The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 2632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (13)

 

HandsOff

Pro

The anonymity of the voting booth is a powerful anesthesia for those who want to limit the freedoms of there fellow citizens and/or seize their property without consequence. It allows them to do so with no accountability whatsoever. Once they leave the voting booth they find themselves among fellow citizens who also hold their political views close to the vest. Society warns that it's not good manners to talk politics in public. Might shame have something to do with this phenomenon?

As etiquette goes, it would be considered impolite to ask your neighbor how he voted, much less ask him to defend his vote. It's this cloak of anonymity that allows one to secretly vote to enlist his government to confiscate freedoms from his fellow Americans in ways he would never attempt on his own. For example, most people who would vote in favor of outlawing drugs would never dream of confiscating their neighbor's marijuana plants (even if they were assured of their safety). Most would sense that it was not their business as long as their neighbors weren't hurting anyone. Another example would be in the case of wealth redistribution. One would not dream of walking, palm out, up to a wealthy person saying "I'm underprivileged. Where's my cut?" or "That man over there doesn't work, and you're paying his rent this month."

Although these actions sound absurd when carried out directly from one person to another, there is a way to accomplish them without having to justify them. Enter... the middle man. Ah the beauty of a democracy! In a democracy the voter is granted free reign to choose from a menu of injustices enumerated before him on the ballot (or in the campaign promises of his candidate). The kicker is this: the acceptance or rejection of these injustices will be based purely on popularity. No need to consult the gods of right or wrong. Just fill in the circle that promises the best outcome for you based on your personal biases and/or economic circumstances. Congratulations. You've accomplished, what you dare not do otherwise. And nobody has to know about it.
MoonDragon613

Con

"Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally."

Despite your best attempt to generate a topic of debate that does not so much qualify as a topic of debate and more a topic on which you can rant, I'll take the matter up for debate nevertheless. Since you've done such an abysmal job of manufacturing the topic and position, allow me to clarify.

You believe people form democracy (according to your first line on the voting booth) in order to commit injustice against other citizens against whom they would not have acted against otherwise.

My 2 counter arguments are as follows
1) Democracy in America was formed to PROTECT other citizens against injustice, and does so successfully
2) These injustices would have taken place regardless and it is because of democracy that these injustices do not. In fact, these ARE injustices they would commit personally.

1) Read up on your study of American History. The Electoral college, the selection of Senators through State Legislatures, the establishment of a strong federal government following the Shays Rebellion are all reasons for the formation of the present day government of America. The system as a whole was designed to keep Order in order to protect the wealth and property of the upper class from the underprivileged, armed, and rather discontent masses.

2) The premise that these voters would have required a middle man and would only act through a secret ballot is absurd in the extreme. In American history, before the establishment of our present government, we had the as mentioned Shays Rebellion.
Let's look at this logically for a moment, Imagine for an instant there was NO GOVERNMENT. Your neighbor has food, water, and luxuries. You and your 12 unemployed buddies have nothing. According to Handsoff, you and your 12 buddies needed a government to rob (and murder) your wealthy neighbor because this would not be an injustice you would commit personally. Looking at Louisiana during Katrina where there was an absence of government, I must strongly lodge my disagreement.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

Wow, Moondragon. You must have taken on this one half-hartedly. You're usually a very good debater with illogical ideas flawed by your emotional desires for a socialist utopia. This time you're just debating poorly.

You did not support your attacks well here. First of all, I didn't say that people formed a democracy with the intent of committing injustices. Only that the system allows them to do so in the voting booth and without any accountability.

Then, in a complete about-face, you say that America WAS created to commit these injustices in the voting booth, to avoid the otherwise inevitable person-to-person injustices. In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate. I was also waiting for a liberal to admit that socialism, welfare and wealth redistribution was just legalized stealing. I've been waiting for that one for years. Thank you.

Finally, you close by telling me to read up on my history, and that I am somehow in favor of having NO GOVERNMENT. You know that is not the case. I am for very minimal government-- almost exclusively for national defense and law enforcement for the protection of personal rights and property. In other, words, got protection people like you and your kind who can stip me of my property and freedoms by filling in circle on a ballot. Unfortunately the government fails me in that regard. There is nothing on the books to stop you.

I think you should just concede this debate. This is not your usual performance. It's obvious that you're chasing your tail on this one.
MoonDragon613

Con

"Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally" - The topic of debate.

"In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate." - Your comment

According you you, you were trying to prove "the poor will steal from the rich anyway" Therefore the "injustices" they commit ARE INJUSTICES THEY WOULD COMMIT PERSONALLY. That the injustices are kept legal is irrelevant so long as you concede that these are injustices they would commit anyway. That was the point I made and that was the point you conceded.

On an additional note, your support for "national defense and law enforcement for the protection of personal rights and property" further indicates that you agree. Left alone, without police and the military, the voters would have perpetrated these injustices personally. Without a government they would loot, rape, and murder without restraint. Ergo, the only "injustices" they enlist the government to commit are injustices they would commit personally.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

Better. But, I completely disagree with your opinion that theft is the only alternative to a handout, and inevitable. What ever happened to hard work? Did that option elude you? Of course, many people would, and do, wish they could just take what they'd like from their "more fortunate" fellow citizens. But they do not. That would require too much nerve, as I demonstrated in my previous examples. But once concealed behind the curtain of the voting booth, there is nothing to fear. Voters are free to enlist their government to commit these exact same injustices. And, as I claimed in my opening statement, many vote to do so.
MoonDragon613

Con

"But, I completely disagree with your opinion that theft is the only alternative to a handout, and inevitable." - Handsoff's post in Round No. 3

"In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate." - Handsoff's post in Round No. 2

Without a system of government, my argument is that in the ensuing chaos citizens would enter into a frenzy of looting and destruction. While we love to think better of ourselves and our neighbors, just take a look at the looting that took place in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In 1906, following the earthquake of San Fransisco looting took place as well and the army had to be called in. The inevitability of looting, thievery if you would, in a system without government
Handsoff himself admitted was what he was trying to prove.

And therefore clearly history goes to show that these ARE injustices people would commit personally.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
This debate was sort of sabataged by semantics. I think it needs a fresh look.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I was just going to post a similar topic in the forum today. Are you wanting to do another debate with the same topic or just discuss here in the comment section?
Posted by thomad16 8 years ago
thomad16
do ither of you mind if i take this topick
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Facts, data, research, support.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Patrick,
You need to get a girlfriend. Thanks for the idea. I'm going to open a profile and debate on behalf of some your left-wing viewpoints. I will call myself "Handout." And I will consistently defend the left-wing rationale to its wildest ends. I think I'll start by challenging Advocate to a debate. The topic: This site should trasnfer votes from good debaters to poor debaters to make things more fair for the intellectually less fortunate.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Nice debate Moondragon, at least you get to win in the vote before he logs on to vote with his other profiles.

Handsoff,

Facts, data, research, support. Your arguments are as lofty as the clouds, and just as well poorly supported.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Sorry, didn't know daughter was logged on before me. Last comment is from me.
Posted by Araku 9 years ago
Araku
Mooondragon,
Thanks for the debate. You left me extremely confused with your last line. Are you saying ALL pro-welfare voters would turn to looting in the absence of welfare, and that ALL anti-drug voters would take it upon themselves to confiscate their neighbor's pot plants in the absence of drug laws? I'm almost certain that MOST voters would not take such action under those circumstances. And I'm very certain that MANY would not-- as claimed in my statement. Am I understanding you clearly?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Handout 9 years ago
Handout
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by liber-t 9 years ago
liber-t
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
HandsOffMoonDragon613Tied
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