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.
Yes! For example: Not wearing a seat belt. My mom's life was once saved because she wasn't wearing a seat belt, yet it's a 'crime'. There are a lot of stupid laws that I personally don't think should be a law, since at certain times they can be leathal.
Someone hands you a gun and commands you to murder them, this is after prior warning that if you do not murder them within thirty seconds of being handed the gun, they will strap a bomb to you, and will mutilate the genitalia of all of your family members if you refuse to pull the strap in a public airport's lobby.
If you refuse to murder them, you will be forced to suicide bomb, if you then refuse to suicide bomb, your family will be mutilated and you will be framed as an accomplice (since you will obviously be the only one who wouldn't be able to say you'd been mutilated out of your whole family).
"Someone hands you a gun and commands you to murder them, this is after prior warning that if you do not murder them within thirty seconds of being handed the gun, they will strap a bomb to you,"
That's not really a crime. If they threatened you like that, then it is ok for you to kill them. I am sure the authorities would rather you kill a lunatic then bomb an airport.
It really depends on the situation. It also depends on what is meant by 'crime' in this context.
Perhaps a clear definition for debate purposes should be established. I know, it's a 'no brainer', but not everyone has the same exact definition of a crime.
Yes. Just like in the military, no one is expected to follow an unlawful order... no one is obligated to follow an unlawful or unConstitutional law. Dr King understood this and was arrested (I believe) on more than one occasion so that he could challenge those laws.
I would add that it's the right thing to do when the law is provably Un-Constitutional.
Crimes are wrong, however if someone is homeless and they NEED to eat, and no one will help them then it seems ok for someone to steal some food. As long as they don't severely harm anyone, it shouldn't be that bad. Also, if no one will help them then they may need to do it. People can't complain about their crimes if they just ignored the homeless people.
Of course! If someone is attacking you, you have every right to attack that person back which would ultimately be considered assault. A crime is only excusable when it is legitimately for self defense reasons. Not saying you have to murder everyone that attacks you, but if someone is threatening you with a weapon, it is your right to do the same back as a form of self defense.
No, I don't think there is ever a time it is right to commit a crime. A crime must include intent. If the intent is to break the law is not there then it is not a crime. I have seen the other side giving examples of where you are forced to do something under threats to your life. But if you are forced to do something then it cannot be called a crime. It's like if someone holds a gun to your head and makes you sign some agreement or contract. That contract cannot be legally valid because it was obtained by threats of violence against you, no court would recognize it.
I'll give you an example. Do you still think its wrong if someone steals food to feed their starving family? (We'll take out forced crime for the time being)
That's a bit more difficult. Stealing is a crime. However, if the person truly has no other option, say for example he truly cannot find work and even begging does not work because all the people in that community will not help him, then I don't think it would be a crime because the person has exhausted all other options and is doing it to preserve his life and that of his family. It has then become about survival, and in a way you are still being forced to do it, but by the community, not by a single person.
I don't think it would be a crime because the person has exhausted all other options and is doing it to preserve his life and that of his family
Society calls it a crime. The only thing that makes it a crime is what the Law says. The courts might take pity on him but it's still defined as a crime.
You agree that he should do what he needs to survive, even a crime right?
I am sure the courts logic would be something of, "You should already be a contributing member of society" and if they are children.... foster care woot woot woot!
I can only speak for where i live,'Merica. In more rural areas, this is probably a more common practice, since those kids won't get taken in and the government(if they have one) won't do anything either.
Yes, of course it would be defined as a crime by the legal system. But it is just a crime in name, it would not be illegal because there would be extenuating circumstances. Killing is a crime as defined by law, but it is not illegal if it is done in self-defense, because there was no intent to harm someone else, the killing was a reaction. In the same way, stealing food to preserve your life or that of your children, if you really have no other option, is not illegal in my opinion. You are fighting to live, so it can be called self defense, only that you are defending yourself and your family against an uncaring and indifferent society, not against a violent attack.
I'm quite sure a "my opinion" can't count as a valid argument. A crime IS defined by the society. A single person's opinion doesn't really change that.
I fully agree that society determines what is a crime and that personal opinion does not. What I am trying to put across is that laws give a narrow definition of crime. But in considering whether someone has committed a crime or not we must also consider the circumstances in which the person acted, and his/her intent. So it is possible to commit an act normally viewed as a crime but which would not be viewed as a crime in that particular case. In such a case no crime has been committed. But if the intent was to break the law, and there are no mitigating circumstances, then it is wrong to commit a crime.
But it is just a crime in name, it would not be illegal because there would be extenuating circumstances.
Well really 'in name' is all that matters, because everything is nominal. What makes murder a crime, that happens all the time in nature? What makes illegal drugs illegal? What makes abortion legal? The fact that they are all named legal or illegal in a court of law. They are literally crimes until the law is changed, if they would get even a minor charge, like for jaywalking, it is considered a crime. This wouldn't even be an argument if we weren't going to argue from the basis that we are talking about these crimes 'in name'.
Killing is a crime as defined by law, but it is not illegal if it is done in self-defense
That is a situation where you are by law excused from the penalty, yet you still have to give a statement and they still treat you as if you committed a crime without a sentence.
In the same way, stealing food to preserve your life or that of your children, if you really have no other option, is not illegal in my opinion.
Don't take this offensively but 'in my opinion' does not constitute logic, and it won't hold up in a court. You ever hear of these people called Anonymous? They are an internet gang that basically terrorize social outcasts, like taking down pedophiles, and child porn sites. They are doing something that many people's opinions would consider good, and even commendable, yet in the eyes of the law, and the F.B.I. they are hackers, they are criminals, and they will be arrested if they are caught. Google them, their exploits, and some of their arrest. Plus killing someone when you are immediately in danger and stealing when you are near danger is not the same. In that exact moment it's make a choice or perish, whereas while starving you have days to come to that conclusion.
you are defending yourself and your family against an uncaring and indifferent society
This is why arguing with you on this very topic is confusing. You obviously support my side, yet you argue from a standpoint that a need to live constitutes an exemption from the law. Only in spur of the moment, court recognized cases.
"Commit a crime to protect yourself from society's indifference": is a perfect reason to join my side
Ok, I think I get your point. The problem seems to be that I was arguing while switching between two different definitions of the word crime. The first, an offense punishable by law. The second, an evil act. I was arguing from the point of view of the second definition, but for this discussion I think the first definition is more appropriate. For that reason I agree with you. There are times when it is right to commit a crime.