Is human destablilization a proper form of controlling a population?
Debate Rounds (2)
I will be accepting the opposing angle, that human destabilization is a proper form of controlling a population.
First of all, I will define the terms, since my opponent hasn't done so already. Destabilization- "To upset the stability or smooth functioning of" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Second of all, the term "Proper" in the resolution is not properly defined, so it's not currently debatable - it's up to the opponent to define what proper "is" and "isn't".
Now, to polish out my arguments as to why this is proper:
Human Destabilization is a necessary evil when actions demand it. People are unpredictable, unique, and manic, making them a threat to chaos and anarchy. Human Destabilization will control them when the law is no longer capable of doing so, acting on it for their own good. Sociologists and experts may find it horrible, or cruel, but it's something to maintain order and restrictions. When humans destabilize, they don't have the power to resist, losing the resources, whether mental or physical, leaving them manipulative and malleable in the hands of their leaders. Human Destabilization is also proper in the means that it's fair; the entire population would be destabilized, not specifically one in particular, eg. to get control the entire American population would be destabilized - not just the African Americans, Asian Americans or other subgroups.
For this moment, until my opponent proves it's illegality, or reasons otherwise, you vote CON because without fulfilling the burden of reasoning PRO, the CON automatically wins.
AlijahNelson forfeited this round.
biologicalNonsense forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.