The Instigator
Muzz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

New Saggy Pants Ban in NJ Is Slow Democracy Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 43919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Muzz

Con

There is a new law in New Jersey where they ban people from sagging their pants and fine them if they continue to do so. I feel like accepting this and turning a blind eye could potentially lead to other very basic rights of ours to be taken away and chipped away at little by little. Fair enough, sagging pants is just completely senseless and horrible fashion sense but fining people?? What is this, some weird 3rd world dictatorship?
Wylted

Pro

Democracy definition- rule by the majority [1]

A ban on sagging pants is not a threat to majority rule. If anything it reinforces majority rule, since most people find that viewing other peoples underwear is annoying and offensive.

Sources
[1] http://i.word.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Muzz

Con

Muzz forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

My irrefutable argument extended.
Debate Round No. 2
Muzz

Con

Excuse my tardiness in replying. I am new here and was not aware of how to proceed. Anyway, you can't base your argument off of a dictionary definition. You have to base it off of actions. Who are the ones intended in that definition of democracy, the citizens of the US or a small group of stuck up ding bats that line their pockets with OUR tax dollars and still do the exact opposite of what we want? So, I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the ACTIONS of our government say and they say a lot more than their words. Thank you.
Wylted

Pro

Con
"you can't base your argument off of a dictionary definition."

Con suggests that definitions aren't important, but does not explain other methods of determining the meanings of his words ( at least not in a comprehensible way). This statement of his suggests my argument is valid if words are defined. Even if we are to not have definitions attached to words as he suggests, then he still has not explained how my argument is invalid. Sure maybe he did an incredible job of refuting my argument if we are to change the definitions of every word he uses, but since he has offered us no alternate way of interpreting his words we must go with the established definitions.

Con
"You have to base it off of actions."

I have no way of seeings con's actions to know how to define a word based off of them. The only thing I have to go on is dictionary collection of words and meanings of words as established by society.

Con
"Who are the ones intended in that definition of democracy, the citizens of the US or a small group of stuck up ding bats that line their pockets with OUR tax dollars and still do the exact opposite of what we want? "

You have offered no evidence that politicians have not enforced the will of citizens with this ban.

Con
"So, I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the ACTIONS of our government say and they say a lot more than their words."

The only thing we have established is a saggy pants ban is in effect in New Jersey. You have in no way showed how this is the catalyst for slow democracy murder.

You haven't even shown how this is a symptom of an undermined democracy, let alone the cause of it.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Muzz just don't sag your pants, it symbolizes a lack of intellect and since it started as a prison style, in some prisons to symbolize homosexuality or in other prisons because they didn't have access to belts, it also symbolizes that committing crimes is "cool". There's nothing cool about pedophiles and rapists though.
Posted by Muzz 3 years ago
Muzz
Well, one video that I saw was showing more white kids sagging than black ones. That's not to say that the area doesn't have a lot of black kids that sag but I guess it was worth noting. Maybe they did that on purpose. Who knows. I just don' know how to feel about this law.
Posted by whatledge 3 years ago
whatledge
racial-targeting? I think its more cultural...

I've seen people of all ethnicity dressing like this because they thought it looked "cool."
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
How is such a law not racially-targeting?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
MuzzWyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
MuzzWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a better argument with explicit details to which he addressed Con. Con didn't seem to know how to go about the process of debating.Con forfeited a round so conduct point goes to Pro. Maybe he will learn from this experience. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MuzzWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: "you can't base your argument off of a dictionary definition" I don't give source credit for a dictionary, but arguments are often based around meaning of words. ... Anyway con's argument was not successfully refuted. This seems strange when this law is no more than an extension of already in place public decency laws, which have not murdered our democracy. Conduct for forfeit.