The Instigator
jake.carrier
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The United States does not need any more laws. We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,391 times Debate No: 31907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

jake.carrier

Pro

The United States' government seems to be introducing new laws or at least advocating new ones all the time. Who is sitting down to read these provisions? Do the laws really help and fix problems or do they just cause a different injustice? When there are so many laws and regulations that rule our lives, are we really free? When somebody is telling you what you can and can't eat, grow, smoke, marry, sell, or buy, is it really for your own good? We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.
imabench

Con

The United States' government seems to be introducing new laws or at least advocating new ones all the time.

I consider that a good thing, its a lot better then just having politicians sit on their a** and do nothing all day....

Who is sitting down to read these provisions?

Im going to go out on a limb here and guess.... People? They are the only species capable of reading words so thats my best guess....

Do the laws really help and fix problems or do they just cause a different injustice?

Sometimes one and sometimes the other, in some cases it can be both....

When there are so many laws and regulations that rule our lives, are we really free?

Well we still have the freedom of speech, assembly, bear arms, trial by jury in most cases, right to an attorney in most cases, right to drive, right to vote, right to not be a slave, right to run for office, right to protest, and a ton of ohter rights most people in other countries dont necessarily have despite the laws already on the books, so yeah im guessing we are still pretty free depite the laws.... In fact the reason why most blacks have any rights at all in this country is because laws were enacted to end slavery, fight against literacy tests and poll taxes, and segregation too....

When somebody is telling you what you can and can't eat, grow, smoke, marry, sell, or buy, is it really for your own good?

Its hit or miss. Selling raw milk is often illegal because the risk of contracting salmonella is massive which makes raw milk as hazardous as certain poisons.... Are you going to give an actual argument for why the US doesnt need any more laws or just keep asking questions?

We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.

Well nobody is going to argue against that but the resolution is that the US doesnt need any more laws... Which I think it kinda does.... I along with most other americans think that the US should pass laws to clarify Gay Marriage, Coneal Carry laws, better background checks for gun purchases, reforming poorly performing agencies like the VA, legalizing Marijuana would be nice, restricing drone warfare would also be nice, laws on abortion depending on where your views lie, etc. There is still a need for laws to be passed in the US based on a wide variety of different topics, we shouldnt say 'no more laws' just because there are a lot of them already....
Debate Round No. 1
jake.carrier

Pro

Laws that clarify are few and far between. The government often does a really good job of making things confusing and costly and rarely can it ever create comprehensive and simple ideas that work. I would know, I've been working for Uncle Sam for the past five years. We don't need more laws full of legal mumbo-jumbo that most people would need a lawyer to understand. We need fewer,simpler laws that anybody can work for everybody. Bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA should never even be given the chance in Washington, but instead if we don't fight them, they most definitely will be signed into effect. Laws are passed without the American public knowing anything about it. The NDAA was signed on new years eve so that there wouldn't be as much uproar from the public mostly because the act allows the government to indefinitely detain anybody it labels as being affiliated with a 'terrorist' group without a trial or jury! Just the other day for example, The Monsanto Protection Act was PASSED while everybody was debating over whether or not the government should let gay people marry each other. If you aren't going to provide an intelligent debate why are you even on here?
imabench

Con

"Laws that clarify are few and far between. The government often does a really good job of making things confusing and costly and rarely can it ever create comprehensive and simple ideas that work. I would know, I've been working for Uncle Sam for the past five years."

Theres a MASSIVE difference between being a soldier and being a lawyer, and that isnt any evidence to suggest that the government rarely creates comprehensive and simple ideas that work....

We don't need more laws full of legal mumbo-jumbo that most people would need a lawyer to understand. We need fewer,simpler laws that anybody can work for everybody.

We shouldnt dumb down the language in bills just so that every idiot from Florida to Alaska can have a clue in understanding what they mean. Laws are enacted to change society in a legal and organized matter, not so that people can have some good reading material.

Bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA should never even be given the chance in Washington, but instead if we don't fight them, they most definitely will be signed into effect.

There are idiotic bills introduced to Congress every week that never get the chance to be voted on. Bills calling for Obamas impeachment, withdrawing from the UN, withdrawing from NAFTA, declaring war on Saudi Arabia, etc that have all been introduced and killed quickly.... The people dont have to fight every bill where if we dont they get passed, Congress already eliminates a surprising number of stupid bills on its own where only a few of them slip through the cracks.

Laws are passed without the American public knowing anything about it.

Theres a difference between not knowing about it and not caring about it.... And its usually the latter one

The NDAA was signed on new years eve so that there wouldn't be as much uproar from the public mostly because the act allows the government to indefinitely detain anybody it labels as being affiliated with a 'terrorist' group without a trial or jury!

1) The claim that he signed it on New Years to avoid public uproar is pure speculation

2) This if anything sounds like a damn good reason for the government to keep making laws, so that they can fix the screw-ups found in earlier laws!

Just the other day for example, The Monsanto Protection Act was PASSED while everybody was debating over whether or not the government should let gay people marry each other.

Ok 1) Its called the Farmer Assurance Provision not the Monsanto Protection Act...

2) All the bill does state that lower courts should not automatically prohibit the planting of biotech crop varieties, or the harvest and sale of biotech crops already planted, when their commercial approval is revoked for procedural reasons. Emphasis on should instead of cant and procedural instead of health

If you aren't going to provide an intelligent debate why are you even on here?

Me? Im still waiting for you to give a half-rational argument on why the US doesnt need any more laws.... So far the best evidence youve used is that 'theyre too hard to read' which is a really stupid a** reason to not have any more of them... Im also still waiting for you to respond to why we we shouldnt make new laws to sort out stuff like drones, marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, taxes, etc....
Debate Round No. 2
jake.carrier

Pro

Because you cant seem to respond to more than one idea at a time I'll break up my response for you.

There's a MASSIVE difference between being a soldier and being a lawyer, and that isn't any evidence to suggest that the government rarely creates comprehensive and simple ideas that work....


Ok. I am in no way saying that being a soldier is similar to being a lawyer. I wouldn't dare disrespect my fellow service members like that. What I am suggesting is that I have first hand experience with how irrational and mindless some government mandated rules can be.

We shouldn't dumb down the language in bills just so that every idiot from Florida to Alaska can have a clue in understanding what they mean. Laws are enacted to change society in a legal and organized matter, not so that people can have some good reading material.

If an 18 year old is required to abide by every law and regulation, shouldn't he or she be able to understand every word of it? LAWS SHOULD NEVER CHANGE SOCIETY. Laws SHOULD be made to protect the current way of life of a society. Could YOU comprehend all 906 pages of the "Affordable Care Act"?

There are idiotic bills introduced to Congress every week that never get the chance to be voted on. Bills calling for Obamas impeachment, withdrawing from the UN, withdrawing from NAFTA, declaring war on Saudi Arabia, etc that have all been introduced and killed quickly.... The people don't have to fight every bill where if we don't they get passed, Congress already eliminates a surprising number of stupid bills on its own where only a few of them slip through the cracks.

Why should Obama NOT be impeached? Do you think that congress really has the best interest of the people in mind when they vote on bills? No, they don't (at least 90% of them) They go by what vote would look good on their record or what vote would get them votes from their party affiliation in the next election. How do you think those bills 'slip through the cracks'? They sure don't read them. They go with whatever their buddies are voting.

There's a difference between not knowing about it and not caring about it.... And its usually the latter one

You don't think the American public cares about due process? You think they don't care about the government detaining people that haven't been proved guilty?

1) The claim that he signed it on New Years to avoid public uproar is pure speculation

2) This if anything sounds like a damn good reason for the government to keep making laws, so that they can fix the screw-ups found in earlier laws!

It wasn't a coincidence. Let me get this straight... You think that because this group of people make terrible, unconstitutional, unjust, and morally corrupt laws, they should make MORE to try to counteract those?

Ok 1) Its called the Farmer Assurance Provision not the Monsanto Protection Act...

2) All the bill does state that lower courts should not automatically prohibit the planting of biotech crop varieties, or the harvest and sale of biotech crops already planted, when their commercial approval is revoked for procedural reasons. Emphasis on should instead of cant and procedural instead of health

Oh, my bad, I guess using truthful names for things should be made illegal. Section 735 effectively shields large 'biotech' companies, like Monsanto, from the federal courts in case something is found to be harmful in their genetically-modified seeds. Because of Section 735, federal courts would be powerless to stop Monsanto from selling their product. This is a DANGEROUS law. I would advise you to start growing your own food or to buy from a local farmer if you aren't already doing so.

Me? Im still waiting for you to give a half-rational argument on why the US doesnt need any more laws.... So far the best evidence youve used is that 'theyre too hard to read' which is a really stupid a** reason to not have any more of them... Im also still waiting for you to respond to why we we shouldnt make new laws to sort out stuff like drones, marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, taxes, etc....

I am not saying that the United States doesn't need more laws. I am saying that we need to get rid of the toxic laws that are in effect today. Abolishing the laws such as The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 would solve problems instead of creating new ones. I think that there needs to be strict laws protecting the people from the government not themselves. Laws regarding who you marry, what you ingest, what you and your doctor do, or what you buy an sell need to be nullified.


imabench

Con

"Because you cant seem to respond to more than one idea at a time I'll break up my response for you."

Look jarhead just finish your rant against the government so that we can end the debate already.

"What I am suggesting is that I have first hand experience with how irrational and mindless some government mandated rules can be."

What makes you so special exactly? EVERYONE has experience with what they consider to be stupid laws, thats no reason to not make anymore of them though.

"If an 18 year old is required to abide by every law and regulation, shouldn't he or she be able to understand every word of it?"

No, not at all. Babies also have to abide by laws and regulations but that doesnt mean the language of the laws should be made to that even babies could be able to understand them....

"LAWS SHOULD NEVER CHANGE SOCIETY."

Im sure the people in the South who wanted to keep slaves in the 1850's thought the same thing.... Seeing as how this is just another opinion though not based on any reasoning or anything ill just move on.

"Could YOU comprehend all 906 pages of the "Affordable Care Act"?

Can YOU give arguments relevant to the debate rather then just keep asking dumb questions?

"Do you think that congress really has the best interest of the people in mind when they vote on bills?"

Oh this will be hysterical....

"No, they don't (at least 90% of them) They go by what vote would look good on their record or what vote would get them votes from their party affiliation in the next election. How do you think those bills 'slip through the cracks'? They sure don't read them. They go with whatever their buddies are voting."

Seeing as how youve given no evidence of this at all, im going to once again go ahead and classify this as nothing more then a biased opinion and just dismiss it....

"You don't think the American public cares about due process? You think they don't care about the government detaining people that haven't been proved guilty?"

Of COURSE people dont care about it, if they did then people would be giving a sh*t about it. Only a small fraction of people are protesting the bill at all while everyone else just strolls along in their lives since it doesnt effect them, so im going to guess that they dont care, ESPECIALLY when it comes down to handling terrorists (which is what the bill is about if you actually read it)

" Let me get this straight... You think that because this group of people make terrible, unconstitutional, unjust, and morally corrupt laws, they should make MORE to try to counteract those?"

They dont intend for them to be terrible idiot, they just turn out that way. They should be given the chance to undo their mistakes, because if they didnt then the provisions of the NDAA could never be fixed....

"I am not saying that the United States doesn't need more laws"

Dude, read the title of the debate that YOU MADE. 'The United States doesn't need any more laws', its literally the exact thing youre supposed to be arguing. Ill count this as a massive concession then.

" I am saying that we need to get rid of the toxic laws that are in effect today"

Seriously, how do you think legislation works? The way to get rid of bad laws is to pass other laws that nullify them, thats how the government works. If you dont let the government make any more laws, then you are effectively preserving all the f*cked up ones to exist forever.

Pro forfeits half the debate and then uses his own wild opinions against enacting any new laws, meaning he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
I meant Pro when I mentioned the first Con.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
"If you aren't going to provide an intelligent debate why are you even on here?"
"Because you cant seem to respond to more than one idea at a time I'll break up my response for you."

If con would have said that to me, I would have raged. I'm surprised Con had the patience to finish the debate. I nearly lost it at...

"I am not saying that the United States doesn't need more laws"

"Dude, read the title of the debate that YOU MADE. 'The United States doesn't need any more laws', its literally the exact thing youre supposed to be arguing."

LMFAO
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
jake.carrierimabenchTied
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 asserted his position without meeting the BOP.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
jake.carrierimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Jake had BoP, didn't fill it. He also basically contradicted himself at the end.