The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ChloeMcIverFloyd
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Society Has A Right To Intervene When People Engage In Self-Destructive Behavior

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
bubbatheclown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 44654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

First round for acceptance.
Subject we are Debating: Does society have a right to intervene when individuals engage in self-destructive behavior, such as cutting, excessive drinking, binge eating, drug abuse, pornographic addiction, etcetera, even when his or her habit/addiction doesn't harm society?
If you disagree with one of the things that I listed as self-destructive, feel free to say so, but don't get distracted from the topic at hand.
I await a response.
ChloeMcIverFloyd

Con

Before I begin I would like to give the definitions of some of the words I will be using later on in my argument. I will define the words, self- destructive, behavior, intervene, and constitutional right, I will also supply links to the sites I get my definitions from.

Definitions
  • Self-destructive- acting or tending to harm or destroy oneself. Link to the defintion I used for self-destructive.- http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
  • Behavior- 1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment 2 : the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior 3 : the way in which something functions or operates Link to rhe definiton I used for behavior, (I went down on the page to the full defintion.)- http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
  • Intervene- come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events. Link to the definition I used for intervene.- http://www.google.com...; 17.17.0.0.0.0.298.3484.4j2j11.17.0....0...1c.1.32.hp..4.13.2504.uoYrhjmbGdA
  • Constitutional right- a constitutional right is a legal right of its citizens protected by a sovereignty's constitution. United States Link to the definition I used for constitutional right.- http://www.google.com... 30j0i8i30l6.5306.6560.0.6965.7.7.0.0.0.0.180.793.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.32.serp..0.7.787.JqWlE2rfMeU

    My First Argument

I do not believe that society has the right to intervene when they think people are engaging in what they consider to be self-destructive behavior. In my first argument I will explain one of the reasons why I feel this way. Then in my next arguments I will explain my other reasons, because I don't want to say everything in my first argument. If I did, I wouldn't have anything to talk about later.
Firstly, if society intervened every time someone engaged in what they considered self- destructive behavior, then society would be taking away peoples constitutional rights. This is only if this self-destructive person is doing things that are legal, such as the examples my opponent has stated, which are, cutting, excessive drinking, binge eating, drug abuse, ( in some states, certain drugs are legal,) pornografic addictions, ext. Yes, everyone has the same constitutional rights, so society has the right to be concerned about peoples self- destructive behavior without harming their constitional rights. Where if society intervened, they would be taking away peoples constitutional rights, which is illegal. So for society to intervene when they believe someone is engaging in self-destructive activities society would be breaking the law.
In conclusion for my first argument, society would be technically engaging in a self- destructive activity by intervening in others self-destructive behavior. I will be talking about my other reasons as to why I feel society should not intervene when they think people are engaging in self-destructive behavior.

I am looking forward to hearing my opponent's arguments, until then bubbaththeclown.

Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

Hello, Chloe McIver Floyd. Ignoring the strange font and excessive underlining used in your argument, I'll answer your argument.
You say that government has no right to intervene in people's lives. However, to an extent we already do this. For instance, the government tries to prevent people from committing suicide, though this is their private business. The judges can order people to go to rehab.
Of course, the above reasons don't mean we should, so I'll cut to the chase. When they are addicted, they cannot help themselves. They need outside help. Government is providing that help. Like for instance, if a person is about to fall off the railing in a zoo, it would not be unconstitutional for a cop to pull him back. When you're addicted, you cannot make rational choices on the matter of whatever you're addicted to, just like a child tends at times to be irrational. It is not wrong to prevent a three year old from sticking his hand in the campfire. It would not be wrong for the parent to slap the three year old's hands to teach him not to do it.
So my point is, if the government is doing it to save their life, and they're not in the right state of mind to make their own decisions on this matter, then the government should be able to intervene to put an end to that self-destructive habit.
ChloeMcIverFloyd

Con

Sorry I took so long getting my argument up, I was busy with school work. Okay now on to my second argument, in this argument I will be rebutting some of the things my opponent said in his last argument. Before I start, I want to supply you all with some definitions of the words I will be using in my argument. I will be defining the words, fall and jump, I will also supply links to the websites where I found my definitions.


Definitions

  • Fall- move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level.

https://www.google.com...
88.1416.2j9.11.0.
...0...1c.1.32.hp..2.9.1105.fecarvPOa7I


  • Jump- push oneself off a surface and into the air by using the muscles in one's legs and feet.


https://www.google.com....
...0...1
c.1.32.serp..1.7.1109.M7DFxyt5I78


My Second Argument


For my first rebuttal I will be using a quote from my opponent's argument. Bubbaththeclown said, “For instance, the government tries to prevent people from committing suicide, though this is their private business.” The government does not try to prevent people from committing suicide, I did an online search and found that there are not government funded programs to help prevent suicide. Here is a link to the website I found, http://www.sharecare.com.... On the website I found this, “...principles and action steps represent good sources for developing specific policy recommendations to present to governmental and legislative leaders.” This means that the government is not presently doing anything to prevent suicide. I also found a website for a suicide help line, here is a link to that website, http://www.hopeline.com.... This program is funded by a woman named Kristin Brooks Rossell and people who donate money to the program. So the government does not try to prevent people from committing suicide.

Now on to my second rebuttal, I will be using another quote from my opponent’s argument. Bubbaththeclown said, “The judges can order people to go to rehab.” This is a very simple rebuttal , a judge can only sentence someone to go to a rehab center if this person did something illegal while on a drug, drunk, or if this person did illegal drugs. So my point is, a judge can not sentence someone to go to a rehab center if they didn’t do anything illegal while under the influence.

This will be my last rebuttal, then I will tell you alittle bit more about how I personally feel about this topic. I have a quote from my opponent's argument that I will be using. Bubbaththeclown said, “...if a person is about to fall off the railing in a zoo, it would not be unconstitutional for a cop to pull him back.” The only reason why I decided to put this in my argument was because this person in the zoo is falling off the railing. There is a difference between falling and jumping. If this person fell, then according to the definition I gave before I began my argument, it would have been an accident. Where if this person would have jumped off the railing, it would have been on purpose, and this person would have meant to cause themselves harm. But, this person fell off the railing. So the police officer saved the person from dying because this person lost their balance and almost fell over the railing.

Okay, time to discuss why I feel that society should not intervene in someone’s personal life when they feel that a person is engaging in self-destructive activities. Personally, I think that if someone wants to binge eat or not eat at all they should be able to. I don’t think that society should force these people to do anything they don’t want to do, unless these self-destructive people are breaking the law. People have basic constitutional rights, which means long as what they are doing is legal, it is okay in the eyes of the government.

Now just to sumrise everything, the government does not do anything to prevent people from committing suicide. Judges can not sentence people to go to a rehab center unless this person did something illegal while under the influence. And last of all, it is okay for a police officer to pull someone back when they are about to fall over the railing at the zoo. So the government doesn’t do anything to help people with self-destructive behaviors.

Like last time, I am looking forward to hearing my opponent’s argument. Until then Bubbaththeclown.
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

1. Actually, I saw a local newspaper article once about a cop talking a man out of jumping off a bridge. The cop didn't lose his job or anything. In fact, he was probably sent there by the police for that very reason, to convince the man not to jump off the bridge.
2. As for what you said about rehab, I apologize for any misinformation. Perhaps the government doesn't force people to attend rehab when their behavior doesn't hurt others. HOWEVER, my question is, should they?
3. Okay then, I should've specified. What if the man was jumping off the railing in contrast to accidentally falling? Should the cop simply stand by and do nothing?

Now, allow me to add that many "harmless" behaviors actually do harm society.
For instance, (and I know I have no sources here) did you know that countless work hours are wasted by workers who use their work computers for porn instead of doing the job they're paid to be doing?
If a man commits suicide, he leaves people behind. Death leaves behind grieving people, and destructive behaviors may cause a person to die.
Excessive drinking leads to health problems, which lead to increasing hospital bills. for him and for his family. Also, if you allow people to drink excessively, chances are one day they'll go out driving under the influences. Same applies to drugs, especially heavier drugs, such as heroin, crack, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
Binge eating causes health problems, and it helps depletes food resources. There's only so much food in the world.

So to some extent, these "harmless" behaviors can hurt society and/or friends and family of the person involved in the destructive habit. Therefore, it is society's business.
I await your final rebuttal and the conclusion of this debate.
ChloeMcIverFloyd

Con

Before I begin my final argument I would like to say something off the record. Okay, off the record, I thought that my opponent’s last argument was very good. So I would just like to say, “Good Job,” to my opponent. Also, I have enjoyed being apart in this debate, it has been rather enjoyable.


Okay, on the record now, I will be making my final argument now.


My Final Argument.

For my first rebuttal I will be using a quote from my opponent’s last argument. Bubbaththeclown said, “Actually, I saw a local newspaper article once about a cop talking a man out of jumping off a bridge. The cop didn't lose his job or anything. In fact, he was probably sent there by the police for that very reason, to convince the man not to jump off the bridge.” Now it could be possible that this police officer was sent to keep the man from committing suicide, but the only way that could be true is if this man left a note or talked about wanting to jump off a bridge. Now, I highly doubt that this man told people or wrote it in the note which bridge he was planning to jump off. So the police officer was most likely near by, and saw this man getting ready to jump off the bridge.

On to my next rebuttal, I will be using a quote from my opponent’s last argument. Bubbaththeclown said, “ For instance, (and I know I have no sources here) did you know that countless work hours are wasted by workers who use their work computers for porn instead of doing the job they're paid to be doing?” Recently I heard about a high school principal who watched porn on his work computer. Now I am not condoning this behavior, but he didn’t have any work to do, and he couldn’t just go home to watch the television. He was discharged. So my point is, that at some point the people who use their work computers to watch porn will eventually be caught and dismissed. I don’t have any evidence to support this, but I think that it does happen, like in the example I gave above.


During my next rebuttal I will be using a quote from my opponent’s last argument. Bubbaththeclown said, “If a man commits suicide, he leaves people behind. Death leaves behind grieving people, and destructive behaviors may cause a person to die.” It is true that death leaves behind grieving people, but all death leaves behind grieving people, not just deaths caused by self- destructive behavior. Also only some self-destructive behaviors cause a person to die, such as excessive drinking or drug abuse. And those self-destructive activities in some cases only shorten life expectancy.


For my final rebuttal I will be using a quote from my opponent’s last argument. Bubbaththeclow said, “ Binge eating causes health problems, and it helps depletes food resources. There's only so much food in the world.” This self-destructive behavior, in a way helps society. Here is why, if people binge eat, then farmers have to grow more food. That means the farmers get paid more, because they have to grow more food. Yes, it does take awhile to grow more food, but people do grow more food. Some foods can even be grown indoors, so foods can be grown all year round. Also food is a renewable resource, I gave some examples of that above. So there is not, “...only so much food in the world.”

Society should not be able to intervene in peoples personal lives when they feel someone is engaging in a self-destructive activity. Also society should not be able to deem what is self-destructive and what is not. For example, sitting inside all day could be considered self-destructive, because you don’t get enough vitamin d. Or using a tanning bed that increases someone's chances of getting skin cancer. So is society going to make people sit outside and put a ban on using tanning beds?


I hope you all take the time to think about everything my opponent and I have said before you vote. Also, thank you for taking the time to read my arguments, and a big thank you to my opponent for starting this debate, because I truly have enjoyed being a part of it.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Alright, what this debate really needed was impacts. At the end of this debate, I don't really see much of importance to vote on.

All Con gives me is that it's the law, which I don't see an impact for (and I don't see why it matters either, since this seems to be a calculus of what's ethical for society anyway), and then brief statements that rights will be lost. I don't know why upsetting that legal balance is bad. I don't see what rights will be lost, or how they matter to society. I see a slippery slope argument in the final round, but I don't get any analysis as to why this is a problem to expand to these areas, and why it's likely to happen.

The reason I'm voting Pro has nothing to do with his first 2 rounds, as there appears to be no impacts at all there. Only in the final round does he state any sort of broader impact to implementing this sort of policy, and these weigh heavy by the end of the round. I don't see enough response from Con. As these arguments are new, I do throw Con the conduct vote, since no one should be bringing up new arguments in the final round and Pro does far more of that than Con, but as no rules were established that it couldn't be done, Pro wins the argument.
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 3 years ago
ChloeMcIverFloyd
Sorry, I forgot to fix a spelling error in my second argument. In my second argument, the last paragraph, the first sentence, I wrote, "Now just to sumrise everything, the government does not do anything to prevent people from committing suicide." I misspelled the word summarize. So I would like to apologize. Thank you.
Posted by Contra 3 years ago
Contra
Change it to 3 rounds and I would take this debate. We don't want to make it too long.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Now there are four rounds. Is that good enough?
Posted by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
5 rounds is too much I believe. Can you make it shorter?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
bubbatheclownChloeMcIverFloydTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.