The Instigator
LaSalle
Pro (for)
Tied
26 Points
The Contender
astrosfan
Con (against)
Tied
26 Points

Morality can be mandated.

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: 5/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,838 times Debate No: 3915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

LaSalle

Pro

Round 3 - go!

I affirm that morality can be mandated.

The definition of morality as stated on dictionary.com is as follows - conformity to the rules of right conduct. The definition of mandated reads - a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue. So in other words, the resolution states - You can command/authorize rules of right conduct to act in a particular way on a public issue. This statement obviously rings true because it is enacted in our society every single day. It's called law making or law enforcement.

Through the ages and in various cultures, societies have found ways to mandate moral behavior. This was usually done through punishment or implementation of governmental penalties. For instance, in Ancient Rome the penalty for piracy was crucifixion. This was because society (and the parliament/emperor) deemed stealing and theft to be immoral. Therefore, laws were enacted and carried out in such a way that people who acted immorally were severely punished. This was to act as a deterrant; being aware of the punishment would lead people to choose moral behavior or morality over immorality. Today, jail time, fines and the death penalty via lethal injection are common deterrants of immoral behavior. Because everybody has free-will, nobody can make absolutely positively sure that every individual will always make the right decisions; however, they CAN mandate it anyway (authorize rules regarding public issues).

In terms of morality, not every issue is black and white - this we know. However societies have found ways to legislate what behavior is deemed appropriate or not, either through democratic process, dictatorship, secular government, etc. Not every culture would agree on what is right and what is wrong, but that is not the issue at hand. For instance, in the United States, laws have been established that keep abortion legal; supporters feel that this is moral because it protects the rights of women (her body, her choice). Clearly not everybody agrees with this position! However we have due process regarding the law that takes into account things like popular opinion and the changing times, and thus the law is upheld and - you guessed it - mandated. There is no mandate that every woman must seek an abortion; however, there ARE laws that prohibit abortion from being unavailable to a woman who seeks it.

So as you can see, what a particular society deems moral CAN be mandated. Whether or not people agree with it or abide by it is not discussed in this very limited resolution. Rather what IS discussed is the ability (hence the words "can be" in the debate topic) to authorize or command right behavior. We see this practiced in our every day lives, thus affirming the resolution and my position in this debate.
astrosfan

Con

To start out I wish my opponent good luck and ask the judges to evaluate what is presented in the round not your personal beliefs.

------------------
Framework
------------------
This will be an important part of this debate so to road map this I will first attack my opponent's framework, then set up mine, and finally provide reasons to prefer

Now first off I will agree to my opponent's definition of morality. But the root of the problem of my opponent's framework comes in the usage of the word "mandate". The first problem with my opponent's definition of this key word is the fact that my opponent defines the wrong word (no while this may sound nit-picky this has weight in this round) she defines the word "mandate" while the topic uses the word "mandateD", now while mandate dose have the definition my opponent states when you include the "ed" at the end the meaning of the word changes dramatically, no longer is it referring to a thing it is now talking about an act that caused people to act in a certain way. My second grievance on the framework is that it is completely abusive my opponent is asking me to argue that we can't make laws, that is imposable, I challenge my opponent to present me with 3 viable argument that state that laws can't be made, if my opponent fails to be able to do this you should prefer my framework (that I will get to next) because it prove that there is no way to debate this topic from the con side.

Now to present my framework of the debate. I propose that this debate should focus on if mandates such as laws are able to force people to act in the moral way. I support this with my statement from above that mandated requires that people have to fallow these laws. My framework for this debate allows for fair debate because it allows the pro to defend how punishments influence actions and the con can argue how people brake laws

Now for reasons to prefer my interpretation
1.Grounds- as I stated above that my opponent's framework makes it imposable to debate from the con side, while my interpretation allows for an even debate.
2.Fairness- without evenly divided ground debate becomes one sided because I lose the ability to use certain arguments
3. Education- a fair debate is the only form of educational debate because it allows for both side to be evenly prepared and the reason to vote pro or con is based solely on the debater's ability to debate rather then the natural slope of the resolution.

---------------------
The Real debate
----------------------
My opponent's first argument is that government's make laws to force people to do things, but this is not true for 2 reason (the first defending her argument and the second turning this point). 1 in desperate situations people will do desperate things even if this means breaking the law, this meaning that this mandate dose not have the power to convince people to do the moral as long as there is something that this person want more they will do what it takes to reach it. Secondly to turn my opponent's argument, people will break the law just to break to law, of example civil disobedience if people think that a rule is unjust they protest and fight against this law. Like in Thoreau's book civil disobedience he did not pay taxes because he believed that they are unjust.

Next my opponent use abortion as an example but this only supports my above statement because if people believe that they should have the right to have abortion so they will go out of there way to get this right, though things like back ally abortion.
Debate Round No. 1
LaSalle

Pro

I. Framework

A. I would first like to take this opportunity to correct my opponent on his accusation that I have defined the wrong word in my previous argument. He said that I made a huge mistake because I defined the word mandate instead of mandateD (the word from the resolution) which would change things dramatically in terms of this debate. So I scrolled up and saw that in Round One I wrote, "The definition of mandated reads - a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue." I took this definition of mandateD from dictionary.com, which you can find from clicking here: http://dictionary.reference.com... . I believe that this definition does define mandate, however, something is mandateD when what is explained in the definition of mandate is actually done. Therefore my opponent's claim is wrong and the definition should be accepted as is.

B. My opponent's second grievance includes a challenge. He concludes that my interpretation of the resolution is flawed, and then asks that I provide 3 viable arguments as to why laws can't be made. The last time I checked, I was Pro in this debate - not Con - and I am not responsible for coming up with arguments for him.

C. My opponent then offered his interpretation of the resolution to which I do not agree. He states, "I propose that this debate should focus on if mandates such as laws are able to force people to act in the moral way." Now, just as he finds my interpretation difficult to defend, I also find his impossible to argue! What he is saying is that I should be arguing that there is a way to FORCE people to act in a moral way. Impossible! You cannot FORCE people to do anything. That's absurd. Even with laws that include deterrants or incentives, still there are going to be people who defy these laws for a number of reasons... mental illness, necessity, poor judgment, innocent mistake, etc. In terms of grounds for why we should argue this skewed view, Con writes, "my interpretation allows for an even debate" however we can all see why that is false.

D. I stand by my perception of the resolution, however, because it is Round 2 I decided to cooperate and try to come up with a more fair interpretation. I believe that the resolution of this debate can also be about the effectiveness of laws for people to act in a moral way. Pro should argue that laws are effective at maintaining morality while Con would have to prove the opposite. I believe that this is the most fair interpretation, however, if my opponent disagrees then I am sticking to my original assertion and I would like to extend all of my arguments from Round One. After reading my opponent's side of the debate though, I don't think that the new interpretation of the resolution is really an issue, since that's what he's already been discussing.

II. The Debate

A. Honestly, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but often times while reading my opponent's response I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. For instance I will take his first contention. He said, "My opponent's first argument is that government's make laws to force people to do things" which is CLEARLY untrue. In fact in the framework section I just strongly denied that one can force another to do ANYTHING that's voluntary.

My opponent continues, "in desperate situations people will do desperate things even if this means breaking the law, this meaning that this mandate dose not have the power to convince people to do the moral as long as there is something that this person want more they will do what it takes to reach it." Ahh, so here's the real argument, and it's a good one. But my response to this is simple.

1. This is not true in every or even MOST situations. For instance I might really want gas for my car - I mean really need it - but I do not have enough money to get some. Does that mean I could find a way to steal gas? Sure, I COULD. But the repercussion (the penalties) of what would happen if I tried to steal it would make it not worth it for me to even attempt. And whle this analogy with gas might seem a little far fetched, this argument could also extend to almost anything. For example I might really need to do well on my SATs in order to get into a good university. If I don't, my parents might take my car away, not pay for school, ground me for 2 years, take my cell phone, force me to go to community college, and in turn possibly ruin my chances at a great career/future. Now this is enough to make me really wanna do well on my SATs, don't you agree? But just because I want it SO badly does not mean that I am going to find a way to cheat on this test. A lot of time the consequences or deterrants are very effective. Not always, but MOST of the time. My opponent cannot prove otherwise.

2. My opponent's next contention regards civil disobedience. He says that people will break the law just to break the law (if they disagree with it). Again, this is not usually the case. For instance I might be Pro Rights while the current legislation upholds Pro Life. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go get pregnant just to abort a baby in protest. Also consider the number of people in this country who are Republican or who strongly oppose high taxation for social programs. These institutions might be so helpful to thousands of individuals... consider welfare or medicaid for example... but think about how many Conservatives/Libertarians want to cut this spending. They vehemently disagree with it. Yet I'd say that almost all Republicans STILL pay what is mandated from them by the government.

III. Conclusion

A. As a society, people try to decide what is or isn't moral. They even debate and discuss it extensively if people disagree, either through protest or demonstration or court hearings or talking. Whatever. Then they elect government officals to make laws representing their beliefs regarding morality. These laws mandate moral behavior, and through incentives and deterrants, people abide by these laws.

B. Experts note that the main reasons deterants DON'T work is INVOLUNTARY. For example, the death penalty as a deterant may be unsuccessful because people kill others when they either have a mental illness, or it was a "crime of passion" in which the act was not pre-meditated; the perpetrator had no intention of breaking the law before they got incredibly overwhelmed by their emotion in the heat of the moment. This means that laws CAN mandate morality and people WILL follow them as statistics show... unless taken over by something out of their control, for which I do not believe they should be held accountable (in terms of this debate).
astrosfan

Con

First off I will accept my opponent's offer of a new framework as stated in her sub-point D which opens the debate to include arguments over if people will fallow these laws. So just to put into works what I believe this topic is "are governments able to create laws that cause people to follow rules of right conduct". I hope this is what my opponent was looking for because changing the topic in the last round would make it hard to debate.

============
The Debate
============
1.extending "in desperate situations people will do desperate things"

To answer this argument my opponent uses 2 examples so I will show how these 2 examples are incorrect. The first example can be disproven by simple changing the situation, say you have no money and you need to buy gas so you can go to work, but because you can't go to work because you have no money to buy gas you can't make the money to buy the gas thus you become trapped I a continues cycle. As this continues you will come to a point that you have to do something desperate like robbing a store. This example shows that as long as people see that they have nothing to lose or their situation can't get worse people will break the law even if it is not moral. Now the same principle can be applied to next example as well, because as you say that there is a punishment for not doing well, but if you can't do well without cheating then there is no negative to cheating because you still receive the punishment from your parents. These examples demonstrate how people can locally and purposely break the laws thus proving how morality can't be mandated.

2.extending civil disobedience
Against this contention my opponent basically says not many people break laws just to break them, so to respond to this I will first show how her 2 examples are flawed the present more situations where people do intently break the law. On the abortion example people have broken laws just to show their views. http://en.wikipedia.org... thus people will break laws just to show their views. Then in the second example about taxes, my response come from the man who came up with the idea of civil, Thoreau didn't pay his taxes because he believed the were unjust. Another example of how people are civilly disobedient would be revolutions, people believe that the people ruling them are unjust thus they must be over thrown.

3.A new reason why morality can not be mandated
As I said above when I defined the resolution as if laws can cause people to act I a curtain way, now what this contention is going to say is that morality is not mandated by laws because it is created by the people. To start people create laws be it though voting on resolutions or electing people to represent them, so these laws are based on what people believe is the moral thing. Because of this fact it is not the laws that cause people to act in a curtain way it is their morals that they already have, thus because people already have this set of morals they can't be made to change what they believe to follow what the laws says is moral because the already do. Thus morality is a prerequisite to laws thus meaning that morality can not be mandated because the mandates come from the moral beliefs they already have.

==========
Conclusion
==========

1.First look to my 3rd contention this is a turn to what my opponent claims because morality is a prerequisite to laws thus meaning that it is not the punishment that cause people to follow laws it is the moral beliefs they already have
2.First I would like to see statistics supporting what my opponent claims because my statistics would beg to differ, http://en.wikipedia.org..., mental illness is only the cause of 1% of murder and only proven in 26% of that. And even if people aren't thinking right that what they usually believe and it takes a stressful moment for them to act on these thoughts. So these laws still don't cause these people to believe in a moral code.
Debate Round No. 2
LaSalle

Pro

I. Clarification of the Resolution

A. This debate boils down to the effectiveness of deterants to prevent crime (i.e. the ability to mandate morality).

II. The Debate

A. Desperate Situations

1. To counter my examples regarding desperate measures, my opponent included 2 of his own which I will refute effectively, whereas he has not successfully refuted mine. They are as follows.

a) My opponent proposed a situation in which an individual did not have enough money to buy gas to travel to work to make the money to buy gas to travel to work... and so on. Thus he suggests, "As this continues you will come to a point that you have to do something desperate like robbing a store." I disagree. In fact I think this example, like many of his others, is incredibly far-fetched. I would like the judges to consider the last time they had no money to buy gas to get to work (I'm sure it's happened to each of us at least once). Now ask yourselves, no matter how pressed you were for gas money, did you REALLY consider going to the extreme of robbing the store?! Probably not. Instead someone would be more likely to take a bus, walk, borrow money from their parents, or if they HAD to steal (I mean if they were in absolute dire need), it'd probably be from a sibling or some other non-threatening source.

The repercussions of robbing a gas station far outweigh "borrowing a little money without asking" from a friend. Thus an individual's hesitation and ultimate choice NOT to rob the gas station proves that even in desperate situations, the consequences of certain behavior (i.e. punishment by law) are enough to make someone think twice, and ultimately not go through with the act. They will find other ways to get what they need.

Now I'm not suggesting that nobody robs stores - that's obviously not the case. But what I am suggesting is that for the most part, people will not put themselves on the wrong side of the law if they can help it. For my opponent's point to contain validity, he must prove that most people would indeed rob the gas station rather than choose a different course of action.

b) Next my opponent counters my argument about cheating on the SATs. He states, "but if you can't do well without cheating then there is no negative to cheating because you still receive the punishment from your parents." Wrong! If you let your parents down, the repercussions involve being grounded, losing your cell phone and car, and being forced to attend community college. Now if you get caught cheating on the test, however, society has allowed the administrators to take corrective action. For instance if someone takes the test for you, it's fraud, which is a criminal offense and can come with criminal penalties. Consider your parents reaction to THAT. Plus, you will be barred a cheater and no college (maybe not even community college) would probably accept you based on that reputation. It is clear that the consequences for cheating far surpass those of not cheating, thus making your argument null and void whereas mine still stands.

B. Civil Disobedience

1. Con provides examples of people protesting abortion and breaking laws through violence and other unlawful means in order to prove their point. This is true, and I will discuss it further in a minute.

2. Con also writes about Thoreau not paying taxes because he believed that they were unjust.

a) Con believes this example of Thoreau counters my argument in which I mentioned that Republicans who do not agree with (yes, sometimes even for moral reasons) paying into social programs do so anyway because it is mandated by law. However this one instance of one man who lived in the 1800s is not valid. It does not reflect the majority of society, and as we all know, most people pay their taxes even though they may not want to part with their money or agree with the government's policies. We do this because of the consequences (Who wants the IRS after them? Not me).

b) As I've mentioned, there is no possible way to police everyone and everything, and mandate one particular outcome/decision in EVERY situation. For my opponent to expect me to prove that you can ensure every action on this earth be moral is abusive and impossible. So we must look to society as a whole, and as a whole it is quite obvious that laws with punishments as deterants WORK. Example - people don't park in handicapped spots because they know they'll get a $250 ticket. The govt/people have decided that parking in those spots out of laziness is immoral because it could be preventing access to that spot for someone who really needs it.

What the government has done is mandate morality and expect that people follow those guidelines. Not everyone is perfect and of course most will break a few laws in their day (what 20 year old hasn't had a beer?). But for the most part people are persuaded against law breaking 1 because of the punishment, and 2 because psychologically people assume that what is unlawful is immoral, and they obviously wish to avoid a guilty conscience.

3. Going back to the abortion protests, I'd like to respond to my opponent's claim that people will always defy the law if they deem the law to be immoral. I argue that in that case, their breaking of the law is NOT immoral, so therefore it has nothing to do with the debate. See what I mean? Consider the Civil Rights Movement. It was unlawful for Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat at the front of the bus to a white man, yet her conscience told her that racism and prejudice was immoral, and more obscene than not giving up her seat. Thus she made a choice to break the law, but it was not an immoral one.

"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." - MLK

C. Laws Do Note Mandate Morality

1. Con writes, "Because of this fact it is not the laws that cause people to act in a curtain way it is their morals that they already have, thus because people already have this set of morals they can't be made to change what they believe to follow what the laws says is moral because the already do." Because of this statement, my opponent admits:

a) People's own morals (conscience) are what prevents them from comitting crimes - not laws. Maybe so, but that still affirms the resolution that morality can be mandated. In this case, it is one's (guilty) conscience that forces moral behavior. Nevertheless, morality is mandated. As I mentioned during the clarification of the resolution, this debate is about the effectiveness of various deterants to immoral behavior. These can exist through laws, other punishments (such as from a parent, boss or school adminisrator, etc.) and one's own psychological feelings regarding right and wrong - psychological feelings that are manipulated by law, because as I said, people assume that what is illegal is immoral.

III. Conclusion

A. A repeat of the above - yes, morality is a prerequisite to law making. Law making enforces morality. It's a cycle, we get it. But it still affirms the resolution. Mandated morality acts as a deterrent from crime and immoral behavior, therefore making the agreed upon interpretation of the resolution true.

~~

Ps. This is a moot point, but Con, people commit murder out of passion, or out of compulsion. I've explained how laws can not deter crimes of passion or compulsion (mental sickness - these people don't care about laws even if they know what they are doing is unlawful). We agreed that the resolution would apply to the majority of people/situations, because extreme certainty on either side would be impossible. There are some people and situations to which the resolution would not apply. However based on the agreed upon terms of the debate, I've clearly presented my case effectively. Good luck.
astrosfan

Con

Framework- this has no point in debating over

==========
The debate
==========

=============================================
In desperate situations people will do desperate things
=============================================

1.basically I will extend my 2 examples then show though basic logic why her statements are flawed

a.First extend my example that in desperate situations people will take desperate measures such as robbing a store. My opponent's first attack is she claims that this example it far-fetched, I have 2 things to say to this 1, is this a worthless answer because there is nothing to it just says that it might not happen but this example is still in the realm of possibility thus as a judge you should still look to this as a valid example and 2, this dose happen all the time to be precise it happened 417,122 in 2005 http://www.fbi.gov... now what makes robbery a great example that supports the con side of the debate is that in almost no way can this be a crime of passion or an accident because I can't accidently rob a store. My opponent next argument is that many people are in this situation but don't break the law, but this was the same 2 problems 1, it doesn't disprove anything and 2, other people might still break the law. Then she claims that there are alternatives, but he problem still exist if people don't have the other options.

Next my opponent claims that that it would be better to take form people who you know, but as always I have 2 answers to this 1, some people don't have people that can give the money meaning that people will still rob people 2, turn this argument why would you steal from your friends they're your friends you know them and know how your actions effect them thus this is even less likely then the first option.

Next my opponent says that I have to prove how people would rob a store over the options which I have done because some people don't have friends that will give them money because they might be in the same situation and can't give the other person money, and secondly as I said above it more likely for a person to rob a gas station the rob a friend because of how it effects the relationship.

b.First on the SAT example you are going to extend across the fact that if you can't pass without cheating thus you will cheat because it is the only way to pass. What happens is that if you don't cheat you fail and you have all the impacts of not passing, but of you cheat you have 2 options first you could get caught which has the impacts of what my opponent says, but the second out come is that you don't get caught, you pass, and you have no impacts meaning that it would the only way to go that has no impact meaning that is the best way to act. This proves how people would cheat because there are negative effects ether way but cheating is the only option that has a chance of no negative impacts.

===============
Civil disobedience
===============

1.Word to the judges I'm grouping the number 1 and number 3 argument because they are the same thing. The first thing my opponent dose is agrees that people will fight the laws if they believe that they are immoral. Next she claims that because the law was unjust it was not immoral to break it, but once again I have 2 answers to this first there are many examples of people how break just laws and believe, but believe that breaking it was just, like the KKK do this all the time. And going back to the example of people attacking people who get abortions they believe that those people are evil and it would be just to kill them, but it is immoral in our society to kill people. Also as my opponent states "What the government has done is mandate morality" which basically says that breaking the law is immoral meaning that the example about Rosa Parks and the quote by Mr. King are not valid because breaking the law is immoral because it disrupts justice, even if it turns out to be the moral thing to do by breaking the law you still commit an immoral act.

2.Extending Thoreau

a.First extend the fact that Thoreau is proof that people break things like tax laws because they see the as unjust. Once again my opponent claims that not all people do this but this doesn't work because some people do this and will continue to do this. Then she goes on to say that the example about Thoreau is to old to be of use but let us consider other more recent people have followed his teachings MKL, Gandhi and more who have broken laws because they saw them as unjust. But my opponent has failed to defend the fact that people will revolt in their belief that a government is immoral.

Next my opponent claims that people break the law everyday without a thought I agree with this and I don't believe that the pro has to prove that laws cause people not to break laws without thinking, but what my opponent has failed to defend is the people who break the law with knowledge of breaking it because they ether don't' fear the punishments or the don't think that these laws are just. The pro must prove that laws will stop people from committing that they consciously breaks, so because I have given several examples of how people will consciously break laws you as the judges are going to vote con.

========================
Laws don't mandate morality
========================

a.First I'm going to group this argument with the first argument of the conclusion. Next extend across this contention that laws cannot mandate morality because these people have these morals and it is not "a command" (as the definition of mandate goes) to act in a certain way as the resolution requires. Next my opponent claims that mental deterrents are included in the topic but as I just stated that a mandate is a command thus there must be a law that causes people to act in a certain way. Then in the conclusion my opponent states that deterrence are what we are debating about now I have 2 reasons to disagree with this 1 how my opponent defines the realm of debate in round 2 as "effectiveness of laws for people to act in a moral way" meaning that a persons conscious causing them to not break a law supports the con side not he pro 2, how I define the debate in the round 2 as well "create laws that cause people to follow rules of right conduct" this says the same thing that it most be the laws that cause people to act in a moral. The only reason that my opponent makes this argument is to the realm of the debate in an unfair way, so as judges you should use the resolution that both me and my opponent agreed on not the she creates in her last speech to make the debate unfair.

PPS. You still don't have proof
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I'm glad - I look forward to debating you in the future . It'd seem like an easier feat than debating LaSalle :P
Posted by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
and 2 of the judges have already voted for me
Posted by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
even more

the fact is we weren't debating if the majority of normal people will be deterred from committing crimes the debate is over the "people who break the law with knowledge of breaking it because they ether don't' fear the punishments or the don't think that these laws are just" if a large number of these people break the law. the fact is that people who aren't in bad situation have no reason to break the law thus there is no need for deterance.
Posted by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
@ thelwerd

first i don't bring up new arguments in round 3 as i quote my second round "As this continues you will come to a point that you have to do something desperate like robbing a store" i bring this argument up in the round 2, and the cited facts that support this argument is non abusive for 2 reasons one because this was the only the second round that this argument was being debated and i was using evidence to support this point and two it was responding to my opponent's argument "he must prove that most people would indeed rob the gas station rather than choose a different course of action" showing how a large number of people would take this option. then on the example about the SAT i make this argument as well in round 2 "but if you can't do well without cheating then there is no negative to cheating because you still receive the punishment from your parents" thus this is not abusive and still holds weight in the round

next on the civil disobedience all my opponent says to dis credit this is that it is from the 1800 which as i show in round 3 that there are modern examples like the debate over abortions. my opponent basically concedes this point when the only argument she is that it is moral but as i respond with the fact that killing is never moral

next the fact is that statement proves why my opponent loses if you include what i say right before it "The pro must prove that laws will stop people from committing that they consciously breaks" this what we agreed on as the topic that we should focus on the ability to deter people from breaking the laws. thus this argument shows how i have meet the con's burden of refutation by showing who a large number of people to break the law
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Con also dropped a lot of arguments (i.e. taxes, after Pro proved why Thoreau wasn't a good enough example). Hmph.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
There is NO WAY that astrosfan won this debate. In addition to this being a a topic very much favorable to Con, Pro did a really stellar job at holding her own against a very biased resolution. Not only were her arguments more clear (I could barely understand astrosfan half the time), but her arguments were definitely better and more thought out.

Con brought new arguments in R3 (he talked about robbing a store and revolved his points - including cited facts - around that matter whereas the original discussion was about robbing a gas station, haha, but I digress). For instance he brought up an entire new point regarding the SATs which I feel was EXTREMELY "abusive" as Pro would not have a chance to respond to his new introduced logic.

What he said about civil disobedience sounded nice, but if you re-read both Pro and Con's points, it's clear that Con's ramblings don't really hold any weight based on what Pro said about laws/morality... I hope the judges pick up on that.

I hate when people spit out things in a debate just to say them without them really having any merit (i.e. the morality/law thing). Also Con wrote, "Once again my opponent claims that not all people do this but this doesn't work because some people do this and will continue to do this ... so because I have given several examples of how people will consciously break laws you as the judges are going to vote con."

He admits that SOME people do this; however, as Pro pointed out in R3, they agreed that this debate would be focused on the MAJORITY of people, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for her to argue that EVERY act was moral. Con agreed to this because if they had stuck to Pro's original interpretation of the resolution, it would have been impossible for HIM to debate. Thus I think it's completely unfair that Con is going back on his word in R3 regarding the agreed upon terms of the debate. To distract the judges from this point, he accuses Pro of doing it in R3.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
I'm sorry that I have not got to judging yet... I will try to get the decision posted by tonight (I have not read it yet so I can't even give a quick decision right now).

Thanks and good luck to both debaters!
Posted by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
"You can not legislate morality any further than what the majority deems moral."

...But you CAN legislate it. That's the resolution, is it not? Whether or not people abide by it is a different story. Also you asked what happens when we try to enact laws that are not mutually agreeable. Well like you said, we usually legislate them based on what the majority deems moral. Also, to counter your last statement, "While the laws can be passed, they will ultimately fail by causing even more immoral behavior to get around them," two things come to mind. One, should we not legislate laws because people are going to break them anyway? And two, we can and do legislate morality. For the most part we are successful, sometimes we screw up. That's why civil disobedience in the face of immoral laws is ok, as explained by several quotes in my argument.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
You can not legislate morality any further than what the majority deems moral. Obviously we already do this with laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. But what happens when we try to enact laws that aren't mutually agreeable with the public at large for "moral" reasons? Roe V. Wade comes to mind. So does prohibition. While the laws can be passed, they will ultimately fail by causing even more immoral behavior to get around them.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Seltz 8 years ago
Seltz
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 Noblethe3rd 8 years ago
Noblethe3rd
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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 Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
LaSalleastrosfanTied
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