CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
4
Hell Yeah! F*** no!
Debate Score:9
Arguments:8
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hell Yeah! (4)
 
 F*** no! (4)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Might makes right

Europeans came to the Americas and did not follow the law of the land because they were stronger.

Politicians can take your home under eminent domain because they are stronger.

The U.S. military can invade a country because they are stronger.

Cops can pull you over because they are stronger.

If no one could harm your family or take your belongings, would you abide by their laws?

 

Hell Yeah!

Side Score: 5
VS.

F*** no!

Side Score: 4
2 points

I generally abide by laws because they fall in line with my own ethical value system. I'm not going to step outside of my own ethical value system simply because I'm given the power to by a lack of consequences. My consequences are internal.

When I ignore laws, it is because I see little to no merit in them. Thus, I jaywalk when there is no traffic on the road, I don't report my mates who smoke dope, and, while I was a smoker (I've since quit) I didn't keep to the required distance away from commercial premises entrances when they were closed.

Side: Hell Yeah!
1 point

of course!!!....................most of them...................................

Side: Hell Yeah!

I like to live in an orderly environment and know when enough is enough. I would still follow laws because I know what types of things will come about due to me not following laws. There are some laws that I do break (i.e speeding). I speed because I know about how fast is safe. We have laws to keep us safe, believe it or not, they aren't just trying to make our lives horrible.

Side: Hell Yeah!

If no one could harm my family or take my belongings, what incentive would I have to abide by their laws? Why not force them to abide by my laws? Especially since I'm always right ;)

Side: F*** no!

If I were stronger than them, I would not fear capture or any other punishment. I would have no reason not to kill those who do me harm. I would have no reason not to steal that which I want. I would have no constraints - and, if I needed to, I would murder. If my family were starving, I'd get food one way or another - whether we eat murdered corpses or stolen food. However, if we were to be apprehended by the police for doing so, that would kinda defeat the purpose.

Side: F*** no!
RevKristine(209) Disputed
1 point

So you have no personal ethical or moral system that you would want to adhere to?

Side: Hell Yeah!
TERMINATOR(6780) Disputed
1 point

Not if my family's lives are at risk.

Don't worry, you are thousands of miles away, I won't eat you.

Side: F*** no!

Well, since I am single, this question is difficult because I have no family of my own, but if I did, anybody would defend their own family, because in the end, this is the only concrete thing that we possess as humans with meaning.

No, it doesn't make it right, but this scenario, it is a description of anarchy and lawlessness, yet if the time can, and those circumstances came about, things would change; I would be known as the Apocalypse Man.

However, politicians can take your home under eminent domain but without just compensation, and the U.S. military can invade a country but with legal authority, and when cops pull people over, it is an abusive power, yet they supposed to have probable clause.

Side: F*** no!