Debate Rounds (3)
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
free-man forfeited this 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.
free-man forfeited this round.
Please vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years 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: ff
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.