are put on trial but, countless people are innocent of said heinous crimes but are still found guilty. I'm a far left-winger so we obviously differ on a lot of these issues. Structure is not needed. laws are just their to control. A question for you, do you believe in separation of Church and State or do you believe in a Theocracy.
Debate Round No. 2
suzyy97

Pro

I guess stating that we are an advanced government is an opinion. Anyway, we are humans. We are not perfect. We have flaws. We make mistakes. These are reasons why any government in any society is not perfect. A utopia is not reachable. And, no, I do not want the government spying on my computers, or knowing where I am at any given time. That's scary. However, the foundations of government are necessary. Government also serves as a motivation to do what is right. YES! There are corrupt politicians, and people who want too much power. They are people, people with selfish desires. This doesn't compare to what even daily life would consist of in a community with no system of anything. No system of laws? No system of protection? Hell on earth. Americans take our daily lives for granted, we do not know what goes into the forming and application of laws. The military is a part of the government. Shall we take away our system of protection? Shall we stop helping other countries in need, with no government? What about a world with no United Nation. Talking and compromising on the United State's behalf would cease, and this is so important for the well-being of our nation. I am not sure what I believe when it comes to separation of church and state, because I do not believe it is possible to just draw a line between the two. No where has it worked or been successful when the church rules the state, or when the state rules the church. But, I, being a Christian, do believe that morals come from God and that these morals have been instituted in our nation's laws and documents. So, I do not believe a complete separation can exist, considering that the basis of our laws come from the Christian Worldview.
cwtschettter

Con

cwtschettter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
suzyy97

Pro

ya there? :-)
cwtschettter

Con

cwtschettter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
suzyy97

Pro

suzyy97 forfeited this round.
cwtschettter

Con

cwtschettter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by suzyy97 2 years ago
suzyy97
I am only stating that I believe it should follow the principles of it. Con does not need to agree
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
NEVER use the bible as a source of your information. Not being rude, but use more reliable sources. Not everyone believes in a deity.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
suzyy97cwtschettterTied
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: This was a completely meaningless debate. Pro obviously had the easier case here, as Governments exist in almost any sovereign dominion in the world. She, however, cited the Bible, which is not an argument based on reason. Ordinarily, this would have compelled me to give points for arguments to Con, but Con did not even respond to Pro's weak arguments, instead making equally weak arguments of his own. Pro made some stronger arguments in her second round, so she gets points for arguments for that. Both forfeited so no conduct points to anyone.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
suzyy97cwtschettterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made frankly incoherent cases. That said, at least Pro showed up for most of it, so I'm awarding conduct for that.