The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

That Australia has become a "Nanny State"

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
mrsmall2000 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 100295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Lock-out laws, bicycle helmet regulations and picnic permits are just some of the outrageous laws which suggest that Australia"s criminal legislation has gone a step too far.
While many of these laws have been implemented in the expectation that is will reduce violence or improve health and safety, in many cases the excessive laws are being accused of restricted freedom, ruining livelihood of small businesses and turning the nation into a nanny state.


Well, given that you have failed to provide your own definition of what a "nanny state" is, I will provide my own. A nanny state is a government perceived as authoritarian or interfering , OR the government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice.

Based on the first definition, how can you possibly say that Australia is a nanny state? We are DEFINITELY not authoritarian, no doubt you agree with me on this. As for interfering, I would agree that Australia interferes more than many countries, but not to the extent that would make us a nanny state. I ask you this, how much of your life is regulated? Don't tell me you aren't free to do as you choose day to day. We also have freedom of speech in Australia, something I personally wouldn't expect a nanny state to have.

As for your mention of bicycle helmet regulations, all I have to say is, so? We are a nanny state because we care about safety? It's been proven that wearing bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury ( To some extent I agree with you here, it shouldn't have to be a law, because it should just be common sense. But that's the thing, laws and regulations are imposed for the betterment of the population. Concluding this, I fail to see how having to wear a helmet is an "outrageous law" as you suggested it was, and I fail to see how it makes contributes to us being a nanny state.

As for the lock out laws in Sydney, there was a major problem with conflicts. The level of violence is also down by 40% since the laws were introduced, and the cities are much safer than they were before. LA and NY also have a cut off time by the way. (2am and 4am respectively)

To conclude my argument, I guess all I'd say is that, you're free. You have personal choice. Many of the regulations that you would encounter in your day to day life do not tell you that you can't do things, but rather HOW to do them to avoid risk, injury etc.

(Also, as a little side note, how curious that this topic would come up on just a week before the Cairns high school debating tournament starts in just over a week.)
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.