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

There Should Be A Purge

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 66373
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




1. Acceptance Round


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate, good luck.

1. How can you be a moral person if you support a purge. By stating this, you believe that anyone can be tortured against their own will no matter how bad. By everyone, this also includes the elderly, the homeless, babies, children, and the disabled.

2. Certainly, this will not clear economy up at all; it will just become worse. With all the fires, damages, explosions and vandalism, things won't be replaced. The government will go further into debt. Almost everyone would be trying to leave the country as soon as possible, and the government won't be able to collect taxes. The airports will be overflown and there will be riots going on.

3. No, we can't check if people were murdered within the time of the purge.

4. You can't just tell someone to "hide" and they'll be fine. Just because they're hiding doesn't mean that nobody will say "Oh, that person doesn't want to die, I'll just leave them alone."

5. What in the f*ck is wrong with you if you do think this. You might want to consider seeking immediate mental help. Killing people is not the way to solve your anger, especially kids who support the purge and are in 8th grade; "Oh my literacy gives us a bit too much homework, it would help me out if I could go out and kill a bunch of people."

6. EVERYTHING will be f*cked up. I don't need to emphasize on that one. Use common sense.
Good luck...


Contention 1: Crime and unemployment.

The Purge would actually be a good thing for crime. You see that the reasoning behind this is that there is large percentage of people who want to try a crime of some sort and when we apply the theory of Ying and Yang showing that not all good people are entirely good and it's that small amount of evil that good people would like to try that could satisfy the monster within. This would decrease crime after a Purge as many people would have tried their small crime expirement. The first reason that we have major violence according to Dr. Perry is that we have become decenistized to violence to almost worship it in video games and in the media, but after a purge this would shrink concidering the acceptance of violence on that one time and people would successfully be able to excersie her demons one day of the year and people would have all of that time to do as they please. (

The purge will reduce unemployment down to 1% as it is the poor that will be the target of many of the purgers along with other middle classers with will open up more jobs and have less people. This will cause wages to rise in order to attracked more people due to the less demand and thus people will get richer. Many of the newer jobs will be insurance and construction as though the purge will destroy things, but the insurance industry will get a huge boom as well as a home defense system to protect the average joe from the Purge. Thus we will have more jobs then ever and the world can be a better place.

Contention2: Populace

The animals do this all the time known as natural selection and Social Darwinism. You see this is a simple survival of the fittest and will do the best to help the human race go further and survive as the idiocy will die out along with the homeless and we will be the greatest nation in the world again. In the graph bellow you can see that the human race is getting out of control and we need to do something about it as we are killing the plants of Earth.

*Disclaimier- I in no way am advocating murder in this debate, but just a simple helping Earth.*
Debate Round No. 2



Contention 1: Crime and unemployment

The pro stated "... there is a large percentage of people who want to try a crime of some sort..."

How do you know that there is a large percentage of people who want to commit crimes? Unless you have information on conducted surveys or polls, you wouldn't know.
Besides, committing crime should not be the answer. Children will see that to deal with your problems, going out and committing any crime will be the answer. How is that in any way the right thing to be doing?

Also Pro had stated that the unemployment rate would dramatically decrease, but I strongly disagree.

Even if the unemployment rate does drop (highly unlikely) , murdering the poor for that to happen is not the answer.
Those who do have jobs and are wealthy will want to immediately leave the country. The most wealthy will end up leaving first, then the middle class, and those homeless and/or without jobs will be stuck behind during purges.
Another reason the unemployment rate will go down is because of arson. "Criminals" will be causing as much rampage as they can leading to the destruction of buildings. I understand what you previously said about insurance and construction going up, but how does that outdo all the other companies/fields going rotten. Along with this, economy will become stale.

Contention 2: Populace

A statement from Pro: "The animals do this all the time..."

I don't think animals have purges where are crime is legal. See, animals don't have the advanced mental set of humans. They never created a set of laws or rights so they can't have an annual purge where crime is legal. In addition, humans are not animals. It's no longer survival of the fittest. Food can now be easily obtained, unlike when it was the Paleolithic Age.
Life expectancy is decreasing. During our current generation, the amount of overweight and obese adults total just about 66%, while in the 1980's, the population of overweight/obesity was only about 20%. Along with this, being overweight/obese can now leave you with a total life expectancy that's a decade lower than the average person's. Although this can not entirely fix the population situation, we shouldn't resort to a purge.


Paperwork -
With many people dying during the purge, how will there be a way of identifying every person who dies? How will people know who lives in what house and whether if they're alive or dead. How will insurance claims be processed if it's legal to burn down their buildings. There are many more I can state, but I don't feel like this point is of much importance.

Homeless -
Children's parents will be murdered leaving them with no home. They'll be on the streets for a large amount of time with no protection or desire to achieve anything. If they do find an adoption center, it will be overflowing with children and they won't be able to handle all of it.

Environment -
Forests will be destroyed, rivers intoxicated and more.

You know what, I'm done. I don't need to go on with this anymore. I feel weird debating to someone about a purge because honestly, this is stupid. Like who the hell can't actually figure out that a purge wouldn't do anything but create more trouble? Good luck getting this ratified, and good luck winning the debate.


Contention 1: Crime and unemployment.

Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.

"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."

Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy which is why we are in herriantly evil. If we do not excercise our demons once a year then they will manifest into something horrible, but if we do then we will be coharrantly peaceful. (

“one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death” (De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory).

My opponent dropps how the jobs will be added via insurance companies, more arms manufacturing, and more construction crews. For the greatest example I will give you is hurricane Katrina. One year after Hurricane Katrina the US economy rating went from B+ to A. (The GDP went from down 4% for the first three months after Katrina to down 1.4% for the finial months of 2005 and then for the first 3 months of 2006 the GDP was up by 5.6% and gas prices fell under $3 a gallon and the economy began to look like it was on the upturn. (

Contention 2: Overpopulation

To firsly respond to his rich will leave first argument.

The rich will be able to by great defenses for their homes or even go purging themselves. You see they will be safe. When the poor falls off and my economic impacts are being seen the middle class will get richer and they too will be able to afford these and be safe so now only the people that will die is homeless and the poor which will increase the standard of living and git rid of unwanted trash. My opponent says that we don't have this, but with modern day Capitalism companies still wage price wars against eachother and do crazy economic things like the banking industry that had caused the crash of 2008. This shows that this term of Social Darwinism and Natural Selection still exist, just on a higher level. I also prooved in my previous contention that humans are animalistic by nature and would thus fit into this category.


This is simle as we have a system that currently deals with this. Much like the missing children's thing the same shall be done for children. We would just have tons of Missing Persons.


Why make exceptions, people kill children all the time (I'm not advocating that) and under a lawless nation I don't think that children will be not killed with their parents and such.


Proove it. I want hard core evidence.

Debate Round No. 3


AtheistPerson forfeited this round.


All points extend.

Thank you and please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by kimmi 1 year ago
why do you thing that the purge would help the united states
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
How can you do that?
Posted by AtheistPerson 1 year ago
What the hell. How did I forfeit I thought I added 24 hours to the clock?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
I thought he was refurring to the movie.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
In order to have a valid debate, you first have to define your terms.

Purge of who, or what?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Futhermore, Con's remarks like "what the f is wrong with you" or "this is stupid". Such comments are really unnecessary. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con actually could have won this, because Pro left a few challenges raised by Con unanswered in the 2nd round. But due to Con's forfeit, he was unable to negate Pro's rebuttals thus allowing Pro to maintain the BOP and therefore, win. Sources - Tie. Both shared quality sources including .gov and .edu, thus neither really stood out over the other. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by kimmi 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: i agree but disagree because some people don't want to die and some just think killing is fun..