The Instigator
Topher1989
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DATXDUDE
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should the US government adopt a purge day?

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 2 votes the winner is...
DATXDUDE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 80285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Topher1989

Pro

I will debate as if I am in favor of the US government adopting an annual purge day like the one from the movie, The Purge. The first round is acceptance.
DATXDUDE

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Topher1989

Pro

First I want to thank you for accepting this debate. I don"t agree with adopting an annual purge day in the US. I am not a crazy psychopath or sociopath. But I thought it would be fun to debate.

An annual purge day in the US would provide many benefits. Here is a list of some possible benefits.

1.There would be less crime annually. Those tempted to steal or hurt others will save their hate for the annual purge day.
2.The economy would improve because more people will buy guns, bullet proof vests, helmets, security systems, armored cars, and body guards for protection.
3.A purge day would provide an effective means to reduce overpopulation. With fewer people, the government can use more resources to help those in need and decrease poverty rates.
4. Poverty rates would also decrease because the poor would be most vulnerable. The rich would have money to buy protection and weapons, so they would be in a better situation to kill the poor. In the end, it would further decrease poverty rates in the US.

Yes, from the surface, an annual purge seems immoral. But these benefits must supersede the deaths and wrongful acts carried out during an annual purge day. In other words, the ends justifies the means. I agree with James Allen"s quote in his book, As a Man Thinketh: "There can be no progress nor achievement without sacrifice, and a man's worldly success will be by the measure that he sacrifices his confused animal thoughts, and fixes his mind on the development of his plans, and the strengthening of his resolution and self-reliance."
DATXDUDE

Con

Arguments

Besides the fact that a purge would kill many innocent people, it would spread mayhem throughout America. Remember, ALL crime is legal. Murder, rape, cannabalism, and other horrible things. However, if we are looking at this from a purely logical perspective devoid of emotion, you would have to look at one other crime: Vandalism.

The damage to property that would occur with even one of these events would severely damage the economy. How much money do you think it would take to replace broken glass, clean up blood, replace stolen objects, and fix other damages resulting from the purge? It would certainly be in the billions, if not more.

Rebuttals

1. Pro has no proof for this statement whatsoever.
2. This would be outweighed by the damages resulting from the purge. Not many peope can easily afford high powered weaponary anyways, so it wouldn't boost the economy that much.
3. A one child policy would acheive this affect.
4.Not everyone can be rich. If you kill poor people, more poor people will emerge. Also, do you think people will just let all of the poor people die? If you do, you clearly haven't watched the movie. Finally, you're proposing killing innocent people. There are better ways to deal with poverty. Examples of this are charity programs and government programs to help the poor, rather than kill them.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Topher1989

Pro

Vandalism may stimulate the economy. If there is a demand for manual labor and housing materials, there will be a need to supply these materials and services. As a result of consumption, our economy will improve. In other words, spending drives the economy.
1.I do not have evidence to prove that there would be less crime annually as a result of the purge. But it only makes sense that some individuals will wait for the annual purge to commit a wrongful act out of fear of being indicted otherwise.
2.As I stated earlier, spending drives the economy. The more guns, bullet proof vests, helmets, security systems, and armored cars people purchase, the more our economy will thrive.
3.A one child policy may very well reduce our population if under overpopulation constrains. However, along with other benefits, the purge would fix this issue.
4.Claiming that not everyone can be rich is a bold statement. How do you know that not everyone can be rich within a given country? Are you asserting that it is impossible, and it can never occur? The purge may not eliminate all poverty within the US; however, it would most certainly guarantee that the poor would be most vulnerable in a purge scenario. Perhaps some poor people will find refuge in the arms of the rich or endowed. But I doubt most rich people would trust the company of the poor out of fear that they may be overcome during the purge. The first movie provided a good example on how the rich or endowed may view the poor and needy. If I remember correctly, the father opposed that the needy man enter his secure home. Obviously, it"s just a movie, but I believe it genuinely plays into the fears we would all have in such a scenario.

-------Disclaimer-------
Genocide is wrong. I would never condone the killing of the poor to benefit an economy or nation. I second what DATXDUDE stated in the comments: "This is a devil"s advocate debate. Sometimes, people debate things that are very hard to defend to get better at debating in general. I doubt he actually supports killing the poor."
DATXDUDE

Con

Rebuttals

If that logic was sound, then everyone would be breaking and destroying things for no reason but to help the economy. For capitalism to work, people that are employed have to actually be accomplishing something. The same goes for buying things. Both the consumer and the producer have to gain something for the sysytem to work. Buying useless products merely distributes wealth from the buyer to the seller.

Counter Rebuttals

1. What about the people who commit murder because it is legal for one day? And why is it better for people to kill on one day rather than another? The same thing is being done.

2. Yes, however as I previously stated, this would be outweighed by the property damage the purge would create. At the end of the movie, you can clearly see the amount of devastation there is after an event like this. If my opponent is stating that everyone will become rich because of the purge, I redirect the audience to the "rebuttals" section of my argument.

3. There are other successful ways of doing this, as I have stated. It's kind of humorous that I am mentioning this in a debate about the purge, but educating youth about contraception is a wonderful way to control population.

4. Yes, this may be true. However, in hard times people bond. This may sound overly optomistic at first glance, but it is true. In the movie, once the rich family saw how the homeless person was like them in many ways, they sympathised with him and saved his life. This is why videos of, say, animals being mistreated can be more effective then statistics of animals being mistreated. Because the people see what the animals go through and thus feel sadness for them.

Closing Statements

Thank you for this debate Pro, it was very fun. To the voters- I hope you will understand that he is arguing something that is very hard to defend morally, and thus had a disadvantage in this debate. However, it is important to read his arguments as well as mine carefully and determine which are more logical.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
No problem. I think a lot of people are accused of reporting only votes against them, but in cases like this... well, anyone who reports that vote would be well-warranted.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
thanks whiteflame. Just want the votes to be fair.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: LADYBUG36// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I am a psycho :p

[*Reason for removal*] No justification for the point allocation. The decision seems to be based on the voter's own personal desire rather than anything actually presented in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by JuliusCaesar 1 year ago
JuliusCaesar
I apologize Topher1989. I was ran to a quick undeceive conclusion about your opinion.
Posted by Topher1989 1 year ago
Topher1989
Thanks again for debating with me DATXDUDE. I'm sure you'll win lol. The immorality of the purge can not be justified with a financial or economic gain, if there really is any to be gained. I imagine many CEO's and other employees deaths would cause economic pressure and strain. And by allowing for a purge, I seriously doubt crime rates would decrease. If anything, it would cause anarchy and civil upheveal against our government and its leaders. Nothing good can come from an annual purge. Great movies though!!! I can't wait for the third film to release!
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Thank you for this debate Topher.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
This is a devils advocate debate. Sometimes, people debate things that are very hard to defend to get better at debating in general. I doubt he actually supports killing the poor.
Posted by JuliusCaesar 1 year ago
JuliusCaesar
Wow, the pros argument supports the death of the poor. How little do you care for the poor, and how selfish are you?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 1 year ago
Bennett91
Topher1989DATXDUDETied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a rich plutocrat and Pro made the best argument in my view. I'm always concerned about the poor and Pro has delivered a solution, let the raff squabble! All Con did was cry about the "innocent". Economics? Pish posh I'm rich! I award conduct point to Con because I found Pro's "Genocide is wrong" comment and other mother-goosery to be offensive; thus showing Con to be a more cordial debater.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 1 year ago
Seeginomikata
Topher1989DATXDUDETied
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: Pro didn't provide convincing reasoning for points such as crime rates. Con wins on points of population and economic gain/devastation. Directly giving money to construction companies is a better way to waste public money than ruining infrastructure. Contraception also just make more sense as lowering birth rates is more effective than increasing death rates for fixing the population. Education sure beats wasting innocents.