CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Total Anarchy for one day a year (Like in 'The Purge') YES/NO?
I have always ben curious to here peoples opinions on wheather the price you pay on that one day, out ways all the good it does, So post your opinions, and back it up!!
Hollywood exaggeration?! A bit theatrical with the killings but on a day of free crime people will kill just as much and more as you saw on The Purge. The guy spraying graffiti is probably going to get held down while they spray paint his open organs. You must not know what a human is.
I don't think laws stop someone from killing someone else if they want to. Even if there is no law against killing people, I think people will just do what they've always done, whether that involves killing people or not.
The breakage of the laws especially pre meditated murder would dramatically decrease. Of course there is compulsion (rape, anger) but it would decrease if people had the opportunity to freely do it once a year for 8 or 9 hours. For a rapist a 30 min break in between rapes is all he needs from his capture. I am sure he would relieve himself enough to last a few more months. Besides that, yes, laws will still be broken, but it's the decrease that people yearn.
Sure, but can we wait a year so I can fireproof my house and put metal shutters on the windows. Actually, I am not so sure we could pilot the concept in prisons. Last person standing gets parole. We would cut down on the need for new prisons...and frankly, it would be like the death penalty for any jail sentence.
I am a minarchist, so I feel that anarchism is not an effective system of government." but that's not a reason, that's a definition of your view point. Not a great one at that.
Minarchism does NOT provide anything for the poor. There is no tax in minarchism.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts
You are wrong. It is anarchism that opposes taxation. Minarchists support low taxation, not no taxation. The Libertarian Party which is minarchist in nature supports the Fair Tax which is a 23% sales tax, and and anarchists oppose all taxation. I used to be an anarchist, but now I am a minarchist, so I know what I am talking about. You need to learn the difference between minarchism and anarchism. Minarchists support minimal government while anarchists are opposed to all forms of government. Yours is a very common mistake.
Can you tell me where the Libertarian Party describes itself as minarchist? As the wikipedia definition says, minarchists usually don't support a tax office.
The Libertarian Party is minarchist in nature. It is a myth that all minarchists are opposed to taxation. I am a minarchist and I support the Fair Tax here in America. The Fair Tax is a 23% sales tax that eliminates all other taxes. This is a minarchist policy. Minarchist means minimum government, not no government like anarchism. I am a minarchist so I know what minarchists belief. Click the link for my reference on the Fair Tax.
I have studied every political view known to man kind. I know what I am talking about. Minarchism means minimum government. Anarchism rejects all government. Minarchism like the Libertarian Party supports low taxation. Anarchists oppose all taxation as did I when I was an anarchist. The Libertarian Party supports the Fair Tax, therefore the Libertarian Party is minarchist in nature. You know nothing about minarchism versus anarchism and you are actually refering to anarchism even though you mention minarchism by name. Minarchists support low taxes. Anarchists support no taxes.
Nope. Minarchists believe the government exists only to protect the rights of the people. I don't see how having a tax office with lots of employees assessing people's incomes etc would fit with that.
I rarely dispute without an actual counter to whatever I'm disputing, but I highly doubt that you know what you're talking about. Former debates prove otherwise.
I rarely dispute without an actual counter to whatever I'm disputing, but I highly doubt that you know what you're talking about. Former debates prove otherwise. It is a fact that minarchism and anarchism are two different things.
I'm not doubting that, sorry for the confusion. I'm doubting the general premise that you have any idea what you're talking about...when referencing anything. It's a largely unfounded claim, considering you hardly ever seem to know what you're talking about.
This debate is not about me, but it is about anarchism. I believe that anarchism and minarchism are two related but seperate political philosophies. Anarchists support no government, and minarchists support minimum government. I used to be an anarchist, and I am now a minarchist. This dispute is done with all due respect. Stay awesome. :)
Odd seeing you trying to keep an argument on track, but I was never arguing the debate's premise, I was simply assuring you of my opinions (and most's) of you, and the knowledge you claim to have. I disputed once, and it was a fair dispute, since it was opposing the claim you made, the claim being "I know what I'm talking about" everything else, was clarifications, which is how I keep my words from swaying debate tallies. Unlike you, who disputes, or supports all the time, regardless of what you're saying, only because of how you feel about the user.
Odd seeing you trying to keep an argument on track, but I was never arguing the debate's premise, I was simply assuring you of my opinions (and most's) of you, and the knowledge you claim to have. I disputed once, and it was a fair dispute, since it was opposing the claim you made, the claim being "I know what I'm talking about" everything else, was clarifications, which is how I keep my words from swaying debate tallies. Unlike you, who disputes, or supports all the time, regardless of what you're saying, only because of how you feel about the user. This debate is about anarchism. Do you have anything to say about anarchism?
You said "I will not go off topic" Do you mean here, or do you mean on any argument ever again? If only hear, then Bravo, it's a start. If never again, then Ha, that's a laugh. I was refering to debating in general. Thank you for being nice to me. Stay awesome. Can we talk about anarchism now? :)
No we can not talk about the debate's premise because I do not want to. You can if you want, but don't expect me to. Sorry that's just how I feel.
Now what i do want to talk about, is your character, your character which was put on the line when you made a claim about it, a claim that any could dispute and in just about any argument with you, one could see is false. However you are absolutely right. We should not be off track and or attacking one another's character on a debate not specifically about it... so I'll make a debate about it, and I welcome you to participate.
So if you take anything away from this comment of mine, take this
"You are right, we should stay on track in all debates, and avoide going off topic with strawmans, ad homs, and any other logical fallacy that might seek distraction"
I am sorry for being a bitch. I am trying to learn new social skills. I am not trying to make excuses, but I am autistic. I am learning new social skills though like direct quotation before I make a statement. I will do my best to be a good person and not bitch. I will: "You are right, we should stay on track in all debates, and avoide going off topic with strawmans, ad homs, and any other logical fallacy that might seek distraction".
Who wants to see the that though? I mean I'm all well and good with you if you want to see human nature's true face, and are sure it's a s hideous as "The Purge" would make us believe, but some people (not necessarily myself) don't want to see that, and actually prefer the comfort of human nature being contained behind laws.
Just because we do not want to face the truth does not mean it is not necessary. Ask yourself this question, would you; (A) rather go through life everyday in fear of the truth? or; (B) live in fear for one night of the truth?
What's the big deal? You have preparation time and one night that you know is a guaranteed violent night.
That's a false dichotomy with two false premises. That's a first.
One, living in fear, or facing the truth are not the only two options. As we currently live, we never have to face that one night, since it won't actually happen, and some of us don't actually fear that humanity is as wild as you believe it is.
Which brings me to point two. Some of us also don't believe that human nature is as wild as you say it is.
I personally feel that Purge night would hardly be any different from any other night, maybe the expectation of chaos might even cause people to stay in, thus lessening the likelihood some shit would pop off.
Also, what makes you think anything would even happen in the first place? Ask yourself honestly, do you believe laws are what's keeping people from acting insane? I don't. I believe social stigma is, and only those with a weakened sense of it, would act outside of it, hence only people who would commit crimes any other day of the year, would commit crimes this day of the year.
That's a false dichotomy with two false premises. That's a first
Okay.
One, living in fear, or facing the truth are not the only two options. As we currently live, we never have to face that one night, since it won't actually happen, and some of us don't actually fear that humanity is as wild as you believe it is.
So I am guessing you do not lock your doors? You would suggest your (current or future) child go out past 12AM? Most people lock their doors. Why could this be? Perhaps, they are in fear of someone entering un-welcomed? Or as you seem to suggest it is jest aesthetically pleasing. You will not convince me that people rich or poor live fearlessly.
About people's realization on humanity. So you are suggesting that most people are ignorant to news? I suppose bombing children by strapping bombs on them is not wild behavior. Maybe the number of murders that happen an hour is not wild.
Also, what makes you think anything would even happen in the first place? Ask yourself honestly, do you believe laws are what's keeping people from acting insane? I don't. I believe social stigma is, and only those with a weakened sense of it, would act outside of it, hence only people who would commit crimes any other day of the year, would commit crimes this day of the year.
Are you serious. You think laws do not keep most people from commiting crimes? Do you know how many people commit crimes because they are ignorant to the law? By that I mean they would not have sent themselves to prison if they thought they broke the law. I do not know what grade you are in but I will put this simply. (1) Generally people do not want to go to jail. (2) There is a Code of Conduct called laws. (3) Laws are made to put/prevent someone going to jail(refer back to "1") (4) Major laws are generalized. As are crimes. (5) When most people contemplate a crime they think of the risks(laws) too(assume pre med) (6) So if one realizes their crime might strip them from 5-10-20 etc. years of their life, they would be least likely to commit it.
Let me exemplify. YouTube. There is a lot of people who do not know the true nature of copyright infringement. So when one uploads, let's say, a song from another artist (which is where this happens most), even if they change it around a little (based off of what they think copyright infringement is they think its "exact" material) it still gets removed because if they get plenty of views they can acquire money also. The artist (although most do not care) can sue for a lot of money. Now sure it would be unnecessary but that is subjective. But if were to happen, the person that uploaded would be baffled and try to say "I did not copy the same song just similar", they say this because of their lack of knowledgeability. If they would have know the extent of that law, more than likely, they would not have commited it.
Basically your idea that our law has no effect on crimes is ridicule. Personally I would commit some vicious crimes myself if it were not for this legal system. And most would too.
I do lock my doors, not because I'm afraid people will steal from me though. Instead it is because I know, if people want to steal from me, they will, and the laws won't do much to stop them from wanting to.
The number of crazies to the numbers of normal people, is phenomenally low. So what people see on the news about bombings, and serial killers, and gangs, and whatever else you were revering to, is not as common as the every man that hardly breaks any rules.
I am almost certain laws stop a very small percentage of crimes. Most laws that would stop people from doing things, are laws that basically reinforce common sense, laws like "where your seat belt", "don't jay walk", "turn on your blinker". I see people follow these laws, only because the law is there, but if they can get away with not following it, they won't because it's a simple victimless crime. I believe most people wouldn't commit crimes that have a victim, if their was or wasn't a law. The law just allows us to punish those who break it.
If they had known more about the law, they wouldn't have broken the law yes, but they would have found another way of uploading the song without breaking the law, because that's what people do. If they can get away with some thing they do it, and the law is hardly ever a factor.
At the bottom you say my idea is that law has no effect on crime. I dispute you saying that my idea is that law has very little effect on crimes that claim a victim, and to add to that, the laws that do protect a victim, still hardly protect the victim, so much as it allows us the right to charge the criminal for something, and punish them.
The number of crazies to the numbers of normal people, is phenomenally low. So what people see on the news about bombings, and serial killers, and gangs, and whatever else you were revering to, is not as common as the every man that hardly breaks any rules.
No. The number of reported psychotic crimes are low. You do not understand the idea of The Purge do you. People in general would like to do certain things out of complete anger but refrain from doing then because of the law. It is a fact that places that are not legally hard on certain crimes have people commuting those crimes more often than anywhere else. Take Egypt for example, highest counts of rape, do you know why? Because the government does not regulate that legality strictly. Just like fighting in America. Most people do not go to jail for a street fight unless they incite a riot. But if you were to get life in prison for a public fight I can almost guarantee fight related crimes will suppress dramatically.
Most laws that would stop people from doing things, are laws that basically reinforce common sense, laws like "where your seat belt", "don't jay walk", "turn on your blinker". I see people follow these laws, only because the law is there
These are actually the most broken laws because of the unserious corresponding consequences.
If they had known more about the law, they wouldn't have broken the law yes, but they would have found another way of uploading the song without breaking the law, because that's what people do. If they can get away with some thing they do it, and the law is hardly ever a factor.
Tis the point! They are attempting to not break the law, which means that knowledge of the law and consequences does stop most people from committing them. Remember you said make a way to legally upload, which means, it is not illegal!
my idea is that law has very little effect on crimes that claim a victim, and to add to that, the laws that do protect a victim, still hardly protect the victim
Begging the question? Maybe just repetitive. But like I said before, research the statistics on countries that do not enforce laws as much as they should and compare to ones that do. You will see that the more free from the law a person is, the more they will freely commit it at the slightest whim. Example, I punch you then you shoot me and walk of calmly like nothing happened. Why? Because the police really does not care. Have you ever wondered why certain cities in America have high crime rates? Because the police do not really "look into" the crimes as they should because "stuff like that happens all the time" it is hard to solve the issue, which, as a result, leads to authorities to not really care at some point.
But that's the whole idea of the description, you 'feel comfortable' behind your laws, I'm going to let you in on a secret, if you want to kill someone, you will kill them, despite laws, the idea is, this day will reduce crime, that is constantly expanding, is the one day of blood shed, worth the 364 other days of constant peace and 99% of people employed, that's the question?
Like you said, if one wants to kill they will kill. The largest majority of people, don want to kill though. As for those who do... they already do, or are working on it. This day would do nothing because the criminals would just be allowed to be criminals, and the normal people (and I sincerely believe a large portion of humanity is normal) will be inside their homes away from the crazed killers with a license for a day.
Sorry, I should pay attention to response status. Rationality is contextual, but perhaps not subjective. It depends on the individual's purpose which may be subjective, but the rational action concerning that purpose could potentially be determined objectively
I think the first version was a good exemplification. Of course a lot was theatrical, it is still a movie. But it gave you the idea. A day of free crime results in people out for revenge. Also, legal killing in general would be a stress reliever people.
First, that movie was just awful. And second, there is no reason to have this day at all. This will not stop people from hurting others during the rest of the year. They want attention, so they will probably save the more harmful things until the days where they can't do it. If there was a lot of damage to things, think about how much money America cannot spend on cleaning it up.
