The Instigator
Joel_Asher
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 930 times Debate No: 4236
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

Joel_Asher

Pro

Although it is effective and productive plus more controlled, the government should be let go and the world should revert back to the strong vs weak. Complete freedom to do whatever-whenever-however is the way things should be. society will fall under complete control over the government in a matter of time and people will be in oppression. But when people were free to do what they pleased people were happy. This includes the religious fanatics also should not force their religion on others and cause pointless wars and meaningless deaths. That is complete freedom to worship who they want and do what they want.Yes their will be those freaks out their but their are also those who choose to protect the weak. does anyone disagree?
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"Although it is effective and productive plus more controlled, the government"

So if it is effective and productive, why precisely would you want to change it?

"should be let go and the world should revert back to the strong vs weak."

Can you demonstrate a time in human history where we lived in such an anarchistic way in order for us to even be able to "revert" back something? What makes you think that we lived this way at one time?

"Complete freedom to do whatever-whenever-however is the way things should be."

If society opted for an anarchist way, the very first thing I would do is slaughter all of the anarchists because I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and however I want. If they are too weak to defend themselves against my onslaught, oh well... Cry me a river.

"society will fall under complete control over the government in a matter of time and people will be in oppression."

Society has lived with some form of government since its inception, and there has never been a time where people fall under complete control of the government for the sole fact that the people always outnumber the government. Society and government act as a buffer against one another in a checks and balances system.

Aside from which, what makes you honestly believe that people will somehow behave better under this convoluted plan you are proposing? No laws means that I have to enforce my own personal desires at the behest of my own arbitrary whims. Things could get mighty bloody when my only law is law of the bullet.

"But when people were free to do what they pleased people were happy."

Prove there was a time or a society devoid of some form of regulation. Every civilization, from the most primitive to the most advanced have rules, laws, and regulations enforced by someone. Your plan is unrealistic and it has dire consequences.

"This includes the religious fanatics also should not force their religion on others and cause pointless wars and meaningless deaths."

Under your anarchist plan there will be nothing BUT meaningless deaths and unmitigated violence! If there is no legal basis for not slaughtering you, then that is precisely what I would intend on doing in your world -- because I can and because I would have to. Societies run by order. Do you think that businesses could really run without laws and rules? How would anyone get payed when it isn't illegal not to pay someone? If there is nothing preventing me from stealing, then why would I need money? Seriously, how would society operate under your plan, let alone explain to me how everyone would skip off in to the sunset because everyone is "happy?"

If you wanted selfishness to reign supreme, then this is the consequence of selfishness reigning supreme. This just may very well be a case of getting what you want, but we will see if you really want what you're going to get.
Debate Round No. 1
Joel_Asher

Pro

Yes, There will be bloodshed and there will be slaughter. There will be the most horrible things happening you can imagine. But isnt that already happening. War against drugs? That is just pissing people off or getting them off for the thrill of competition and not getting caught. The bloodshed will come but so will the lesson. It will start like a dream and soon thereality will shake peoples worlds into taking action and teaching people that they can no longer collect off of the state to get rich. It will also mean a natural life not ran by someone else. Revert? That means go back to the beginning when man had gotten tired of lawlessness and decided that they needed oder to protect people. Before that a persons will to survive was all they needed. If that was not strong enough then they needed to be taken to the promise land. criminal action is never going to disappear. But it makes sense for a person or a victim to take actions into their own hands instead of leaving it up to chance that they get put in prison or get let off because they have the money to do so. even if criminals outnumber those who help, those who help have something that criminals dont and that involves a way to make things happen in the name of good. Lets take a look at the war. The war pres bush started in the name of taking out the terrorist. Then come to find out that this had way more to do with other things rather than just having to do with payback or looking for terrorist or nukes.Yet we are still in the war in the name of good.I dont want bad things to happen but it cant be helped. It is the way of the world. The balance as one could say. But I would prefer to be free from somone else running my life than sit by and get told that for my freedom I will get protection. In the end people can protect themselves or learn to. The worst that can happen is that they will die trying. But if they have no freedom, the worst that can happen is that you will have spent your life not doing what you want but what someone else wants you to do or thinks you should do.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"There will be bloodshed and there will be slaughter. There will be the most horrible things happening you can imagine. But isnt that already happening."

Yes, because of the human condition. The ONLY thing that keeps it at bay is the fact that people fear reprisal of the law. If there is no law, there is no punitive measure to fear, except for the man next to you who would kill you over a tic-tac.

"Revert? That means go back to the beginning when man had gotten tired of lawlessness and decided that they needed oder to protect people."

I know what the word means. I asked you to substantiate that the world was ever without order. I asked you to name me one civilization in human history devoid of some type of hierarchical system. There was never a time where humans lived under such conditions, so there is nothing to revert to. Even other mammals live in the same way. You therefore are going to have to substantiate your claim for your audience.

"even if criminals outnumber those who help, those who help have something that criminals dont and that involves a way to make things happen in the name of good."

You seem to impute some sort of intrinsic value when you speak about the concept of "good" in relation to the topic. Everyone's concept of "good" differs now. Under your system goodness would equal ruthlessness. If survival is the ultimate good, then being cutthroat in order to achieve that survival would require us to acquire ruthlessness as a virtue. What incentive is there in being good in a traditional way?

"I would prefer to be free from somone else running my life than sit by and get told that for my freedom I will get protection. In the end people can protect themselves or learn to."

Governments are not there to protect us from every single danger. It isn't the government who taught you to look both ways when crossing the road. The protection the government does provide is in the legal sector, where the more people exist, the more complicated things get. For instance, in a small town setting, thievery does not pay. It can cause you to become excommunicated. However, in a large metropolis, most people will not know about your thievery, and so can continue to prey upon others. The government is there to establish a baseline for what is socially acceptable and unacceptable to protect the good against tyranny.

If these matters were left to humans to each individually decide for themselves, nothing would get accomplished. Jobs function off of a similar system. Order rules the day, not chaos. If everyone was left to their own devises, businesses would fail, money would lose all meaning, murder would reign supreme, and we would devolve into a squalid race devoid of any meaning in life.

I suspect that you have an aversion to authority, and in your mind a world completely devoid of authority would fancy you. But this is very, very naive, overly-simplistic, and too idealized to ever be practical on a plausible level.
Debate Round No. 2
Joel_Asher

Pro

What makes you think law stops people that gives a thrill to the fact of breaking the rules.That is what makes it so attractive. Many people see that if they were able to do the things that were illegal then they probably would not do it as much considering that it isnt as fun. Then what do you think basic instinct is? It is to survive, to be free and ones own self. What is the meaning of life? That cannot be answerd consideringno one knows. So how can a meaning be lost if it was never there in the first place. People make their own paths in life and with people controlling that out come that is the only thing being lost, their choices freedoms and paths. The only way people could ever create a civilization it took for a need to create civilization. So there was the begininning, too many complaints caused for a gathering which turned into a government after going through various stages. Before commercialization the only jobs needed to be done was to work on your own (family etc.). This included growing your own crop or having your own livestock. What they did before money, was traded bargained or stole. Read the Jungle for instance. It talks about the anarchy that was before the government.Ruthlessness is not my concept of good only the concept of survival. Good would be the moral things a person himself knows is right. Whether society likes it or not they can not say it is wrong because they are not within the same life of that person. Besides why would the government need to protect people from the tyranny if the world would go back to no governments at all. Conquering is apart of a goverment scheme to gain more. With only people themselves trying to gain more it is a easier handled problem. Of course you say to me that my fancies are naive yet it is only opposites to trying to get everyone in the world to walk the same direction. But the fact is both views are impossible and naive. What is not naive is for people to follow their own lead and not be pawns for others. But then again that is basically what I am saying.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Paradigm_Lost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Vote PRO,
CON's account no longer exists.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
"Might is right"
instead of
"Might for right".

I thought we'd established the latter was better back in the times of King Arthur.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I think Joel is idealizing people.

His case makes perfect sense if everyone actually held onto their morals if there were no figures of authority around. Of course....

"Things don't work so ideally in this world, little girl" - Teresa (Claymore)
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Those who want to protect will always be outnumbered by those who do not.
Posted by Joel_Asher 9 years ago
Joel_Asher
It is a view but opinions can bediscussed intelligently also if a person is open minded.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by Milukas 9 years ago
Milukas
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by phsradkid09 9 years ago
phsradkid09
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 9 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Joel_AsherParadigm_LostTied
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:30