CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
4
YES NO
Debate Score:29
Arguments:24
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (20)
 
 NO (4)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11170) pic



If an individual commits theft, yet s/he gives it to the poor, is it still theft

YES

Side Score: 25
VS.

NO

Side Score: 4

If you have no arms and no legs and you are lying on the beach and you are depressed because you have never been fucked and I come by and throw your ass in the ocean, are you fucked? ;)

Side: yes

Well, the government has been committing theft for 30 years, yet the only difference between the government and any individual is government just gives itself legal authority.

No group has any right to act as if any individual member of the group would not have. If two people form a group, they have no more rights than either one has separately. The rights of an group are simply the union of the rights of all individuals in the group; therefore, the group has no more rights than the individuals in the group. Furthermore, if your neighbor has no right to simply take from you whatever s/he wants, then neither can soceity, which means government playing as its agent.

Side: yes
casper3912(1578) Disputed
1 point

If someone steals, they stole irregardless of what they did with the property afterwords.

The government defines stealing, since they decide the laws and theft is the unlawful taking of property.

A group may have greater rights then the individuals, for example two people may come together and decide they will only do something as a group, and never individually. Or the collective individual rights of the many may outweigh the individual rights of the few.

Side: yes
1 point

Although it is still technically theft, I think the good intention more than makes up for the crime.

Side: yes

Even if the intention is good, it is still stealing. Taking something that is not yours, and illegally redistributing it is wrong.

Side: yes
1 point

yes, even if a person steals money from a person and gives it to the poor, it is still theft. although a person does good, he is actually stealing money in the first place. this case is something like Robin Hood's, where stealing from rich and giving to the poor is robin hoods main aim. but robin hood is still a thief in the eyes of the rich.

Side: yes
1 point

If I stole money, then it makes no difference what I do with it after, I still acquired it through theft.

I woke up this morning, it doesn't matter if I take a nap later, it's still a fact that I woke up this morning.

Side: yes
1 point

Theft is theft no matter what the circumstances are. It is upto the law enforcement or judicial offficials to grant probation, to forgive the person or to let him go depending on what the driving forces behind the situation or action are.

Side: yes

Ah, Doing wrong to correct a wrong is just wrong squared!!! you should give that poor guy some advice, like getting a job, how to earn money, etc instead of stealing it from a rich guy who may have worked hard for it!!!

Side: yes
1 point

yes the robin hood excuse doesn't work nor should it stealing is stealing no matter what you use to try to justify it.

Side: yes
1 point

this is an oxymoron statement . . . because what its saying is, is theft theft if you give the stolen goods to an unfortunate individual :) lol... uh yeah....

Side: yes
1 point

This is a really easy answer. The principle of identity is a=a. Theft is theft. Your questions addresses whether the intentions of an act can erase the act. The answer is no. The intentions are subject to a value assessment (good/bad), but the act of taking someone else's property cannot be overridden by any intention. A nation cannot intervene militarily in another country, and after having removed a violent dictator, conclude that they didn't intervene.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes. If he wants to help poor. Why can't he give his own property?

Side: yes
1 point

Yes of course! Maybe s/he took a wallet , s/he might have tooken out some $$$$$$$ .

Side: yes
1 point

a theft is still a theft. it is not hard earned money, which makes it illegal money. therefore a theft is still a theft however committed.

Side: yes
1 point

Depends on the intent and circumstances. If the boss is stingy and doesn’t pay or treat his employees well then within reason a small amount of payback can be forgiven. In fact revolutions and wars are the result of unjust thefts. However, if it’s simply to fulfil yourself then it’s wrong. Look at it like this. If a guy comes in and cleans out your house and accounts but decides to give you back your mementos if you let him have the rest of your stuff would you agree to it as your now officially poor?

Side: yes
1 point

It's a definition of theft. One should not have to live in a situation where this is ever necessary however, thus social programs... prayerfails, I'm talking to you O.o

Side: yes
1 point

It is wrong for any one individual to commit theft even if intentions are good, yet when a group of people can agree that theft is the means of helping the poor, these people hire their agent, the government. Social programs create dependency, and this is what you have, people stay in poor because of these programs.

Side: No

Yes. A person does not have the right to steal even if it is for good intentions.

Side: YES
0 points

yes it is still a crime. There are many other ways to help the poor

Side: yes
1 point

first of all the question is very poorly written. so i cannot comment on a subject that does not have a primary basis to support itself.

Side: No
0 points

no

coz like "lieing for others good is not bad"

the same way doing something bad for others good is not bad

even law forgives it

its just like robin hood

Side: No
ryuukyuzo(604) Disputed
2 points

You're attached "theft" to the concept of "bad" and "giving to the poor" to the concept of "good", therefore have weighed the acts against each other and have come to a neutral end.

The problem is that morality is subjective where as the event of theft and donation are objective occurrences. They don't ever actually meet up, so take morality out of the equation and you're left with only the acts. Since present acts don't influence past acts, the fact that theft occurred remains true regardless of what is done with the stolen provisions. Do you see what I mean? Reality doesn't weigh acts as "good" or "bad" and erases past acts in order to reach some moral equilibrium. Look at the world through the eyes of acceptance rather than the eyes of dichotomy and everything becomes clear.

Side: yes
JohnGalt1(10) Disputed
1 point

The tale of Robin Hood and the way he is portrayed as a hero in today's society is ridiculous. You demonize the rich, simply because they are rich and you glorify the poor because they are poor. You will hate another man because of his success and all of his positive attributes yet you love the poor because of their failures and faults. What kind of sense does that make?

The only way society has made the story even somewhat acceptable by making the rich appear so evil and villainous that the theft is morally justifiable. Even if that is truly what happened, people don't remember it as a story of self-defense or justice, they remember it as the "guy who stole from the rich and gave to the poor". And on that premise, the story and the main character, are evil.

Side: No