Morality can be mandated.

Framework- this has no point in debating over ========== The debate ========== ============================================= In desperate situations people will do desperate things ============================================= 1.basically I will extend my 2 examples then show though basic logic why her statements are flawed a.First extend my example that in desperate situations people will take desperate measures such as robbing a store. My opponent's first attack is she claims that this example it far-fetched, I have 2 things to say to this 1, is this a worthless answer because there is nothing to it just says that it might not happen but this example is still in the realm of possibility thus as a judge you should still look to this as a valid example and 2, this dose happen all the time to be precise it happened 417,122 in 2005 http://www.fbi.gov... now what makes robbery a great example that supports the con side of the debate is that in almost no way can this be a crime of passion or an accident because I can't accidently rob a store. My opponent next argument is that many people are in this situation but don't break the law, but this was the same 2 problems 1, it doesn't disprove anything and 2, other people might still break the law. Then she claims that there are alternatives, but he problem still exist if people don't have the other options. Next my opponent claims that that it would be better to take form people who you know, but as always I have 2 answers to this 1, some people don't have people that can give the money meaning that people will still rob people 2, turn this argument why would you steal from your friends they're your friends you know them and know how your actions effect them thus this is even less likely then the first option. Next my opponent says that I have to prove how people would rob a store over the options which I have done because some people don't have friends that will give them money because they might be in the same situation and can't give the other person money, and secondly as I said above it more likely for a person to rob a gas station the rob a friend because of how it effects the relationship. b.First on the SAT example you are going to extend across the fact that if you can't pass without cheating thus you will cheat because it is the only way to pass. What happens is that if you don't cheat you fail and you have all the impacts of not passing, but of you cheat you have 2 options first you could get caught which has the impacts of what my opponent says, but the second out come is that you don't get caught, you pass, and you have no impacts meaning that it would the only way to go that has no impact meaning that is the best way to act. This proves how people would cheat because there are negative effects ether way but cheating is the only option that has a chance of no negative impacts. =============== Civil disobedience =============== 1.Word to the judges I'm grouping the number 1 and number 3 argument because they are the same thing. The first thing my opponent dose is agrees that people will fight the laws if they believe that they are immoral. Next she claims that because the law was unjust it was not immoral to break it, but once again I have 2 answers to this first there are many examples of people how break just laws and believe, but believe that breaking it was just, like the KKK do this all the time. And going back to the example of people attacking people who get abortions they believe that those people are evil and it would be just to kill them, but it is immoral in our society to kill people. Also as my opponent states "What the government has done is mandate morality" which basically says that breaking the law is immoral meaning that the example about Rosa Parks and the quote by Mr. King are not valid because breaking the law is immoral because it disrupts justice, even if it turns out to be the moral thing to do by breaking the law you still commit an immoral act. 2.Extending Thoreau a.First extend the fact that Thoreau is proof that people break things like tax laws because they see the as unjust. Once again my opponent claims that not all people do this but this doesn't work because some people do this and will continue to do this. Then she goes on to say that the example about Thoreau is to old to be of use but let us consider other more recent people have followed his teachings MKL, Gandhi and more who have broken laws because they saw them as unjust. But my opponent has failed to defend the fact that people will revolt in their belief that a government is immoral. Next my opponent claims that people break the law everyday without a thought I agree with this and I don't believe that the pro has to prove that laws cause people not to break laws without thinking, but what my opponent has failed to defend is the people who break the law with knowledge of breaking it because they ether don't' fear the punishments or the don't think that these laws are just. The pro must prove that laws will stop people from committing that they consciously breaks, so because I have given several examples of how people will consciously break laws you as the judges are going to vote con. ======================== Laws don't mandate morality ======================== a.First I'm going to group this argument with the first argument of the conclusion. Next extend across this contention that laws cannot mandate morality because these people have these morals and it is not "a command" (as the definition of mandate goes) to act in a certain way as the resolution requires. Next my opponent claims that mental deterrents are included in the topic but as I just stated that a mandate is a command thus there must be a law that causes people to act in a certain way. Then in the conclusion my opponent states that deterrence are what we are debating about now I have 2 reasons to disagree with this 1 how my opponent defines the realm of debate in round 2 as "effectiveness of laws for people to act in a moral way" meaning that a persons conscious causing them to not break a law supports the con side not he pro 2, how I define the debate in the round 2 as well "create laws that cause people to follow rules of right conduct" this says the same thing that it most be the laws that cause people to act in a moral. The only reason that my opponent makes this argument is to the realm of the debate in an unfair way, so as judges you should use the resolution that both me and my opponent agreed on not the she creates in her last speech to make the debate unfair. PPS. You still don't have proof