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

The Less Laws There Are, the Better

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 103098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




There should be as few laws as possible. This position is supported by freedom. People should have as much freedom as possible. In order for people to have as much freedom as possible, there must be as few laws as possible. Thus, by Modus Ponens of Should using the preceding two sentences, there should be as few laws as possible.

One argument that supports more laws than necessary is safety. Safety is good, but freedom is even better. For freedom, we pay nothing, but for safety, we pay something. Since it's always better to pay nothing than something, freedom is better than safety.


My opponents has stated that less laws are always better than more laws. His first paragraph was ultimately rhetoric so lets dive into the only argument presented by my opponent and ultimately what this debate will come down to is safety v. freedom.

I believe we should always value safety above freedom. Yes, freedom is important. But without safety no one will be free. Without security, everyone would be dead. For example, when there were fewer laws for food safety, we received the peanut butter salmonella case. Stewart Parnell did not have any inspection within his peanut butter plant which resulted in the death of 9 innocent people. With this came about the food safety modernization act tightening regulation. I await the Pro!
Debate Round No. 1


My first paragraph was not "ultimately rhetoric." You seem to be engaging in wishful thinking. I actually gave an entire argument in that first paragraph.

Freedom was introduced to support my position in my opening argument, but it is not the only reason that supports my position. From a logistical standpoint, having fewer laws makes the criminal justice system easier and less expensive to operate.

Having fewer laws makes it easier to the people to know what is legal and what is not. Thus, the people may have more respect for the law and may be more inclined to abide by it.

This debate does not simplistically boil down to safety vs. freedom. You are introducing a false dilemma. It's possible to have few laws, be free, and be safe.


My opponent has failed to recognize that his first paragraph was simply rhetoric. My opponent just talked about how freedom is a good thing but essentially gave no reason to prefer. Lets move into the meat of his arguments though.

My opponent has dropped his entire standpoint on freedom being valued over safety and has decided to move onto different argumentation. He did this because it is impossible to sidestep facts.

Next, he talked a little about cheaper court systems, but I would rather put a little more money into a court system and be safe. My opponent has put a price tag on security which is a flawed mindset.

His final argument provided an illogical link. Just because we have fewer laws does not = more respect for laws.
Debate Round No. 2


I am aware there is a relationship between freedom and safety, but this debate is not entirely about that relationship.

I agree safety is good, but too much safety is not good. I do not want to be murdered or slashed with a knife. I am fine with laws prohibiting those activities.

Having laws requiring licenses to fish and everybody to have health care may be taking the law too far. I shouldn't have to get a license or approval for every little thing I do. I shouldn't have to engage in time and effort consuming paperwork so that I can give my money to somebody else for health care I do not even want. I shouldn't have to worry about taking a picture with an American Eagle shirt on. I shouldn't have to worry about having sex or copyright.


So my opponent in his last speech agreed that security of people is ultimately important. Since he agrees with this let's look at the fishing license.

This deals with animal safety. Wildlife is important, and fishing licenses protect animal's rights and allow fishing for everyone instead of all the fish being caught at one time without reproduction.

Having health care being required is something that is currently being debated in Congress. This is inherently illogical because it is not set in stone as fishing licenses are. The requirement of healthcare is to keep the American people safe.

I am not aware of any laws hat require my opponent to have sex or from wearing an AE shirt. Copyright laws protect businesses and foster capitalism.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Harsith.R 2 years ago
Let us look at the biggest clashes in this debate.

1. The principle (freedom vs. safety)

The first argument from proposition is that freedom is better than safety, which is just an assertion for the mere fact that just because you don't pay for freedom that it is better. But opposition claimed that 'no one will be free without safety'. The point that was trying to be made was that the purpose of laws is to protect the freedom and the rights of other people, by ensuring that you overstep your freedom. This was insufficiently rebutted by proposition. Finally in round three, proposition makes a statement that they wanted to come to a settlement between freedom and security, which is perfectly justified as that is what both sides want. The motion wants to reduce the laws and not completely abolish them.

2. Which side ensures a safer society?

The point that proposition is trying to make is that laws that 'unwanted' should be abolished. Opposition never gave a justification as to why those unwanted laws are not a clampdown on freedom. Also, if greater good is your principle then why do you support laws that protect private property ownership? That is the principled inconsistency on Opp's case.

Final Decision: Proposition
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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