DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
If I imprison someone, that's kidnapping and false imprisonment and is illegal.
If I ask a buddy to imprison someone, that is still kidnapping and false imprisonment and illegal because you can't randomly grant powers .
However If the state imprisons someone with all relevant actions from individuals like police officers, judges, etc being carried out in accordance with the laws that my elected representatives have helped bring about then that is legal.
In principle, in modern democracies all individuals are supposed to be treated as having exactly the same set of right. As such, you cannot really delegate any right to anyone else: if you have it, then they already have it as well, and if you do not have it, then they cannot acquire it.
You, however, can voluntarily forfeit your rights and hereby give other individual(s) the right to violate them. For example, you can say, "Normally nobody can apply physical violence towards me, but let us do a boxing sparring, and every hit you land on me I consent to". But you cannot, say, hire an assassin to kill someone and be devoid of responsibility. And while it is the assassin that will be considered a murderer, you will be an accomplice and might even get a larger sentence than him/her.
All right is weighted against wrong. A united state right is a right that applies to something as a complete group, all woman, all men, all children, and any combination of the three. A constitutional right is one that is basic in principle and has a reference to the history of law or court ruling. We can argue a right as a united state on behalf of others explaining the right that is not to be called wrong, or we can argue a constitutional right on behalf of preservation made on basic ideas not complex as the are held in legal history .
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 97%     Substantial: 100%     Spelling & Grammar: 98%     Sentiment: Negative     Avg. Grade Level: 11.8     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    behalf of others   basic ideas   behalf of preservation  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
For example, if it is not right to rob your neighbor, is it right for you to have someone else do it?
Yes, a person can delegate a preservation of right to
another person. The most well know case of this type right is lethal force in
combat. The issue with right is a law can be written with little if any effect on
governing changes made from good to bad, or even bad to good.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 88%     Substantial: 94%     Spelling & Grammar: 96%     Sentiment: Neutral     Avg. Grade Level: 8.46     Sources: 1     Entity Sentiment Detection: preservation of right    case of this type   lethal force   person  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
All good answers but when you stop and think about it no one can delegate a 'right' that they do not have to someone else. This is where it tends to go, can a million people delegate a right to someone else that they do not have? We'll say no for the sake of argument (I am talking about taking something that is wrong and turning it into a right, like stealing, but calling it "taxation") and eventually we can ask "where did congress get the 'right' to do anything?"
What you call something does not change what it actually is. Someone used combat as an example, state sanctioned murder is still murder. So, going to war unless it is in self-defense is wrong.
All good answers but when you stop and think about it no one can delegate a 'right' that they do not have to someone else. This is where it tends to go, can a million people delegate a right to someone else that they do not have? We'll say no for the sake of argument (I am talking about taking something that is wrong and turning it into a right, like stealing, but calling it "taxation") and eventually we can ask "where did congress get the 'right' to do anything?"
What you call something does not change what it actually is. Someone used combat as an example, state sanctioned murder is still murder. So, going to war unless it is in self-defense is wrong.
You haven't actually provided a reason why "no one can delegate a 'right'", you've just given your unsupported opinion and have done nothing to explain the obvious examples people have given you of how rights can be delegated.
The nearest thing you come to a point is your claim that "What you call something does not change what it actually is" but the problem is that things like theft and things like taxation are called different things because they are fundamentally different. There might be one similarity of you losing money, but that applies to a whole host of things (e.g. I lose money when I buy something from a shop) and there are a whole host of differences namely:
- One is an illegal act that involves someone using force or cunning to take money in a manner that is disapproved of by society and has been outlawed. - One is a legal act involving money being taken in a manner that has been sanctioned by society.
If you don't like taxation, just come out and say it. Don't pretend that it's identical to theft, because you know as well as I do that if you gave people $1000 to correctly identify which of the above descriptions applies to theft and which applies to taxation, you know as well as I do 100% of them would get it right because there are fundamental differences about how and why the money is taken.
You've already conceded that self-defence does not count as murder despite the end result being the same, so you have already implicitly conceded this argument.
Also just to get you thinking; what do you think makes rights matter other than that they are agreed upon by society as a whole via whatever political system is in place? How can rights matter in any meaningful way if you basically want to be able to pick and choose them at will while other people might want to pick and choose other rights? It destroys the whole concept of them being a meaningful distinction and waters them down into mere opinions.
I posted a link to a video that goes more in depth towards what I was saying. It is about eight minutes long. I stand with what is said in the video: https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcZQc5zAM4
I posted a link to a video that goes more in depth towards what I was saying. It is about eight minutes long. I stand with what is said in the video: https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcZQc5zAM4
The thing is you and the video are wrong if you think that's how things are now (obviously there are a whole host of laws which restrict what people can do) and it gives no rationale for why it is preferable to what we have at the moment. Simply shouting about how jail is slavery and taxes are theft isn't an argument, it's semantics. There is literally no reason in anything that's been posted to think people can't or shouldn't impose upon others.
The thing is you and the video are wrong if you think that's how things are now (obviously there are a whole host of laws which restrict what people can do) and it gives no rationale for why it is preferable to what we have at the moment.
It's not semantics it is a form of written grievance. By way of argument how slavery is in fact still capable to be found as legal. In contradiction to unconstitutional law. Taxation and theft is more tricky as we are addressing costs in a united state created by the public, can taxation be a 2nd amendment arm brought to bear against a person is the debate.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 90%     Substantial: 88%     Spelling & Grammar: 96%     Sentiment: Negative     Avg. Grade Level: 10.06     Sources: 1     Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    thing   Taxation   way of argument  
____________________
  Political Analysis: No Political Affiliation  
The thing is you and the video are wrong if you think that's how things are now (obviously there are a whole host of laws which restrict what people can do) and it gives no rationale for why it is preferable to what we have at the moment.
It's not semantics it is a form of written grievance. By way of argument how slavery is in fact still capable to be found as legal. In contradiction to unconstitutional law. Taxation and theft is more tricky as we are addressing costs in a united state created by the public, can taxation be a 2nd amendment arm brought to bear against a person is the debate.
It's a completely semantic argument. You're simply calling taxation theft with no reference to the actual qualitative differences between the two.
Let's run a thought experiment.
A person stops you while you're walking home and tries to grab your wallet and run off with it. What do you do. Punch them? Call the police? Both?
Now what would you do if you look at your paycheck and money has been taken out of it as income tax. What would you do. Would you punch your employer? Call the police and say you've been robber? Both? No, of course not.
You would act completely different in both situations because they are completely different types of event, despite having the one similarity of you losing money. Taxation is not theft, it's just something you don't like.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
If I imprison someone, that's kidnapping and false imprisonment and is illegal.
If I ask a buddy to imprison someone, that is still kidnapping and false imprisonment and illegal because you can't randomly grant powers .
However If the state imprisons someone with all relevant actions from individuals like police officers, judges, etc being carried out in accordance with the laws that my elected representatives have helped bring about then that is legal.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: false imprisonment    police officers   relevant actions   kidnapping  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You, however, can voluntarily forfeit your rights and hereby give other individual(s) the right to violate them. For example, you can say, "Normally nobody can apply physical violence towards me, but let us do a boxing sparring, and every hit you land on me I consent to".
But you cannot, say, hire an assassin to kill someone and be devoid of responsibility. And while it is the assassin that will be considered a murderer, you will be an accomplice and might even get a larger sentence than him/her.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    behalf of others   basic ideas   behalf of preservation  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, a person can delegate a preservation of right to another person. The most well know case of this type right is lethal force in combat. The issue with right is a law can be written with little if any effect on governing changes made from good to bad, or even bad to good.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: preservation of right    case of this type   lethal force   person  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
What you call something does not change what it actually is. Someone used combat as an example, state sanctioned murder is still murder. So, going to war unless it is in self-defense is wrong.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The nearest thing you come to a point is your claim that "What you call something does not change what it actually is" but the problem is that things like theft and things like taxation are called different things because they are fundamentally different. There might be one similarity of you losing money, but that applies to a whole host of things (e.g. I lose money when I buy something from a shop) and there are a whole host of differences namely:
- One is an illegal act that involves someone using force or cunning to take money in a manner that is disapproved of by society and has been outlawed.
- One is a legal act involving money being taken in a manner that has been sanctioned by society.
If you don't like taxation, just come out and say it. Don't pretend that it's identical to theft, because you know as well as I do that if you gave people $1000 to correctly identify which of the above descriptions applies to theft and which applies to taxation, you know as well as I do 100% of them would get it right because there are fundamental differences about how and why the money is taken.
You've already conceded that self-defence does not count as murder despite the end result being the same, so you have already implicitly conceded this argument.
Also just to get you thinking; what do you think makes rights matter other than that they are agreed upon by society as a whole via whatever political system is in place? How can rights matter in any meaningful way if you basically want to be able to pick and choose them at will while other people might want to pick and choose other rights? It destroys the whole concept of them being a meaningful distinction and waters them down into mere opinions.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: mind    Ummmm      
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcZQc5zAM4
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.04  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: 6IcZQc5zAM4    video   link   https  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.62  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: whole host of laws    thing   video   things  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    thing   Taxation   way of argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let's run a thought experiment.
A person stops you while you're walking home and tries to grab your wallet and run off with it. What do you do. Punch them? Call the police? Both?
Now what would you do if you look at your paycheck and money has been taken out of it as income tax. What would you do. Would you punch your employer? Call the police and say you've been robber? Both? No, of course not.
You would act completely different in both situations because they are completely different types of event, despite having the one similarity of you losing money. Taxation is not theft, it's just something you don't like.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united state    taxation theft   thing   Taxation  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra