It's time to bring back the cat o' nine tails

It seems my opponent felt there was warrant for giving a paragraph of jokes on the man being whipped in my video but did not find there was warrant actually address the argument I gave with it. Had my point been 'look how unjust that was' then maybe it would be relevant to argue the hippy should get no sympathy from us. But my case was one about the presence of that iconic imagery in many of societies minds, including or youth. And when they grow up viewing the police as men who did something like that to their dads for a little accident, beat him senseless for a accident that anyone could do, they will grow up with contempt for our boys in blue. that will increases the petty crime rates. The closest Pro came to addressing that was saying the 'lashings' are no more barbaric than tasers and guns based on the logic that 'tasers have killed 150' (odd that this # is a even round #) and that guns killed countless people. First off, most of the gun related deaths is from wars, not police. Second off the fact that it kills is not the factor that makes something barbaric in the mind of the viewer seeing it. If people though tasers were barbaric you would not see them used in shows like America's funniest home videos. Third off, the perception of the public of how barbaric a weapon is changes with the age, even now tasers and guns are starting to look more barbaric so they are in fact switching to these witch have no power to kill. the Dazer . http://news.cnet.com... The majority of my opponents case though was spent on arguing against how one becomes a wealthy person. much of it is based on statistics from England, witch I must point out was not specified as a location of interest in the resolution or the round one definitions. when there is no country specified we can only conclude that we are talking about countries that matter like America and oil spilling countries like England that no one cares about. If your statistics for who owns land in England has any similarity to America than you should know that who owns the land is not who lives on it. people who have a gift for figureing out how to buy and sell land do tend to become part of the Rich population. Nothing wrong with making a investment like that. Its wise and fair because anyone has a right to try and can succeed at it. And there's nothing wrong with putting your money in a savings account. offshore or not its a very good way to build wealth. the fact that your taxed in it is no excuse for failing to make money by saving some in your account. poor people have done it quite often and ended up rich people. The secret to making it work is just to pay attention to how much money you have and form a budget. Nothing complicated and no secret that only the rich can use. My opponent points to a video of a Roles Royce owner as evidence that rich people break the law cause there rich and can afford it. First off this assumes that the car is not the only thing of value the man has. Many poor people have boats more expensive than there house in the front yard, and are in debt up to there eyeballs for it. Second off, the careless actions of the driver are not in anyway unique to rich people. . http://www.youtube.com... Poor people drive faster than the speed limit just to make the cop chase them also. the number one reason given by most white trash that shoplifts is 'they wanted to feel alive' or 'have a pulse'. the Roles Royce owner is likely having midlife crisis trying to capture his younger days when he do dumb stuff like that for the same reasons. or he is still that young. either way breaking the law on his part has nothing to do with his income. speaking of this though, we should note that is just another thing that could happen to anyone of us, break down one day and want to feel alive and do stupid crazy stuff. It would be wise of us to include cash for that too in our emergency fund. I would not ever label it 'incentive' as to why we should not change how one is punished for a petty crime. Its simply a fact that needs to remain true. Poor, or Rich I should have a right to be prepared for any of my future mistakes. I know I am going to make them. Only a fool would think he has made his last one already. Its an act of wisdom to make sure the next time something bad happens that the damage wont be so sever. A hurricane devastate your region? Before the next one comes prepare the flood control to stuff to handle what it failed to the last time. Did your brush fire get out of control enough to call the fire department? Next time don't start on so close any trees, and soak everything around the fire that don't want it to expand into. Absentminded enough to forget to fill your tank and when you reached the nearest station you didn't actually have cash that day on hand to pay for the gas? Keep at least 5 bucks in the car just for emergencies like this from now on. Did your car get rear ended? Put a tailgate hitch on your car, it will save a lot of damage from happening to your car if you get rear ended again. Did your kid just spill there McDonald's drink all over their shirt even though it had a lid? Use your Swiss knife to cut the straws shorter from now on for your kids drinks (decreases the angle the hold their drink while drinking it, trust me this works). This in no way suggest there are 2 laws, one for the rich and one for the poor. All it suggest is there are two kinds of consequences for when trouble comes your way. There's the kind of consequence that comes for the prepared and the kind for he was asleep all the time before the disaster struck. One is easier to suffer through, but that is because the natural consequence of being prepared is that consequences of the things your prepared for are less severe. That is a fact that simply must remain true. Why hinder our basic human right to handle bad situations better in the future? It is by this preparation that civilization advances to where it is today and will progress in the future.