It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that there is security in the country
Debate Rounds (3)
I maintain that citizens signed into a social contract have no obligation to ensure the safety of a government or body of land they have not rationally assented too. It is therefore the case that it is false that all citizens have a responsibility to protect their country.
And if you are a citizen at birth my argument still doesn't change, then it is your duty towards your motherland. When you protect your country you are securing your own house. The main issue with citizens is reporting and lack of alertness. Picture this, if you ignore a suspicious neighbour to fend for your family and later on you find out that that neighbour actually blew up your whole house. Won't you be repenting for not reporting. If you say you paid for the pizza and you want it full cooked then would u give the pizza man the instructions! !!!!!!!
Again, your argument must necessarily change as the first instance was the free choice of the immigrant while the latter was not. I expect that in a distinction of citizens, the argument must be modified to suit it. So, we have not seen a decent argument for the 'obligation' to uphold responsibilities that were not agreed upon. Also, there are plenty of examples where intervention is a good thing. Dictatorships owe no 'responsibility' to be protected, nor ought any government system.
You're example makes no sense. Again, we have seen no justification for why we ought to care. Since I have given a reason as to why the obligation needs to be grounded in assent, Pro ought to address that as stated. I never said you were forced, I simply denied the legitimacy of the obligation, but conscription is another objection that I would cite.
Please present a direct response.
Kriti24 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: There's a difference between a net beneficial view of why people should take a specific action and a responsibility or duty. The former simply states why we should take a certain action, why every person should be invested by their own will. The second prescribes what each person should do. In a way, it is forced, requiring homogenous action regardless of a person's views. While it's understandable why one may find such an obligation valuable, this resolution requires that we determine whether such a responsibility exists, not whether that responsibility is the most beneficial thing to have. As such, Con's argument that assent is required in order to have any responsibilities goes a long way, and Pro's responses miss the mark. I also award conduct for the forfeit.
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.