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

we all agree

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 81584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




the rules of nature should apply to some one, when he/she has no food


The rules of nature haven't been clearly defined, and I can't find a definition for that specifically, so I need pro to be more specific about that in the next round.

Until then I'm not quite sure what I'm debating about, so I'll just sort of use this as an acceptance type round
Debate Round No. 1


i mean the rules of nature, not by law

some one only has no food if we dont give him no food


Could you please be more specific? I didn't know nature had rules. I just need some sort of clear definition of those rules.

And the double negatives are throwing me off, because I'm sure you said that "a person doesn't have food if we give him food."
Debate Round No. 2


like, you need to eat food, so when there is no food you steal food is not illegal

if we dont give him food


One cannot steal food if no food exists.

I'm still not sure what that means. If you don't have food you should go to the grocery store and buy more like normal people. There's no reason to steal.

As for the rules of nature, my opponent still hasn't given a list of rules.

So far all I can do is continue to explain how his analogy is nonsensical and keep asking for a definition of the rules of nature. I have literally no ground to debate on because the resolution is not defined at all.
Debate Round No. 3


this is why you are blocked..


I am blocked because I can't read your mind.

Perfectly reasonable. Well I'm not sure how that supports your case, so I guess carry on my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


there are just the rules of nature.. or the rule of law

quite simply..


Well if there are no specific rules of nature then my opponent has no framework to affirm. Therefore, we cannot all agree; because, there is no defined point to agree on.

Since the resolution can't be affirmed, I ask you to throw in a vote for the negative.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
>Reported vote: logical-master123// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: First of all Pro trolls and has bad spelling. However, he had better arguments because Con did not know the meaning, but why accept?

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't justify S&G. Merely stating that one side had bad spelling is insufficient. (2) Conduct is completely unexplained. (3) The arguments vote isn't clear. The voter has to explain what it was that earned Pro the debate, not just the problems with Con's arguments.
Posted by leedle 12 months ago
I assume you mean freedom to use nature at one's disposal.

First off, Confucianism rightfully believed that humans are one with nature. This animist view incorporated in their powerful centralized government really helped the Chinese economy and state of being during the Qin (pronounced chin) dynasty.

With the development of laws pertaining to this topic, I believe that the law of nature has inevitably become the law of the state or country; bear with me. Food has become similar to money in a way. After the development of industrial food suppliers which boomed after WWII, our views of natural law has subliminally been altered when it comes to food. Now, you either buy food from the supermarket with whatever money you have, or suffer as a consequence of your poor life choices, These "poor life choices," could actually be inborn, unsalvageable poverty, including the consequences of living in poverty, opportunity-wise. But people fail to realize this. These tend to be the views of the conservatives who missed the memo whenever Thomas Jefferson wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life is a basic (do not confuse with "easy") essence to sustain, so if one lacks the access to food, they should fend for their life. Ethics applies to this because if the government denies one to food and leaves them for dead, then this totally goes against the D.O.I., which some call the paramount of ethics. The pursuit of happiness means that you have the right to live life however you choose as long as you don't violate the rights of others, which contributes to the counter intuitiveness the legislative ideals have on natural laws when it comes to food. Ergo, in conclusion I do believe that People should be able to take advantage of the rules of nature when it comes to attaining food A.K.A sustaining life.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Sarai.K82// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I was sympathetic to con's frustration with the scope of this debate, but con did accept the debate as defined. I think the crux of Pro's argument is that natural law trumps man-made law when a person is hungry. If you need to steal a loaf of bread to survive, you steel the loaf of bread and this is not considered immoral. I didn't find persuasive the argument that a person can simply go to the grocery store and buy food. Sources were tied for me.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is completely unexplained. (2) The voter needs to do more than simply expand on one side's argument to try and justify why it should win the debate. Much of these points aren't clearly a part of Pro's case, yet the voter is granting him these justifications.
Posted by Effffort 1 year ago
I root for the con so far
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
home made from china town
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Thanks for the fortune cookie
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
he who follows the logical path, he can not be judged by his actions
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 12 months 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof, as the resolution is stating that something should happen. He provides no evidence to support this, nor clarity regarding what his actual claim is. Con at least made attempts to rebut Pro's points, like the food example in round two, so arguments to con. As Pro's grammar egregiously affected the debate, and as he levied a personal attack in round 4, S&G and Conduct to Con. No sources, so I'm withholding that vote.