The Instigator
lasota
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Kahvan
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

disobedience to the law is never accpetable

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: 1/25/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,694 times Debate No: 10946
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

lasota

Pro

It is my opinion that disobedience to the law is never acceptable. One would always follow the law. Disobedience even civil disobedience undermines and corrodes a government and almost always leads to loss of life.

If one wishes to change the law they should do so within the means that the law provides. One should never act against this system because when this occurs you get characters who decide that they are more right than their neighbors, and when this happens you have a majority of one. When this occurs you get people like Hitler who history generally agrees was (to say the least) a horrible person. He decided not to simply defy local law but to defy the laws of society and humanity itself. He committed atrocities like the concentration camps and on top of that caused the deaths of many people through a war that spanned the globe.
Kahvan

Con

My opponent argues that one should never break the law. Well, I obviously disagree. Provided those who break the law sometimes commit atrocities. In some extreme cases like Hitler, those who broke the law left deep scares in history.

But to say this as an absolute statement is folly. Are their some laws that should never be broken? I would say yes. But often times extenuating circumstances allow for certain rules to be broken on occasion.

But let us take into account something with alittle grandeur. My opponent started off big using Hitler. So I shall also use Hitler. When Hitler cam to power he imposed many laws into Germany. When Hitler took over other countries he would impose his laws onto them. If the inhabitants of those countries had simply bowed down and taken those laws, if all the people of Germany and hose of captured countries had simply bowed to his rules and laws then imagine the chaos the world might be in today. Had not the people under Hitler's control resisted the war would have been a lot worse for the allies.

But aside from that I will now move onto a smaller example. Killing. It is against many religions to kill. If that were so then nobody who believed in said religion could kill which would mean that if a war came or the individual had to protect him or herself. They could not kill their opponent. Provided war and defending oneself is a nasty affair and I shudder to think what I would do had I to kill another human being. But in many of those same religions people are allowed to protect themselves whether it be struggling with a murderer or fighting a war against Hitler.

With what I have said I will now await my opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 1
lasota

Pro

If ones religion says that they cannot kill another human being then they cannot kill another being without breaking the law under any circcumstances. In the case of Ghandi. His supproters did not kill another human being. Why? Because they did not belive in that. Instead of fighting to defend themselves they stood thier ground and where slaughtered. Not only does this fullfill the religious they have that the yshould not kill but it also is a much more powerfull example than that of when people have resisted.

In the case of Hitler. My opponent failed to realize that Hitler violeted humanities laws. He defied the law of the interantional community and caused vasts amount of turmoil and death.

Had Hitler not violated certain fundamental laws ww2 would never had ocured.

I will now bring up vigil antes. A reason exists why vigil antes are considered criminals. It's because they break the law by decideng to deal with criminals in a way that they decide best. These vigil antes decide that what they think is more important than what the majority thinks. When this happens it just causes more trouble. The vigil ante must be a hypocrite and break the law to stop others who break the law. This is a formula for anarchy. If many more people decided to become vigil antes then a new order would start taking place. Society would break down and the law which protects all of us would become meaningless.
Kahvan

Con

It would seem that my opponent is trying to draw me away from the center pint of this debate. So rather than being drawn away I will now directly attack why disobedience to the law can be acceptable.

Disobedience to the law is acceptable when the law become corrupted. For example. The American revolution. America was being abused. Wen the Americans tried to obey the law and talk peacefully and in accordance with the law, to the king, they were rejected.

It became the colonists duty to rise up and to declare independence. In short it was acceptable to disobey the law because the law turned viscous. The law was used to help a tyrant practice tyranny over his subjects.
Debate Round No. 2
lasota

Pro

My opponent is trying to use the American revolution as a more "basic" example. But this example is also very complex. The colonists should have kept petitioning and not started a bloody revolution.

The colonists started a war that cost many lives on both sides.

On both sides. I can't imagine how many mothers tears were shed because the colonists started this war
Kahvan

Con

Since my opponent has decided to not take alot of time in responding I shall make this brief.

When the law becomes corrupt then it is a persons right to go against it.

It is outlined in the declaration of independence that it is our duty to stand up when our government becomes corrupt; and a corrupt government yields corrupt laws.
Debate Round No. 3
lasota

Pro

lasota forfeited this round.
Kahvan

Con

I forward my response.
Debate Round No. 4
lasota

Pro

My opponent has shifted the debate around. I will put this simply. Without the law anarchy reigns supreme. Absolute anarchy that would cause much chaos death and destruction. From this it can be concluded that we need law.

Since we need law we also need people to agree to and follow the law. This concluded people must follow the law. That is one reason wy vigilantes are criminals. No one for any reason should break the law even to uphold the law. My opponent states that it is our duty to disobey the law when it becomes corupt. But this is folly, once people break the law once they may break it again for convienience. They may break it for fun. By letting someone break the law for any reason you encourage the growth of the idea to break the law to many people for many reasons.

Humans are very good at justifying their actions. This means that humans msut never be allowed to break the law. Ever.
Kahvan

Con

I will again use the example of the American revolution. May I remind my audience that the shot that started the war is also called the shot heard around the world. It is called the shot heard around the world because the American revolution had global impacts. One of these impacts is that other nations revolted. As a matter of fact revolts are prevelant throughout the history of the word.

Now I will pose and then answer the question, why do people revolt? A comon answer is that they revolt because they are oppresed and they seek freedom. Black slaves in America revolted, the American colonists revolted, and so many other people revolted.

Back to an earlier point the Americans revolt caused other countries that were oppresed by the British to also revolt and to gain freedom. This was a good thing. It gave numerous people across the earth freedom.

Revolting is the peoples way of restoring order. It is the peoples way of ridding themselves of a corrupted law and creating an uncorrputed law.

Now for your vigilante. I will take a fictional example. Batman. Inparticular the Batman from the recent movies Batman begins and Batman the dark knight. Batman im these movies is a vigilante, and he does at first cause chaos. But after the chaos the law is reinstated better than before and their is more order in Gotham than there was before.

Refereing to Batman it was acceptable for him to break the law by taking the law into his own hands. Just as it was acceptable for the American colonists to revolt and break the law by taking it into their own hands.

Now let me touch on yet another example that I mentioned before. Here in America many African Americans broke the law through civil disobedience. Looking back that was a good thing because they obtained freedom for their future childred.

To wrap this all up the revolts and civil disobedience almost always cause violence, loss of life, anger and many other things. But ultimatly they benefit not only those who obtained the great goal of winning the conflict but also many of their future generations to come.

Thank you for a very good debate.

Having said all this I conclude that sometimes it is acceptable to break the law.

http://www.theamericanrevolution.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.earlyamerica.com...
http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Con's grammar was actually worse, I found, though Pro's was nothing to brag about, either.

Neither well supported points, but all in all this goes to Con.

I guess it helps by the fact I've defied sodomy laws that were in effect in states where I was living while having gay relationships (and non-missionary sex with women). In Pro's eyes, every person who was gay or had non-missionary heterosexual sex in a state with a sodomy law at the time was a bad person ... that will never sit right with me. Nor those who defied laws mandating slaves were property and may not be free, or the other ill laws we've had.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro might have had a chance by wording the resolution with "In a democracy ..."

Spelling and grammar errors on both sides, but Pro was worse.

Con, references need to be tied to the specific points they are intended to support.
Posted by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
I hold no grudge against it but I will let the audience decide.
Posted by lasota 7 years ago
lasota
As my brother can my absence of an argument in that round be forgiven?
Posted by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
I am conserving my argument to blow her away in the final two rounds:)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
lasotaKahvanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had terrible grammar and spelling. Pro made weak arguments, ignoring simple history. He also made unreasonable assumptions.
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
lasotaKahvanTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
lasotaKahvanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
lasotaKahvanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
lasotaKahvanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04