- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Nice argument, but I disagree with your statement. Firstly, riots and fights would be more prominent without a government in place, since there would be no law forbidding them and no consequences to discourage them.
No. This is a false dichotomy in which you misrepresent government as the only possible alternative to lawlessness and depravity. It's the same as demanding we must adopt Sharia law because otherwise we are destined to suffer in hell (or whatever is the Islamic equivalent). In no way, shape or form, have you put forward any kind of rational argument about why the citizenry cannot run its own police force and/or criminal justice system, without the intervention of a third party.
I say no. If theres a nuclear holocaust then we deserve to become extinct and let the earth heal from our precense.
It's easy to think that way, but not everybody is a douchebag. That's the problem with our species. We are both great good and great evil. It just depends who you see, and on which day.
what is the point of living when you can't do anything because your not educated.
The irony is strong here. Most kids in middle school know the difference between "you're" and "your". One is a contraction of "you" and "are", and the other is a possessive pronoun.
I do respect the belief(s) of others, though, Christian Jew, Muslim …. whatever.
I don't. I think those people are idiots. I have no respect for their antiquated and ridiculous beliefs, any more than I would have respect for someone who believes the Earth is the centre of the universe or the Moon is made of cheese. For some reason, when it comes to religion, we are bullied into "respecting" farcical notions which under any other circumstances would be laughed at and ridiculed.
Most soldiers are our brothers, friends, neighbors, sisters, aunts, uncles ….. etc.!
All the more reason why you should make them see sense. The way it works is very simple. The government sends them off to kill a bunch of foreigners, and despite what they are doing clearly being morally dubious, you are compelled to "support them" because they are members of your family. The government knows this, and knows it can send them off to kill and be killed with complete impunity, regardless of the basis (or lack of basis) for taking action. Look at Iraq and/or Afghanistan as the perfect examples. Are any of you Americans crying for the million or so killed as a result of those completely pointless and unnecessary conflicts? Nope. Even though they were 100 percent in the wrong, you still "support the troops". It's like a wet dream for capitalists.
And it's a recent thing to. It wasn't that way during Vietnam. People genuinely protested what the government was doing back then. Well, that is until Nixon ordered the national guard to open fire on them.
without the government, our lives would be worse. For exampe, we would not have the necessary snaitary services we like and heavily rely on.
I honestly have never heard anything so plainly ridiculous. Are you perhaps unaware that people build and maintain sanitary services? Not government. People.
I have to disagree with your statements for many reasons. First, if we get rid of government fights and riots will begin to rise even higher.
I'm fairly sure that slavetraders used that as an argument for why slavery should not be banned. Slaves need order, and taking it away would lead to fights and riots. In other words, it's an immoral, if not outright stupid argument.
With no currency people are allowed to take what they want
Who says? You literally made that up. The precise opposite is true. With currency people are allowed to take what they want, whereas the people who lack currency get nothing. How is that fair?
First off, you support your statement by mentioning that there would be no emergency services and people would care for themselves, which is terrible because some people can't care for themselves and rely on emergency services, so without them they would die.
You are cherry-picking the things which you agree and disagree with to satisfy your own pre-existing bias. For example, you disagree that no government is a good thing, but have no problem accepting the (false) premise that no government necessarily means no emergency services. This is by no means true, as citizens themselves could easily organise a medical response service. Hence, you are presenting a fallacy known as a false dilemma.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!