" Pro is asking for me to go point by point, line by line. I summarize Pro's position, which I think is "if the government does it, that means people voted for it, and the people are always right. "
Totally incorrect. This is why you were to go line by line because evidently I put forth MORE than one line of a point.
When you summarize,you leave out several points that could of prevented you of misrepresenting. I believe you just glossed over much of the details and then stepped back to dismiss the very little you comprehended.
" Does that logic mean if the government launches a nuclear attack, because they were voted in, that makes it ok? "
I can't answer about what's ok or RIGHT. I NEVER said anything about what's right and wrong. You can re-read my actual position. You can read ALL my points as well as others that can read them.You'll never ever ever never but ever find a statement presented about right and wrong. This was something presupposed on your part.
I think you can comprehend that when something is voted in like for whom to be the next President, the government should elect whom was voted in . That's what the government set up the election system forrrr. Nobody is talking about was it right or wrong. When talking about what "should be", it's how things work at the core.
I SHOULD get burned putting my hand in the fire. I SHOULD get wet putting my hand in the water. The government should legalize all institutions and facilities with the use of a fire code in the matter of safety from putting a hand in the legal process to legislate . The government should legalize and legislate whatever it is that has been processed in the administrations and congress.
When talking about fire, water, congress, that's the effect of what these ENTITIES do. Maybe this is or is not the third time I'm breaking it down like this. But it seems you could not get this as the takeaway but instead came up with that erroneous conclusion of yours for a summary of what I've been presenting.
"If the government put a law together that euthanized everyone over 65 to save money, should they do that because they were voted in and therefore have the mandate?"
If it's as straightforward as that, why not? Was slavery a straightforward process to legalize? What about abortion, certain drugs, chemicals in food?
See the problem is, you're just now realizing what the government is and how it works. Back to that fire code illustration, that started with the goals of people like anything else. So with that, there are governmental ordinances. A government is an ordinance, an order to what people want.
You haven't challenged me on how government works. You ask perhaps rhetorical questions really. You haven't disproven what I said. You questions gear towards a hypothetical sense.
You haven't challenged the point that people do in and outside the government house have goals, place votes, install rules to accomplish their agendas.
You haven't challenged the point that this works from different areas of society whether in the household of any color including the white one.
You haven't challenged the point that people vote in a republican government so people still have a cause to a government to get an effect.
You haven't challenged that the government is a social system. What you get out of it should be from what was put in.
All of these points, you drop. You dismiss and come back with rhetorical/hypothetical questions thinking it's refuting anything. Still commiting that invincible ignorance fallacy.
"Pro has not refuted a single point of the 10 I brought up in the first round, and has now danced through the fields of obscurity, implying that an elected government can do anything they want."
All of the 10 or whatever number you have should not be done or carried out by the government with no due process through congress, supreme court, petition, whatever legal process that it takes for the government to do any of what you put forth that can be the equivalent of a vote or petition.
The government is whatever is put in to what you get out. The government is whatever is put in to what you get out.
I never made any such statement as "that an elected government can do anything they want" and that's what the correct approach is. Actually go by what I say verbatim versus implications.
You say imply . Implications are just a figment of your interpretations based on an opposing defensive thought process because you're in a debate. It boils down to assumptions instead of facts. Unless you can go by an actual statement, I'll defend my position by pointing out things that I never said. I don't state what you think is being implied.
"Even if that is the case, the resolution says. SHOULD not can."
Going right back to round one.
"So the governing rule should be in effect due to what would cause it. The cause would be the goal of the people, the society.
The government a societal station should do whatever it is caused to do because when you get an effect, it's because of a cause."
See if you actually stick with what I say word for word and quote me, you'll either actually challenge my exact points or concede my points stand irrefutable.
I said the governing rule SHOULD BE. I said the government a societal station SHOULD do. You don't see the word CAN in any of those points.
The role of government operates by people, true or false?
With people being the cause, SHOULD there not be an effect?
This role continues to demonstrate itself over and over via the midst of all different crises and turmoil by social fireworks which we'll call politics.
"Pro has not refuted a single point of the 10 I brought up in the first round, and has now danced through the fields of obscurity, implying that an elected government can do anything they want."
Here's my initial response from the first round.
"The government should not do such a thing if there has been no vote for such a thing. Even if there was, the votes for those reasons provided have to be high enough."
I made this response to the following:
"I am giving 10 reasons why the government should not ration consumables. "
I ask, are you reading through everything I put down?
That first established an all inclusive address of details concerning the topic. Before making another statement, check the first round and then challenge a statement made.
"Pro has not addressed this significant gap in their logic, or any of my points."
Read over all the information, not just a few words, all the information in all of these rounds and challenge them this time.
Due to the number of rounds selected, bring them forth perhaps in a part 2.
Why did I get credits for my vote in this debate?
This one has a month, so no need to rush for it. But would I be able to get a vote on this one? (It's okay if you don't.)
There is a voting setup in the description for first-time voters for rap battles, but you're welcome to vote according to whatever setup you have in mind.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4604-rap-battle-sirlancelot-vs-rationalmadman
Lyricism- Wordplay, puns, metaphors. Creative lines.
Flow- Whichever lines sound the smoothest and don't go on for too long.
Rhyme- Self-explanatory.
Diss- Quality or quantity of insults. Whoever had the brutal/savager roasts.
(All 7 points go to the winner, but the above 4 qualities are talked about in the RFD.)
Thank you for the vote.
I am inclined to leave it conceptually broad, Western governments at a federal level.
What government? The Oceania government in Orwell's 1984? The ministry of magic in Harry Potter? The US government in reality?
And I gotta say, it does matter.