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


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: 6/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 56811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Laws are put in place by a society to protect its people for doing things that are considered irrational or dumb. But laws that are enforced by a tyrannical empire or government allows people to become mindless-slaves for a perfect example is the United States of America people think that they have a say, its quite humorous, yet they blindly follow any law that becomes enforced instead of fighting the laws that we as human beings morally know is wrong.


Greetings and Good Luck in this debate.

First, for all intents and purposes within this debate, I will be referring to "Law" defined as: "the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties."

Using this definition of "law," the federal, state, and city government bear the responsibility of creating, legislating, and enforcing laws that are intended to regulate behaviors such that individuals and the community as a whole may exist peacefully and safely, to mutual benefit.

I intend to argue that the existence and enforcement of laws as defined is a reasonable and vital part of a democratic and secure society, such as the United States of America, or any other such community.

Before I proceed any further with this debate, I would ask for Con to please specify what his argument is.
Do you intend to debate that laws are not necessary?
Do you intend to debate in favor of an anarchist-based society?
Do you intend to debate that US law is tyrannical in nature?
Do you intend to debate that US citizens do not think independently?

These are the four key potential debate topics that you seem to be inferring via your title or initial argument. If you wish to engage in a specific debate, please don't hesitate to explicitly state which of these, or any other topic, you wish to argue.

I look forward to Round 2
Debate Round No. 1


free-man forfeited this round.


Being that Con has forfeited his turn in Round 2, I will proceed with all four of my supposed arguments. In this case, Con will be forced to respond to whichever specific argument, or all of them, in the 3rd and final round.

If Con intends to debate that laws are unnecessary, then I propose that laws are intended to protect the citizens, and without these laws, and the punishments that accompany them, societal groups are subject to anarchy, consisting of hostile activity towards one another. I challenge Con to provide unmistakeable proof of a society which has existed successfully without the implementation of a set of rules, either spoken or unspoken.

If con intends to debate that anarchism is a successful model for society, then I respond by suggesting that anarchy in itself is not an acceptable model. Anarchy does not mean that nobody has the power, anarchy means that the power is up for grabs. Even if a society were able to successfully institute an anarchistic model, eventually someone would claim a title of leader. Eventually, there would be a disagreement of some sort, and then there would be a power struggle. There is no circumstance where a leader will not naturally emerge. Anarchists do not seek to do away with authority as a whole, anarchists seek to shift the terms by which authority is defined and attained.
So I challenge Con to present any case where an anarchist society has existed and thrived, without any sign of structural collapse.

If Con intends to debate that US law is tyrannical, then I suggest they reexamine the definition of tyranny. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government rule." While the United States culture can be argued as cruel or oppressive, this is a loose argument, and far more determined by the societal and economic structure than by the legal structure. The US laws actually protect convicted persons from cruel and unusual treatment. The majority of oppression in the United States is financially based, and the result of our economic design, rather than our government. Therefore, I challenge Con to provide evidence that the US government, specifically, has displayed legal action that proves to be explicitly cruel and oppressive.

If you intend to debate that US citizens do not think independently, then I challenge you to provide evidence to support this brazen claim.

I hope that Con has not entirely abandoned the debate, and look for a rebuttal in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2


free-man forfeited this round.


Being that Con forfeited Rounds 2 and 3 of this debate, I have no need to argue any further. By Con's failure to post any explicit or secondary argument, I suggest that Con shows poor conduct and does not provide any reason to suggest that they should win the debate.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
AlexanderOc I am not entirely sure what Con is actually intending to argue. Based on the title, I would guess he is against the law as a whole. But his argument seems to quickly degenerate into a rant, bashing either the ideas of the laws themselves, or trying to bash the American People for "blindly obeying" the laws.

I don't have a problem arguing any of this; I just wish that Con would be clear about what he's against, and avoid ranting, so that we can have a decent debate.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
I disagree with con, laws are put in place to punish people who do things we don't like. It has nothing to do with something being irrational or dumb.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
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: ff