Morality can be mandated.

First off I will accept my opponent's offer of a new framework as stated in her sub-point D which opens the debate to include arguments over if people will fallow these laws. So just to put into works what I believe this topic is "are governments able to create laws that cause people to follow rules of right conduct". I hope this is what my opponent was looking for because changing the topic in the last round would make it hard to debate. ============ The Debate ============ 1.extending "in desperate situations people will do desperate things" To answer this argument my opponent uses 2 examples so I will show how these 2 examples are incorrect. The first example can be disproven by simple changing the situation, say you have no money and you need to buy gas so you can go to work, but because you can't go to work because you have no money to buy gas you can't make the money to buy the gas thus you become trapped I a continues cycle. As this continues you will come to a point that you have to do something desperate like robbing a store. This example shows that as long as people see that they have nothing to lose or their situation can't get worse people will break the law even if it is not moral. Now the same principle can be applied to next example as well, because as you say that there is a punishment for not doing well, but if you can't do well without cheating then there is no negative to cheating because you still receive the punishment from your parents. These examples demonstrate how people can locally and purposely break the laws thus proving how morality can't be mandated. 2.extending civil disobedience Against this contention my opponent basically says not many people break laws just to break them, so to respond to this I will first show how her 2 examples are flawed the present more situations where people do intently break the law. On the abortion example people have broken laws just to show their views. http://en.wikipedia.org... thus people will break laws just to show their views. Then in the second example about taxes, my response come from the man who came up with the idea of civil, Thoreau didn't pay his taxes because he believed the were unjust. Another example of how people are civilly disobedient would be revolutions, people believe that the people ruling them are unjust thus they must be over thrown. 3.A new reason why morality can not be mandated As I said above when I defined the resolution as if laws can cause people to act I a curtain way, now what this contention is going to say is that morality is not mandated by laws because it is created by the people. To start people create laws be it though voting on resolutions or electing people to represent them, so these laws are based on what people believe is the moral thing. Because of this fact it is not the laws that cause people to act in a curtain way it is their morals that they already have, thus because people already have this set of morals they can't be made to change what they believe to follow what the laws says is moral because the already do. Thus morality is a prerequisite to laws thus meaning that morality can not be mandated because the mandates come from the moral beliefs they already have. ========== Conclusion ========== 1.First look to my 3rd contention this is a turn to what my opponent claims because morality is a prerequisite to laws thus meaning that it is not the punishment that cause people to follow laws it is the moral beliefs they already have 2.First I would like to see statistics supporting what my opponent claims because my statistics would beg to differ, http://en.wikipedia.org..., mental illness is only the cause of 1% of murder and only proven in 26% of that. And even if people aren't thinking right that what they usually believe and it takes a stressful moment for them to act on these thoughts. So these laws still don't cause these people to believe in a moral code.