Morality can be mandated.

I. Framework A. I would first like to take this opportunity to correct my opponent on his accusation that I have defined the wrong word in my previous argument. He said that I made a huge mistake because I defined the word mandate instead of mandateD (the word from the resolution) which would change things dramatically in terms of this debate. So I scrolled up and saw that in Round One I wrote, "The definition of mandated reads - a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue." I took this definition of mandateD from dictionary.com, which you can find from clicking here: http://dictionary.reference.com... . I believe that this definition does define mandate, however, something is mandateD when what is explained in the definition of mandate is actually done. Therefore my opponent's claim is wrong and the definition should be accepted as is. B. My opponent's second grievance includes a challenge. He concludes that my interpretation of the resolution is flawed, and then asks that I provide 3 viable arguments as to why laws can't be made. The last time I checked, I was Pro in this debate - not Con - and I am not responsible for coming up with arguments for him. C. My opponent then offered his interpretation of the resolution to which I do not agree. He states, "I propose that this debate should focus on if mandates such as laws are able to force people to act in the moral way." Now, just as he finds my interpretation difficult to defend, I also find his impossible to argue! What he is saying is that I should be arguing that there is a way to FORCE people to act in a moral way. Impossible! You cannot FORCE people to do anything. That's absurd. Even with laws that include deterrants or incentives, still there are going to be people who defy these laws for a number of reasons... mental illness, necessity, poor judgment, innocent mistake, etc. In terms of grounds for why we should argue this skewed view, Con writes, "my interpretation allows for an even debate" however we can all see why that is false. D. I stand by my perception of the resolution, however, because it is Round 2 I decided to cooperate and try to come up with a more fair interpretation. I believe that the resolution of this debate can also be about the effectiveness of laws for people to act in a moral way. Pro should argue that laws are effective at maintaining morality while Con would have to prove the opposite. I believe that this is the most fair interpretation, however, if my opponent disagrees then I am sticking to my original assertion and I would like to extend all of my arguments from Round One. After reading my opponent's side of the debate though, I don't think that the new interpretation of the resolution is really an issue, since that's what he's already been discussing. II. The Debate A. Honestly, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but often times while reading my opponent's response I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. For instance I will take his first contention. He said, "My opponent's first argument is that government's make laws to force people to do things" which is CLEARLY untrue. In fact in the framework section I just strongly denied that one can force another to do ANYTHING that's voluntary. My opponent continues, "in desperate situations people will do desperate things even if this means breaking the law, this meaning that this mandate dose not have the power to convince people to do the moral as long as there is something that this person want more they will do what it takes to reach it." Ahh, so here's the real argument, and it's a good one. But my response to this is simple. 1. This is not true in every or even MOST situations. For instance I might really want gas for my car - I mean really need it - but I do not have enough money to get some. Does that mean I could find a way to steal gas? Sure, I COULD. But the repercussion (the penalties) of what would happen if I tried to steal it would make it not worth it for me to even attempt. And whle this analogy with gas might seem a little far fetched, this argument could also extend to almost anything. For example I might really need to do well on my SATs in order to get into a good university. If I don't, my parents might take my car away, not pay for school, ground me for 2 years, take my cell phone, force me to go to community college, and in turn possibly ruin my chances at a great career/future. Now this is enough to make me really wanna do well on my SATs, don't you agree? But just because I want it SO badly does not mean that I am going to find a way to cheat on this test. A lot of time the consequences or deterrants are very effective. Not always, but MOST of the time. My opponent cannot prove otherwise. 2. My opponent's next contention regards civil disobedience. He says that people will break the law just to break the law (if they disagree with it). Again, this is not usually the case. For instance I might be Pro Rights while the current legislation upholds Pro Life. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go get pregnant just to abort a baby in protest. Also consider the number of people in this country who are Republican or who strongly oppose high taxation for social programs. These institutions might be so helpful to thousands of individuals... consider welfare or medicaid for example... but think about how many Conservatives/Libertarians want to cut this spending. They vehemently disagree with it. Yet I'd say that almost all Republicans STILL pay what is mandated from them by the government. III. Conclusion A. As a society, people try to decide what is or isn't moral. They even debate and discuss it extensively if people disagree, either through protest or demonstration or court hearings or talking. Whatever. Then they elect government officals to make laws representing their beliefs regarding morality. These laws mandate moral behavior, and through incentives and deterrants, people abide by these laws. B. Experts note that the main reasons deterants DON'T work is INVOLUNTARY. For example, the death penalty as a deterant may be unsuccessful because people kill others when they either have a mental illness, or it was a "crime of passion" in which the act was not pre-meditated; the perpetrator had no intention of breaking the law before they got incredibly overwhelmed by their emotion in the heat of the moment. This means that laws CAN mandate morality and people WILL follow them as statistics show... unless taken over by something out of their control, for which I do not believe they should be held accountable (in terms of this debate).