EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
545

That we should allow individuals to use violent force to defend their homes, even where they do not fear for personal safety

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
2 points
laylaalaylaa (CON)
As my opponent failed to open the debate I will still post my argument.

The key to this debate is the words “where they do no fear for personal safety.”

As opposition I define this as being no threat to the home-owner. The topic also does not clearly state whether is defense against intruders or just the mail-man. My point here is that there is a thin line being crossed here that would allow for people to now define anyone as an intruder. This does not seem like such a detriment until we take into consideration the violent nature of our society.

The evidence itself is in the debate topic. We now have people who would perpetuate the cycle of violence knowing that there is no threat to them. This leads to a disproportionate violent response. We will see an increase in not only violent crimes in the form of assault but to some extent manslaughter. This violent, aggressive behaviour will seep out from defending just our homes to inevitably becoming an everyday occurrence in society. We already live in a violent world. Wars are continuously growing all over the world. Why would we increase this violence to places like our own city.

Like most violent crimes this may lead to racism, sexism and the other discriminations. This is a simple cycle in which racial profiling is used as an excuse to why we act the way we do towards people. A racist sees someone walking up to his house, he is unaware of his intention, however he looks harmless yet he is in a racial group that is supposedly “prone” to breaking and entering. So this man can hide behind this motion in order to act on his feelings towards a specific race.

Another downside to this motion is the violent backlash. An animal cornered is a dangerous animal. The same goes for people. When threated fight or flight is activated and most people will react to violence with violence. This further fuels our violent societal life. We then pass on the violent ideas to our children who, by the way, are already flooded by media and television with not only violence but also sexual images. This means that you and I will one day be led by violent leaders who grew up knowing no standard of ethics, no tolerance and no justice.

In a society that is already corrupted with enough violence, I beg to oppose this motion.


Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-06 12:53:19
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
MharmanMharman
@laylaa
Posted 2017-05-07 21:07:57
MharmanMharman
@laylaa: I meant to click "CON" I misclicked.
Posted 2017-05-07 21:07:48
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2017-05-12 22:58:56
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: laylaa
2017-05-15 01:31:37
AlecHolbeckJudge: AlecHolbeck
Win awarded to: laylaa

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29