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

It will be beneficial for a country if citizens can to do ANYTHING they want so long as...

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 80564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




I think a law should be passed to allow a person to do whatever they want so long as...
1) It doesn't harm anyone (humans) or anything (e.g companies, animals, society, economy e.t.c)
2) Offending someone or hurting someones feelings through free speech or an action does not count as "harm" in my definition
3) i.e there are no victims

And I propose such a law would be beneficial for the country.

I say this on the grounds that if such a law was applied then there would no longer be ANYONE going to jail for victim less crimes, which leads to injustice and bitterness, which could lead to civil war and hate. (imprisoning mandela and martin luther king for a victimless crime almost lead to civil war. Victimless crimes almost always cause divisions and problems like this)

Some victimless crimes which lead people to prison these days are:
1) Growing a Marijuana plant in your garden (illegal in many countries)
2) Smoking Marijuana in your own home with nobody around (illegal in many countries)
3) Using tinted windows (crime in some EU countries)
4) Living in your car when homeless (considered a crime in USA)
5) Not wearing a headscarf (crime in many Muslim countries)


To summarise I feel all victim less crimes should be made legal and this would be beneficial for the country and its citizens. I am open minded and want to know if my stance is wrong through a debate.

**I would like to debate someone who supports punishing those who commit what I perceive as victimless crimes**


You see, we are not perfect, we get devoured by temptations, we make mistakes and we do stupid stuff.
Even if those rules don't affect others, temptation and greediness and other bad factors will come and make use corrupt.
People are still doing bad even with these rules so how can limiting the rules and laws make things any better?
It's like an communist country, if the leader is perfect and the leader is great and smart, the country will develop fast and strong than other countries, but if the leader is greedy and corrupted, the whole country will be corrupted. We are like that corrupted leader, even if we get the stuff we want, we still want more, we're greedy, we want to rule, if more laws are destroyed, the society will be destroyed too.
Think about it, US government gave people freedom to own personal guns and what do many people do? Shoot and murder. This happens everywhere too. Look at other countries who doesn't allow personal guns, there's barely any murder by guns, bank robbery and stuff. That's just an example. Now think about what will happen if the government let people grow weeds and boos in their home, instead of just smoking it alone without any people around, temptation will control us and make us do bad stuff with them, that's even happening right now, some people are putting drugs inside school food and restaurants and stuff, what will happen if they legalize the big trouble? More trouble will come. We're corrupt, we can't control stuff, we're sinners, even if it's a law to not do stuff, people do it because they're crazy, and there would be more crazy people if you delete all those laws.
Debate Round No. 1


Imagine this scenario:
1) September 2017- UK makes it illegal to claim "Islam is an evil religion, Muhammad was a terrorist" online, and it is considered hate speech/trolling
2) September 2018 By now 1000+ people in Jail for speaking their mind about Islam
3) September 2019- Many of those jailed are released from Jail and begin to protest and act violently against Muslims. Some of them jailed were also famous people like Nelson Mandela. A civil war erupts. Civil disturbances and rioting everywhere.

Imagine this scenario:
1) If you are black you must ride on the back of a bus, if you ride in the front you go to jail (this was a law in the usa in the 1960's)
2) Many people protested and many were put in Jail. This almost led to civil wars.

Do you not see how many scenarios there have been throughout history were victimless crimes have led to brutal wars and violence?


But those are different, like that;s racism and hatred towards other religion, so are you saying that giving equal freedom to other races is about the same as legalizing marijuana? Heck no, racism and hatred to other religion needs to be gone because it's taking about human rights, but you can't compare those to marijuana. Think about it, if illegal marijuana is like racism they had in the 1900s, it would be legalized and free to use right now. But like what I said before, we're not perfect and temptation is always following us, so we would do something evil with marijuana and other things that won't hurt anyone if you do it by yourself.
Debate Round No. 2


peacenik forfeited this round.


FPSKorea1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
extrapolate more on crime that puts yourself in danger being victimless. What examples are you basing this claim off of?
Posted by peacenik 1 year ago
"crime that puts yourself in danger" is victimless.

"drink driving" should be a crime in most cases. But I dont like how to law is applied black and white by judges and they dont consider the circumstances everytime.

"drinking driving in desert when theres nobody there to be put in danger" should not be a crime. Yet judge will say "law is the letter", they take it lterally just like how some muslim extremists take quran literally, or how some christians also do the same for the bible.

All crimes should be on a case by case basis
Posted by peacenik 1 year ago
A crime that puts others in danger link "drink driving", "driving under influence of drugs" puts others in danger and is NOT victimless

It is reasonable to ban those. I dont see everything as black and white.

Pass laws based on how a reasonable person is likely to react. And to lessen emotional violent reactions is ok with me.

However drawing a picture of Muhammad knowing it will put embassy staff in fanatical muslim countries should be allowed. Because I do not consider religion people or fanatics as "reasonable"

Therefore passing a law to mitgate there violent or insane reactions would be wrong in my eyes. I.e we should not pass laws like "cannot draw muhammad" just to mitigate/lessen violent muslim reactions. Or ban cow meat to mitigate violent hindu reactions.
Posted by BattleScars 1 year ago
Do you consider a crime that puts yourself (and, potentially, others) in danger to be victimless? Or would you be considered the victim of a 'crime' that you, yourself, caused and/or started?
Posted by peacenik 1 year ago
of course stealing has a victim. So i do not consider it a victimless crime.

I would not seek to protect that
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
So do you consider stealing to be "harming"?
No votes have been placed for this debate.