The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WAM
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Lawyers increase crime.

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...
WAM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 78494
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

That's just what they do.
WAM

Con

I accept. Normally I don't debate under 5000 characters but as a Law Student I am quite intrigued to see your argument.

Opening argument:

Lawyers, who are individuals who practice Law (attorney/judge/solicitor...), do not create Laws. It is normally a case of parliament (congress in the US). As an example, current US President Barack Obama, as well as his wife, both studied Law at Harvard. However, Obama is not practising Law at the moment, thus not a lawyer.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

You'll make millions in the system, as your argument is pure incoherence.
WAM

Con

My opponent is yet to present an actual argument.

Logically speaking, Lawyers have no correlation to crime (committed), yet apparently cause an increase in it. This would mean that lawyers either a. commit crime or b. advocate it in some sense. If this is apparently the case I would expect Pro to easily be able to prove this.

Lawyers would 'benefit' from an increase in crime (at least certain lawyers), yet I cannot see them being connected to an increase in any kind of way.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

I do not present arguments, I provide facts, and you provide the argument in your Ivory Tower sort of way.

Lawyers create more laws, therefore creating more criminals.

That is just the plain truth.
WAM

Con

No fact yet provided by my opponent.

As per definition, Lawyer is defined as "barrister, judge, attorney, counsel (counselor at law) or solicitor". None of these people make laws, change laws or anything like that.

Besides, since laws first were established, 4000 years ago, they haven't changed an awful lot (the basics at least). And lawyers thus had little to do with that.

'That is just the plain truth.'.
Debate Round No. 3
Max.Wallace

Pro

All the justices of the SCOTUS are lawyers. Fact.
The justices of the SCOTUS approve or disapprove of laws created by the politicians. Fact.
Many politicians are lawyers, politicians make laws. Fact.
Politicians create laws that turn many ordinary behaviors into crimes. Fact.
Lawyers increase crime. Fact.
WAM

Con

1. Yes. And?
2. But they don't make Laws.
3. Many Politicians are Dentists and stuff like that. However, they are not Lawyers when they are Politicians. Thus this is irrelevant. The jobs are not linked. I provided the definition of 'Lawyer' above.
4. And? Relevance? See above.
5. Lawyers do not increase Crime through the simple reason that they are Lawyers. That is ludicrous.

A Lawyer has in no way personal influence over the Law. Or makes Laws. And that is the main thing Pro assumes.
Debate Round No. 4
Max.Wallace

Pro

Seeing as I am pressed for time and must retort or forfeit, which is a despicable form of losing in my mind, here it goes.

Lawyers do increase the number of laws, because they work hand in hand with politicians in order to write laws which will be upheld a constitutional, and that is a fact.

By increasing the number of laws they increase the number of people who fall outside the law, and are therefore are now criminals.

Hence, lawyers increase crime.

Take it or leave it.
WAM

Con

Kind Regards for this Debate.

Rebuttal and Conclusion:
1.) But they do not make the Law, nor do they enforce it.

2.) That's like saying Doctors increase the number of sick people because they define illnesses.

In conclusion Lawyers neither make Laws nor do they enforce them. Thus they do not increase crime. The system at whole may increase crime according to your theory, Lawyers themselves however do not.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
You do have cancer, it just hasn't been detected. research cancer.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
We already have enough people here on this planet, so why are doctors so valuable? TAI.
Posted by WAM 2 years ago
WAM
Says the one who is having a huge tantrum.

Felling 'fine' is subjective. I could have cancer and 'feel fine'. This provides nothing to your point.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Wow, you are stretching, must be out of desperation.

Every day Doctors identify illness in people that are feeling fine, then get paid the big bucks to "treat the illness". If you are feeling fine, then you aren't ill. Next debate.
Posted by WAM 2 years ago
WAM
Yes they do. And? How does this provide anything to your point.

Similar useful 'information' includes:
Bus drivers profit by driving buses.
or an even better one, more in your style:
Garbage men profit by throwing away garbage that they then collect.
Wow. What great insight and intelligence. Simply stunning. This could be a new debate for you. 'Garbage men increase garbage'
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Seriously.

Doctors profit by identifying illness, and treating it.

Fool.
Posted by WAM 2 years ago
WAM
@Max.Wallace, no my 'Parent's' are not to blame. First of all, you do not write it like that. Second of all, I do not share many, if any views with my parents. Third of all, they provided me with the best education possible, I am bilingual and speak three languages, most likely something you cannot say about yourself. Fourth, my parents are both very educated, my father being one of the most prestigious scientists in his field, once again, something you most likely cannot say about your parents or yourself.
So please, how are my 'parent's' at fault?

Also, doctors could only increase the number of sick people if they physically make them sick. A sick person is a sick person, no matter if the illness is defined by a doctor or not.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Midnight1131// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro to prove that lawyers increased crime. The crux of Pro's case was that lawyers create laws, therefore creating more criminals, however this argument was quickly refuted by Con, who successfully showed that lawyers don't actually *make* laws. Since this was Pro's only argument, and it was refuted successfully by Con, arguments to Con due to Pro's BOP remaining unfulfilled.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently explores the debate and explains the decision. Contrary to the reporter, being on North Korean time doesn't function as a reason to remove this vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
DOCTORS DO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SICK PEOPLE. sorry for your idiocy, but your parent's are to blame.
Posted by ModerateLiberalism 2 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
Max Wallace, I am trying to find some world in which your case is defensible, and although I contrived an absurd world, you should still be thanking me, as this case itself is absurd. And furthermore, WAM, my initial point was an attempt to somehow defend the resolution. I tried contriving a counterfactual in which a lack of lawyers meant less crime. So while I was just going for some deterrence, not elimination of crime.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
Max.WallaceWAMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro to prove that lawyers increased crime. The crux of Pro's case was that lawyers create laws, therefore creating more criminals, however this argument was quickly refuted by Con, who successfully showed that lawyers don't actually *make* laws. Since this was Pro's only argument, and it was refuted successfully by Con, arguments to Con due to Pro's BOP remaining unfulfilled.