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

Is the Federal Government necessary to have a stable life here in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 70231
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The Federal Government is not necessary to have a stable life here in the U.S. Here are some reasons why: The State Government has the ability to over-ride the Federal Government, so let the States decide their own laws. The Government is trying to control every aspect of your lives but you do not see the State Government doing that. The Federal Government acts like a "figurehead" if you will. There is no use for a "Government" that is controlling, can be over-ridden, and acts as a threat to the Constitution. Leave the Governing to the States, and stay out of Americans lives



Definition 1: Stable=Not likely to change


My opponent has essentially made my argument for me. By saying that "The government is trying to control every aspect of your lives", my opponent is indicating that the federal government impacts lives daily. This means that change would occur if the federal government was lost because without the cause causing an effect, the effect is gone too. Going back to stable's definition, in order to have a stable life, things would need to be not likely to change. However, not having the government would do the opposite of promoting a stable life as change would inevitably be included.

Additionally, not having a federal government would make it impossible for stable life in the United States for another reason. This is that the federal government is what makes the states united. Without the federal government, there is no United States of America, just 50 random states.

Not having a federal government would induce change that would promote anything but stability.
Without the federal government, the U.S. doesn't exist, therefore stable life within can't exist either.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KonstanBen 3 years ago
Someone, pls
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 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: Getting rid of the Fed Gov't = life changes significantly. This means life is actually not so stable. Further, a confederation of 50 states without a central authority means many would split apart and not be related in any way. This the nation itself would fall apart. 1 round = pros case (which I summarized) is dropped. Pro wins. Cons argument is really weak and just says the Fed Gov't controls us. But that has nothing to do with stability. That argument is better fit for a debate determining whether or not the government is good.