The only solution to changing a destructive lifestlye is making a quality decision
Debate Rounds (3)
A quality decision is a decision from which there is no turning, about which there is no more debate.
Con is free to refute that statement.
I agree that, in the main, a "quality decision" is required. However, the government succeeds in changing destructive lifestyles all the time. You know how? Jail for life. What was a destructive lifestyle before (murder and drugs and rape and other horrible things) may now still not be moral (jail isn't that great) but it is not destructive to anyone outside the jail. That constitutes a substantive change.
So, I have proved Pro wrong. Happy day, everyone.
But Pro did not specify that the lifestyle must by mainly destructive to the individual practicing it or anything like that. In fact, Pro did not even specify that the change must be for the better.
Going to jail would change the destructive lifestyle substantively. I'm not saying that the PERSON would necessarily change, but their lifestyle would. In the right jail at least that person would be unable to access drugs, alcohol, or victims. That would constitute a substantial improvement in the destructive lifestyle. That's all I needed to prove for the debate.
Pro, debates like this are hard for Pro because the contentendor only needs to point out one exception and then Pro's case is lost.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. I would caution Pro to pay attention to spacing though, as some of his sentences lacked spaces between each other. Arguments - Con. While pro presented a compelling case, Con is correct in that he only has to provide one alternative solution. He did so with the jail example, thus showing that there is another solution to changing a destructive lifestyle other than by making a quality decision. Pro's biggest mistake was not providing additional clarification at the beginning of this debate. Due to these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.