Morality can be mandated.

------------------ Framework ------------------ This will be an important part of this debate so to road map this I will first attack my opponent's framework, then set up mine, and finally provide reasons to prefer Now first off I will agree to my opponent's definition of morality. But the root of the problem of my opponent's framework comes in the usage of the word "mandate". The first problem with my opponent's definition of this key word is the fact that my opponent defines the wrong word (no while this may sound nit-picky this has weight in this round) she defines the word "mandate" while the topic uses the word "mandateD", now while mandate dose have the definition my opponent states when you include the "ed" at the end the meaning of the word changes dramatically, no longer is it referring to a thing it is now talking about an act that caused people to act in a certain way. My second grievance on the framework is that it is completely abusive my opponent is asking me to argue that we can't make laws, that is imposable, I challenge my opponent to present me with 3 viable argument that state that laws can't be made, if my opponent fails to be able to do this you should prefer my framework (that I will get to next) because it prove that there is no way to debate this topic from the con side. Now to present my framework of the debate. I propose that this debate should focus on if mandates such as laws are able to force people to act in the moral way. I support this with my statement from above that mandated requires that people have to fallow these laws. My framework for this debate allows for fair debate because it allows the pro to defend how punishments influence actions and the con can argue how people brake laws Now for reasons to prefer my interpretation 1. Grounds- as I stated above that my opponent's framework makes it imposable to debate from the con side, while my interpretation allows for an even debate. 2. Fairness- without evenly divided ground debate becomes one sided because I lose the ability to use certain arguments 3. Education- a fair debate is the only form of educational debate because it allows for both side to be evenly prepared and the reason to vote pro or con is based solely on the debater's ability to debate rather then the natural slope of the resolution. --------------------- The Real debate ---------------------- My opponent's first argument is that government's make laws to force people to do things, but this is not true for 2 reason (the first defending her argument and the second turning this point). 1 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. Secondly to turn my opponent's argument, people will break the law just to break to law, of example civil disobedience if people think that a rule is unjust they protest and fight against this law. Like in Thoreau's book civil disobedience he did not pay taxes because he believed that they are unjust. Next my opponent use abortion as an example but this only supports my above statement because if people believe that they should have the right to have abortion so they will go out of there way to get this right, though things like back ally abortion.