Nin-Finity Vs Jahn, Round 1, Intelligent Debate '08

Topic: There is nothing wrong with breaking the law.
For: Nin-Finity
Against: Jahn

Judges: Maraj, Dez384, Inui

Do Not Begin until January Fifth. Nin-Finity leads.

This post has been edited by Dez384 on Jan 5 2008, 11:04 AM

There is nothing wrong with breaking the law.

As the old saying goes, rules are meant to be broken. And the reasoning behind it couldn’t be more clear: because the system is flawed.

We have to deal with all sorts of crap like political correctness, religious stuff, and some things that are just flat out stupid. Let’s take a look at some of that stupidity:

These are some stupid laws from various locations. Source: http://www.dumblaws.com/

You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 miles per hour.

Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.

You may not drive barefooted.

Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.

Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.

It is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs.

It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

Coins are not allowed to be placed in one’s ears.

Hotel sheets must be exactly 99 inches long and 81 inches wide.

The value of Pi is 3.

There are a lot more, but I think you get the point.

Like I said earlier, the system is clearly flawed. And if a system is flawed, should we follow it? No.

Still not convinced?

Let’s take a look at political correctness. Complete nonsense if you ask me. It’s a sad day indeed when I can’t wish someone a Merry Christmas, because they might not be Christian, and might be offended by it.

Seriously, it’s out of control.

Wikipedia defines political correctness as “A term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups.”

People are offended awfully easily these days, apparently.

Next on my list of reasons why the law is stupid is prohibition.

Prohibition: the outlawing of the sale of alcohol in the United States in the 1920’s. The eighteenth amendment to the constitution. A huge blunder by the government.

Did people comply with prohibition? No, because it was completely stupid. Speakeasies formed and people would just get their booze secretly instead.

If the system is flawed, then it’s perfectly justified to not comply with it. After all, rules are meant to be broken.

Yes there is.

Let's think about it: Why is the system flawed? Because the people who made them are. And when people are flawed, what do they need? Guidance and boundaries. And where do they get those? From laws.

ggnore

'K. Just to humour you, I will post the logic behind some of those laws.

A bicycle, like many other vehicles should have a speed limit. Why? Because the driver of every vehicle needs to be able to brake easily and quickly.

A bicycle's braking system is weak and needs a speed limit in order for it to be safe.

Same reasons as cockfighting. It's nothing more than animal cruelity.

Dangerous since your foot may get numb since blood supply is cut off to the toe regions.

Salt + Rain = Slippery tracks. Everyone knows that.

Again, animal cruelty, albiet an unorthodox form of cruelty.

A vehicle needs a speed limit regardless of whether there is a driver or not.

You're using up a parking space which could've been used for other cars, of course you need to pay the fee.

lolbestiality.

That's just dangerous.

The point that there are stupid laws? Yes. The point that we should break the law? Not really.

:hmm:

Humans are flawed. And our leaders are human. Therefore, we should not follow our government. And when that happens, we have anarchy. When we are in anarchy, we have total chaos.

Good job, Nin. We didn't follow the law and our leaders, and the whole world is embroiled in chaos.

Not really.

Apparently, they are. Words can cut people more deeply and any knife. Prejudice and bias are more of a problem than most people think. One of the major causes of suicide is by bullying by discrimination. Sometimes, watching what you say and do can make a lot of difference.

'k.

Alcohol. Drinking it kills brain cells, damages your liver, and may cause addiction. The US government was outlawing it in the interest of their citizen's health. Justifiable reason.

Smuggling in beer and wine. People were doing that just for to satisfy their own cravings, a hedonistic reasons. Not that justifiable.

Again, because the system is flawed, it shows that people need more guidance and to do that, they must follow laws.

And let's take a look at a world without laws, namely the world of Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

In Lord of the Flies, a group of boys are stranded on an island without any authority. This means, no rules, no laws, no boundaries. What happens later in the story? They slowly degenerate into savages and kill each other in a power struggle.

This is how human nature operates. We, like all beings on earth, have instinct deep inside us. Without any boundaries or rules, that human nature will manifest itself which is why we have chaos during a state of anarchy.

Therefore, we need rules and boundaries in our life and those rules need to be enforced. This is how we progressed to civilisation, after developping a language and then creating a stable society to live in.

I beg to differ.

Uh, no.

When a two-year-old starts misbehaving, you don’t toss him a rulebook. You sit down with him and correct the problem.

If the people who designed the system are flawed, then they need to be corrected. And lol @ suggesting to correct them with their own flawed system; that wouldn’t make any difference.

No, these people either need to be replaced, or corrected by people that know what they are doing. I don’t see where laws factor into the equation.

Good luck supplying logic that doesn’t exist.

That’s great, but when was the last time you saw a bicycle break 40 MPH, much less 65? Outlawing something nigh physically impossible is just absurd. That’s like making division by 0 illegal or something.

Then why have 2 laws that outlaw the same thing?

If anything, wearing something on your feet would lessen the blood flow to your feet, not being barefooted.

And you can probably drive with numb feet, anyway. Eh, I won’t get my license for another few months… You don’t need feeling in your feet to see how fast you’re going.

Um… no?

I’d like to think that railroads are more stable than that. Something’s wrong if you can cause a train crash with some salt.

When was the last time you saw a moose on a plane? Or a door large enough to push him out mid-flight. Or a person with the strength required to do so on said plane?

A vehicle also needs a driver in order to move.

When was the last time you parked an elephant?

So is skydiving, but there’s no law against that.

Hell, skydiving is WAY more dangerous than having a coin in your ear.

Um, yeah, that’s what I’m trying to say.

2badlol

BS. Nobody commits suicide because somebody wishes them a Happy Hanukah. People just abuse the law to get money from suing.

If people are taking advantage of the law, then the law needs to be scrapped. Another reason why the system is flawed.

The government isn’t my babysitter. Alcohol in moderation is fine. If you abuse it, that’s your problem, not the government’s.

Okay, let’s outlaw stuff like mountain climbing, because it can be hazardous to our health.

People were doing so because the system was clearly flawed. Alcohol is fine in moderation, and most of the population was mature enough to realize that.

Let’s outlaw stuff like Aspirin because consuming more than is recommended is okay. Is that a good idea, too?

There’s a reason why prohibition was scrapped. Because it was flawed. And seeing as the rest of the system is, it should be scrapped as well. It was perfectly justifiable to break the law when the law was completely stupid. The same principle should still apply.

After all, if I said that all members of FES had to give me their home addresses and last names or be banned, would you comply? Probably not, because the law is completely retarded.

Hardly. Not all guidance comes from the law, and in fact, none of it should.

It’s the most efficient way to ensure their survival. Can you blame them? I’d sooner break the law than die, thanks.

However, the current rules are full of flaws, and because of this, going against them is completely justifiable. The whole system needs to be reevaluated, and until it is, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law.

I beg to differ.

And I disagree with your stand.

Uh, no.

When a two-year-old starts misbehaving, you don’t toss him a rulebook. You sit down with him and correct the problem.

And now that he knows that its wrong, he knows that its a rule that he shouldn't do that. B|

Replaced by whom? Unless there are perfect humans in this world (which there aren't), you're going to replaced them with more FLAWED people. And since you don't want to follow FLAWED things, you wouldn't elect any government.

Your logic doesn't work, as it leads to anarchy and chaos.

[

That’s great, but when was the last time you saw a bicycle break 40 MPH, much less 65? Outlawing something nigh physically impossible is just absurd. That’s like making division by 0 illegal or something.

Motorised bicycles, pedaling on downhill slopes, accelerating motorised bicycles on downhill slopes. B|

Then why have 2 laws that outlaw the same thing?

I don't see anything wrong with that. Redundancy may not be a good thing, but its definitely not bad.

If anything, wearing something on your feet would lessen the blood flow to your feet, not being barefooted.

And you can probably drive with numb feet, anyway. Eh, I won’t get my license for another few months… You don’t need feeling in your feet to see how fast you’re going.

Only if you're wearing really tight socks.

And I doubt that driving with numb feet is that safe. You wouldn't be able to tell if you're pushing down on the accelerator or not.

Um… no?

I’d like to think that railroads are more stable than that. Something’s wrong if you can cause a train crash with some salt.

Something's wrong if you can cause a forest fire with a stomped cigarette butt. B|

It may not be a likely scenario, but prevention is better than cure.

When was the last time you saw a moose on a plane? Or a door large enough to push him out mid-flight. Or a person with the strength required to do so on said plane?

So you're saying that it's okay to push animals out of planes now, is that it? B|

A vehicle also needs a driver in order to move.

Look up remotely operated vehicles and come back later.

When was the last time you parked an elephant?

Even so, if that situation occurs, the elephant's still taking up space.

So is skydiving, but there’s no law against that.

Hell, skydiving is WAY more dangerous than having a coin in your ear.

Try fitting a coin in your ear first.

Um, yeah, that’s what I’m trying to say.

Um, yeah, and read the rest of the paragraph.

So, you're saying that we should support anarchy and total chaos in our countries? Unless you counter this point, I don't see any reason to continue debating about why we need to not follow anything that is flawed.

B| I want you to tell me where is it illegal to wish (insert holiday greeting here) to someone in case they don't celebrate said holiday.

And also, links to where people sue others for wishing them (insert holiday greeting here) and win their case.

The government isn’t my babysitter. Alcohol in moderation is fine. If you abuse it, that’s your problem, not the government’s.

Okay, let’s outlaw stuff like mountain climbing, because it can be hazardous to our health.

People were doing so because the system was clearly flawed. Alcohol is fine in moderation, and most of the population was mature enough to realize that.

Let’s outlaw stuff like Aspirin because consuming more than is recommended is okay. Is that a good idea, too?

Wow, you totally missed the point. This is not a debate on whether the government's decision to outlaw alcohol was their right. This is a debate on whether laws should be followed or broken. As far as I can see, the people cannot justify their breaking of the law other than saying 'That particular law was stupid'.

By that logic, I should go bypass the censors on FES, since we all know what the words mean anyway. >.>

How was it 'stupid'? I keep hearing this term, but how is it actually 'stupid'? Did the law actually serve as a detriment to the American society? Did it cause an economic upheaval due to the loss of a market? How was it stupid?

You're going out of your way to make stupid laws while the government were reasonable. (as in, 'able to be reasoned')

Hardly. Not all guidance comes from the law, and in fact, none of it should.

Guidance comes from rules and boundaries, and as laws are both a rule and a boundary for citizens of a country, laws are linked to guidance.

It’s the most efficient way to ensure their survival. Can you blame them? I’d sooner break the law than die, thanks.

... Have you studied the book? The Lord of the Flies was written in response to The Coral Island by R.M. Ballantyne to depict human nature as it really was without boundaries.

The book expounded on the theory that human nature is such that there is evil within every single one of us, but rules and boundaries are those which teach us how to suppress it. For an example, latchkey kids. They grow up without an authority figure in their life? Without help, they usually become delinquents and cause trouble in their later years.

The characters in The Lord of the Flies had plenty of food to survive anyway since they learned how to hunt for themselves.

However, the current rules are full of flaws, and because of this, going against them is completely justifiable. The whole system needs to be reevaluated, and until it is, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law.

If the whole system is going to be reevaluated by flawed people, you just be fixing one problem and causing another which is arguably worse as you're in the same situation as before, only you've wasted manhours which could've been used for something more productive.

There is no point trying to fix something, and causing another problem in the process. We should accept laws and compromise when we need to.

Well that’s too bad, isn’t it.

…okay?

Don’t see how that means that we shouldn’t break the law, but whatever floats your boat.

The concept of perfection was created by some of these same flawed beings. Does that mean that perfection doesn’t exist?

Step one is finding people with the least flaws possible, and then having them develop a new system, with the least flaws possible. You couldn’t possibly argue that it isn’t a good enough system because it’s impossible to create a better one; therefore, going against THAT system could not be justified.

But anarchy works too, sure.

They’re called Motorcycles. Those have their own set of laws.

Redundant redundancy might quite possibly be perhaps very aggravating and annoying and unnecessary and not required optimally at best.

Find me an instance when a crash occurred because somebody salted the railroad tracks.

And only you can prevent forest fires.

Um, no? I’m saying that the likelihood of it happening, ever, is so ridiculous that the stupidity alone outweighs the fact that one moose might be pushed out of an airplane every thousand years.

lol, the toys? You couldn’t possibly break the speed limit with those things, and they wouldn’t last 2 seconds on a real road anyway.

But the situation _doesn’t_ occur, so outlawing it is pointless.

If you’re trying to say that it can’t be done, then that’s yet ANOTHER reason why it shouldn’t be outlawed.

Anyways, I don’t quite see what you were getting at trying to justify some of these stupid laws. And you couldn’t even find excuses for some of them to exist.

Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.

You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.

Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs.

It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.

Hotel sheets must be exactly 99 inches long and 81 inches wide.

And my favorite:
The value of Pi is 3.
Because apparently circles in Indiana only have 354 degrees.

And those are only out of my original list, there are A LOT more of them out there. The system is clearly flawed; you cannot deny that.

It follows that if it isn’t within the government’s right to outlaw alcohol, and they do so anyway, then it’s completely justified to break said law. Agree?

And you can’t possibly bypass the censors since they don’t exist at the moment.

Well, to answer your questions… yes.

Basically, the government didn’t like the huge rise of smuggling and a large black market for booze, and meanwhile they were suffering from lack of tax revenues from alcohol and had to pay money to enforce prohibition.

In short, it was a stupid law.

Tell me why it’s illegal for pi to equal 3.14159…

Tell me why it’s illegal to have an ice cream cone in my pocket.

Tell me why it’s illegal to not give someone a glass of water.

Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t. So the government isn’t reasonable now, really.

Yeah, only linked. You can still get guidance without the law.

Did Golding have solid proof? Did Golding witness a bunch of 10-year-olds trying to survive on an island for months?

Give me concrete proof that humans will tear each other apart if they don’t have to follow the law.

They don’t learn how to hunt properly until they start regressing into savages.

See above.

What we need is the best system possible (read: not this one) and I’m justified in going against anything less than that.

In Conclusion:
-The current system of laws is flawed
-Going against such a system is completely justified, since it is not the right system
-The right system needs to be establish, but until then, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law.
-Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, pi does NOT equal 3.

Unfortunately, Leo has been unable to post. He loses. Nin wins.