Morality can be mandated.

I. Clarification of the Resolution A. This debate boils down to the effectiveness of deterants to prevent crime (i.e. the ability to mandate morality). II. The Debate A. Desperate Situations 1. To counter my examples regarding desperate measures, my opponent included 2 of his own which I will refute effectively, whereas he has not successfully refuted mine. They are as follows. a) My opponent proposed a situation in which an individual did not have enough money to buy gas to travel to work to make the money to buy gas to travel to work... and so on. Thus he suggests, "As this continues you will come to a point that you have to do something desperate like robbing a store." I disagree. In fact I think this example, like many of his others, is incredibly far-fetched. I would like the judges to consider the last time they had no money to buy gas to get to work (I'm sure it's happened to each of us at least once). Now ask yourselves, no matter how pressed you were for gas money, did you REALLY consider going to the extreme of robbing the store?! Probably not. Instead someone would be more likely to take a bus, walk, borrow money from their parents, or if they HAD to steal (I mean if they were in absolute dire need), it'd probably be from a sibling or some other non-threatening source. The repercussions of robbing a gas station far outweigh "borrowing a little money without asking" from a friend. Thus an individual's hesitation and ultimate choice NOT to rob the gas station proves that even in desperate situations, the consequences of certain behavior (i.e. punishment by law) are enough to make someone think twice, and ultimately not go through with the act. They will find other ways to get what they need. Now I'm not suggesting that nobody robs stores - that's obviously not the case. But what I am suggesting is that for the most part, people will not put themselves on the wrong side of the law if they can help it. For my opponent's point to contain validity, he must prove that most people would indeed rob the gas station rather than choose a different course of action. b) Next my opponent counters my argument about cheating on the SATs. He states, "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." Wrong! If you let your parents down, the repercussions involve being grounded, losing your cell phone and car, and being forced to attend community college. Now if you get caught cheating on the test, however, society has allowed the administrators to take corrective action. For instance if someone takes the test for you, it's fraud, which is a criminal offense and can come with criminal penalties. Consider your parents reaction to THAT. Plus, you will be barred a cheater and no college (maybe not even community college) would probably accept you based on that reputation. It is clear that the consequences for cheating far surpass those of not cheating, thus making your argument null and void whereas mine still stands. B. Civil Disobedience 1. Con provides examples of people protesting abortion and breaking laws through violence and other unlawful means in order to prove their point. This is true, and I will discuss it further in a minute. 2. Con also writes about Thoreau not paying taxes because he believed that they were unjust. a) Con believes this example of Thoreau counters my argument in which I mentioned that Republicans who do not agree with (yes, sometimes even for moral reasons) paying into social programs do so anyway because it is mandated by law. However this one instance of one man who lived in the 1800s is not valid. It does not reflect the majority of society, and as we all know, most people pay their taxes even though they may not want to part with their money or agree with the government's policies. We do this because of the consequences (Who wants the IRS after them? Not me). b) As I've mentioned, there is no possible way to police everyone and everything, and mandate one particular outcome/decision in EVERY situation. For my opponent to expect me to prove that you can ensure every action on this earth be moral is abusive and impossible. So we must look to society as a whole, and as a whole it is quite obvious that laws with punishments as deterants WORK. Example - people don't park in handicapped spots because they know they'll get a $250 ticket. The govt/people have decided that parking in those spots out of laziness is immoral because it could be preventing access to that spot for someone who really needs it. What the government has done is mandate morality and expect that people follow those guidelines. Not everyone is perfect and of course most will break a few laws in their day (what 20 year old hasn't had a beer?). But for the most part people are persuaded against law breaking 1 because of the punishment, and 2 because psychologically people assume that what is unlawful is immoral, and they obviously wish to avoid a guilty conscience. 3. Going back to the abortion protests, I'd like to respond to my opponent's claim that people will always defy the law if they deem the law to be immoral. I argue that in that case, their breaking of the law is NOT immoral, so therefore it has nothing to do with the debate. See what I mean? Consider the Civil Rights Movement. It was unlawful for Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat at the front of the bus to a white man, yet her conscience told her that racism and prejudice was immoral, and more obscene than not giving up her seat. Thus she made a choice to break the law, but it was not an immoral one. "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." - MLK C. Laws Do Note Mandate Morality 1. Con writes, "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." Because of this statement, my opponent admits: a) People's own morals (conscience) are what prevents them from comitting crimes - not laws. Maybe so, but that still affirms the resolution that morality can be mandated. In this case, it is one's (guilty) conscience that forces moral behavior. Nevertheless, morality is mandated. As I mentioned during the clarification of the resolution, this debate is about the effectiveness of various deterants to immoral behavior. These can exist through laws, other punishments (such as from a parent, boss or school adminisrator, etc.) and one's own psychological feelings regarding right and wrong - psychological feelings that are manipulated by law, because as I said, people assume that what is illegal is immoral. III. Conclusion A. A repeat of the above - yes, morality is a prerequisite to law making. Law making enforces morality. It's a cycle, we get it. But it still affirms the resolution. Mandated morality acts as a deterrent from crime and immoral behavior, therefore making the agreed upon interpretation of the resolution true. ~~ Ps. This is a moot point, but Con, people commit murder out of passion, or out of compulsion. I've explained how laws can not deter crimes of passion or compulsion (mental sickness - these people don't care about laws even if they know what they are doing is unlawful). We agreed that the resolution would apply to the majority of people/situations, because extreme certainty on either side would be impossible. There are some people and situations to which the resolution would not apply. However based on the agreed upon terms of the debate, I've clearly presented my case effectively. Good luck.