The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

The social contract theory is absolutely ludicrous

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 100188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Absolute without a doubt so unreasonable it infuriates me to the point of retardation


I accept the debate, and will uphold the legitimacy of the theory of Social Contract. I await opening arguments from my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


1. a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Now that the definition is known, where have I signed to be forced to follow the stipulations of any contract?


Let us begin by defining a few key terms that my opponent neglected to define.

Absolutely " with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.

Ludicrous - so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.

Let us be clear as to the burden to be placed upon my opponent. Con in this round has must show that Social Contract is in fact absolutely ludicrous. In other words Social Contract can have no legitimacy whatsoever. Rather it must be regarded in the mind of the judge at the end of this round as totally ridiculous, and unworthy of another thought. If this is not your state of mind after reading this debate, a Pro ballot is warranted.

Turning now to the one argument presented by my opponent. Contract was defined as "a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law." My opponent then made the leap that any such agreement must be signed, in order for it to be binding. This is not true, and I will be showing you why Social Contract theory is legitimate in a few moments. Before doing so however, let us define Social Contract.

Many books have been written attempting to explain Social Contract. I would refer you to John Locke as my personal favorite authority on the subject, but for this round a simple definition will have to suffice.

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.

Compare this to the definition of contract that was offered by Con. A contract is a written or spoken agreement. When individuals join together and create society, both verbal dialogue and written legislation are employed in the creation of the government of that society. Thus we can see that the requirement for a contract has been met, because in the very act of establishing a government for themselves, individuals create a contract.

Now think again about the burden of Con. In order to vote against Social Contract, you must believe that it is absolutely ludicrous. For the sake of this discussion, I offer the following quote from John Locke.

"Men being by nature free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join together into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living."

From this quote we can understand the natural state of man. In his natural state, man is absolutely free to do whatever he wants. This means that without a Social Contract that forces me to give up some of that freedom, I am free to conduct a mass shooting, or carry out some other act of terror, without government intervention or reaction.

Any society that places limits on this state of absolute individual freedom can be said to be functioning under a Social Contract. Far from being absolutely ludicrous, I submit to you that the Social Contract is absolutely essential to any just society.
Debate Round No. 2


God wants us to live as one happy family together and here you are saying that we should be separated by our cultures so that we will wage more wars with each other and try to revolt against unjust systems. You don't realize that God loves all of us equally, and he doesn't want us to build walls, but rather bridges between each other. So, we should rid ourselves of the burden of this "social contract" culture and move to a more universal stance on how different peoples operate with each other in the world today.


My opponent has chosen not to respond to my previous argumentation, rather introducing a new reason that Social Contract theory should be rejected. I will refute this new argument, before offering some bottom line reasons why a Pro ballot is warranted in this round.

My opponent contended that Social Contract theory is in contrast to the desires of God. For the purpose of this argument, I will grant my opponent the legitimacy of the Law of God as a weighing mechanism for Social Contract. Let us consider the argument that Con has made. We have an unwarranted claim that Social Contract divides cultures and leads to revolution. This simply is not true, and has not been proved by my opponent. Rather, let us consider the Ten Commandments as the best known and simplest form of the Law of God. The Ten Commandments include commands such as, "Thou shalt not murder," and, "Thou shalt not steal." In his natural state, man can do these things without government intervention. It is only through the Social Contract that the Law of God, which my opponent championed, can be upheld by society. Thus Social Contract upholds my opponents values and has been proved as legitimate by the standards of both sides in this round.

Permit me to condense this round to the following points.

1. The Con burden
Con has the burden to prove that Social Contract is absolutely ludicrous, as defined in my initial arguments. If this is not achieved, a Pro ballot is warranted.

2. The legitimacy of Social Contract as a defined contract
My opponent offered a definition of "contract," and claimed that Social Contract did not fit this definition. I showed in my opening arguments that Social Contract does fit my opponent's definition. This was never responded to by Con.

3. Social Contract fulfills the Law of God
My opponent introduced a further standard to weigh this round in his closing argument. This was that of the Law of God. I have shown that this is fulfilled better by Social Contract than by the rejection of Social Contract.

4. Social Contract has legitimacy
In my opening arguments I established that Social Contract is absolutely essential to proper society. My opponent has never responded to this. At the end of this round, we can see that Social Contract is far from absolutely ludicrous. Thus my opponent has failed his burden and should not win this round.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
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: No contest as one side never got above vague assertions... The originator got pro and con confused, but dismissing that since it was mentioned by neither. ... the side opposed to social contact argued in favor for it since God wants us to all join together in community and obey the bible. The side in favor of social contract of course caught said blunder, in addition to making real arguments on the topic, such as John Locke's natural state of man.