The Instigator
angryduck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stwadsworth27
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

I don't care if I'm right or wrong I want the State to protect my Interests.

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 1 vote the winner is...
stwadsworth27
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 64202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

angryduck

Pro

I pay my tax . I fund the army that protects my family . I don't pretend , like some , that I can know everything. The Human rights of others are Important but are secondary to my own. What I'm saying is that humans are deluded if they pretend otherwise.
stwadsworth27

Con

I will be arguing the Con side. The state should work in the best interest of everyone, and not in exclusively the best interests of my opponent, Angryduck.
Debate Round No. 1
angryduck

Pro

Thank you for responding. As an ex socialist I'm able to understand why ,as I once did , you may want the State to look after us all. The fact is they never did and never can. We are driven by self Interest from the cradle to the grave.
That we are selfish is a Darwinian theme that pretty much explains who we are. The Idea that a politician should work in the best Interests of everyone is laudable but laughable.
stwadsworth27

Con

I will start by contending one of your points. The Darwinist theme to which you refer is not a Darwin theme at all. Darwin explains specification and evolution of species, and shows that physical traits that work the best with the environment are the ones that tend to be replicated. What you are referring to is an extrapolated take on the phrase "survival of the fittest" called Social Darwinism. I'm slightly confused on what you are arguing. The state does not have a responsibility to to take care of everyone, and I am in no way advocating a nanny state. However, the state does have an obligation to take into its consideration all of it's citizens and act in a way that is going to give the most benefit and opportunity to it's citizens. If it is always morally permissible for a person to act selfishly in their own interest, with minimal consideration for others, then you would have to concede that it would be permissible for all politicians to accept lobby cash in exchange for casting their votes in the way the lobby wanted. In doing this, they would only be acting in their own selfish interest. Furthermore, if self advancement is the greatest good, lying to get into office would also be entirely permissible. Surely this is not what you are arguing for, and I am not trying to strawman your arguement, but these are the logical implications of the information you have given me. Please clarify your position and I will rebuttal in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
angryduck

Pro

Thank you for responding. As an ex socialist I'm able to understand why ,as I once did , you may want the State to look after us all. The fact is they never did and never can. We are driven by self Interest from the cradle to the grave.
That we are selfish is a Darwinian theme that pretty much explains who we are. The Idea that a politician should work in the best Interests of everyone is laudable but laughable.
stwadsworth27

Con

You have responded with the same argument used in round two. Judges... I'm at a loss. The logical implications of this position are that we should all act exclusively in our own self interest and what seems to be a type of moral anarchy. The only other conclusion I can draw is a type of subjective relativism in that we should all do what we feel is right and what we feel is right because we feel it. These leave no room for moral principles that we can all appeal to in any debate, and leaves no room for any progress. The third posiblity is that we should all act in angryducks best interest because he pays taxes. I think the same case could be made for 53% of the nation and I do not see why we should act exclusively in angryducks interests as opposed to anyone else. I fail to see any real argument that has been made, and have done my best with what I have to work with. I thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by stwadsworth27 2 years ago
stwadsworth27
I would have much rather debated you. It's a mute point, every action has some degree of selfishness to it, in fact, i challenge you to think of even one action that has no degree of selfishness to it. This is not the case my opponent made though. I merely said that all citizens deserve consideration in the lawmaking and policy making process. It's not a hard case to make, and one that seems to hit a common sense intuition in most people. It was enough to defeat angryducks assertions that all government bodies should work in his self interest.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Even politicians work in the best interest of their own. Votes. That is his or her main objective. So, if they can protect a perceived " victim" of some fantasy wrong from a person with self interest, then they will pass a law to redistribute that to the " victim". When all along the : victim's" self interest is to see that politicians will get elected to further their freeloader lifestyle.

When the best and mort equitable system is to protect the self-interest of the producer. We need to let people succeed or fail on their own, not pander to failures just for votes.How else can a person work out a successful life if we take away the reason they failed and cover it up with the producers labor?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dancampbell869 2 years ago
dancampbell869
angryduckstwadsworth27Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoyed reading this very much. Despite a great last effort in the final round, angryuck just couldn't quite pull this one off.