The Instigator
Kriti24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dannyc
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that there is security in the country

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...
dannyc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 85084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Kriti24

Pro

The issue of state's security concerns all individuals and hence it becomes a joint responsibility of both the state and citizens. While the state keeps its machinery well oiled with periodic reviews and upgrades, the capacity building of the common man remains a matter of neglect. With great power comes great responsibility. Being a citizen of a country is our power and protecting that nation is our responsibility.
dannyc

Con

I maintain a very simply principle. A principle that almost everyone agrees with. It is called assent. This is a term used in a contract to describe that both members of the party assent to the arguments at hand. Furthermore, without assent, the contract is not a binding nor a valid contract. Very simple. A citizen, like myself was signed into a social contract without my permission. I was unfairly assigned roles and responsibilities without due course to my autonomy. Surely it would be the case then that 'citizens', which does not distinguish between those who agree or those who disagree are forced into a set of obligations.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Kriti24

Pro

I think I totally disagree with you. You are actually not 'FORCED' to carry out these responsibilities. It is that when you wish to become a citizen of a country, these are some of the 'terms and conditions' that you should make note of before you apply to become one
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! !!!!!!!
dannyc

Con

"And if you are a citizen at birth my argument still doesn't change, then it is your duty towards your motherland. "

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Kriti24

Pro

Kriti24 forfeited this round.
dannyc

Con

I'll have to simply extend my further arguments and rebuttals since they were not addressed.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kriti24 1 year ago
Kriti24
MikeTheGold why dont you vote for me if you agree with me.pl
Posted by Kriti24 1 year ago
Kriti24
MikeTheGold why dont you vote for me if you agree with me.pl
Posted by dannyc 1 year ago
dannyc
I need a few hours sleep.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
You are Con... you alright?
Posted by dannyc 1 year ago
dannyc
Ah, I thought I was Con.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
WTF are you talking about? I said Pro missed the mark, not you.
Posted by dannyc 1 year ago
dannyc
I didn't miss the mark, you point was convoluted.
Posted by dannyc 1 year ago
dannyc
It just gets boring to do an entire debate where no one votes and it goes to a tie, especially when Pro didn't address my arguments.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
If I voted on every single debate where the only vote was removed, it would take up practically all my time. But since this is short, I'll post something.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Kriti24dannycTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.