NRS - Mass Debate Voting Thread

[The Host]

I was trying to think of a way to get the voting down to 1 thread instead of people having to go to 3 separate threads to vote, so I came up with this. Basically how it will work, is that the teams that get the most votes will be declared the winner of their respective debates. So for instance, if the 2 teams from debate A got 23 and 22 votes respectively, and the best vote getter from Debate B got 9... DeBate A's winner would be the team with 23, and Debate B's winner would be the team with the 9.

The vote will go for 2 days, and after that we'll have the nominations + evictions. Any questions just post.

[The Host]

TEAM DARKO vs. TEAM YINKA

TOPIC: Topic: Abortion, should it be legal? Is it morally correct?

FOR: Team Darko
AGAINST: Team Yinka

TEAM DARKO'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

No shit they aren't ready. Humans make mistakes. And when they do normally we say "let them live with the choices they made" but when their choices are going to effect a new, young, innocent life shouldn't we step in and say enough is enough?

Like sit said, if they aren't responsible enough to use protection how are they going to be responsible enough to raise a kid?

Also, what if boyfriend/girlfriend had sex and they planned on having the baby but they boyfriend ran away because he got scared or something. Does that poor girl have to take care of the baby all by herself because she made an "irresponsible" move? When you do that you aren't only ruining the life of the young lady but you are also ruining whatever chance that baby has to live.

Plus, the world is overpopulated anyways.

I don't think it should be legal. Most of the time, abortion is used when people are not responsible fo their actions (you know, not using protection). You're killing a human life.

But what about the times that aren't "most of the time"? What about the girl who was walking home from work and all of a sudden a stronger, intimidating dude pushes her into an ally and visciously rapes her? That dude's sperm happens to hit her egg, and BAM -- she's pregnant.

What about the girl who was manipulated by her sleezeball boyfriend into having sex and wasn't educated on the benefits of the condom. That's not irresponsible, that's uneducated, and I hate to say this, but you cannot blame the girl for that.

If every incident of girls wanting an abortion was due to their irresponsible actions, than it wouldn't be as complicated. But Drex, "most of the time" isn't "all the time." We need to watch out for the victims of rape and manipulation and keep abortion legal.

As Pope riot said... not all situations are the same. However, I believe that it should be the decision of the person who has the child in her womb. Sure, it may result from a one night stand which should never have happened but it's still an accident right?

So I'm talking about the women who are struggling in the first place, financially and the women who don't want a kid. The rape issue is huge and you can think about it... would you want the kid of your rapist???

You should think about what's best for the kid. Many women who may get pregnant accidentally won't get an abortion... why? Because of the legal system. Think about it this way... if they were wanting to lose the kid.... and couldn't she would feel the kid as a burden. Doesn't that predict how she treats the child after he/she is born?

Repeated child abuse may occur and that's bad for the child. He/she might grow up just like their mother... have problems and might even follow on the same path as the single parent... why would u want to let anothe rhuman suffer when u have a chance to prevent it? And if you did prevent it, both mother and un-born child wouldn't be put into such a hostile situation!

And think about the women who are on drugs or drink or have problems in the first place... if they claim childcare money it will be spent on those things! The child won't grow up healthy, may be sick all the time...

And the women who, as Drex said 'when people are not responsible fo their actions'- if you're not responsible with that, how are you going to be responsible for a kid which is a bigger thing than slipping on a condom.

I got othe rpoints which I will brng up later... this is only a starting point!

TEAM YINKA'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

OMG, I'm not wrong, Sit

The thing is would you rather see the child suffer when he does get born because he also gets stuck with an irresponsible parent? what if the parents can't afford to raise the child.

They can give it to foster parents. There are a lot of families willing to take a baby. Families that can't have children on their own, so

what if the parent is ready to be a parent that he blames the child for ruining his life

I'm not sure what you mean here

that he's responsible, it might cause the child severe mental and emotional scars and sometimes even physical. won't you rather stop it before he's actually alive seeing as most abortions are done before the kid is actually alive

You're supporting abortion, that is killing a human life (I already explained what is a human life) instead of physical abuse, that is almost the same.

You guys are using the agrument "there are ways to stop things from getting pregant" and things like "if they aren't responsible enough to have a baby then don't do it!". But the thing is, PEOPLE AREN'T SMART!!! You can't act like everyone is educated, responsible and well financed. It doesn't happen like that in the real world!

You can't just say "maybe they should have done this or that" because they didn't!

If people made a mistake, aren't smart or responsible, the fucking solution is killing a future person? Don't you say "people learn from their mistakes"??? Isn't that the case here??

i agree with riot there. i mean in africa some people who have aids rape little girls coz they think having sex with children would make aids go away. hence the aids issue there is getting worse.

I don't. He's so American, and Americans help other countries, right? Why don't they (and everybody) send some people to teach africans what can happen if they have sex with little girls??

People get raped whether they like it or not. (it means In many cases their life is bad enough that they live in a bad neighbourhood, and now they become pregnant, you just don't care about what the woman feels do you? As if things were hard enough.

I know, but, how the fuck can somebody like getting raped??
Of course I care about the women feelings. That is probably the only valid point you guys have, and still is an inmoral thing.

- There is no scientific evidence that the foetus is alive at that stage

I already explained what is a human life.

- As everyone has said... i'll restate the point: You dont have to want a baby to have sex... getting drunk and having sex is an accident and yes is irresponsible but everyone makes mistakes but this irresponsibility really shows that they arent ready for parenthood. If people wanted the baby... they wouldnt need an abortion. If they cant feed the baby.. they're not ready.. why allow a child to be raised so poorly when u have a chance to prevent it???

By killing it?? If people made a mistake why should they have the right to kill their mistake? And they can also give their baby to another family.
Why don't they masturbate? Is almost the same

- Punishing the child more... you're neglecting an innocent child to a hostile environment for their early years... there are other ways to punish these people...

Give the baby to somebody else. You won't be commiting a crime and the kid will be safe And, what other ways of punishing that people?? Have in their conscience (sp?) that they killed somebody??

- Like Riot said.. think of how manmy unhappy ones there are...

Think of how many of them are happy, and how many will think that they will not do the same to their kids. People that live in the worst conditions when they're kids usually are strongest when they grow up (I'm not saying everybody should be poor when they are kids, but, think of all the NBA players that fought for having a better life)

- You only discover that u are irresposible after u commit the mistake.. tell me how u can go back in time to not do it...

You cant'! Is simple. What's done is done. You're not a god to take somebody's life.

- I think this was one of our points... Drex is wrong.. seek legal advice!

If you do adult things you should be ready for the consequences. How many 12 years-old (Hahahaha, G.O.A.T. ) doesn't know how babies are made??

- Women should have the choice in the right circumstance... if they were being downright stupid I cannot support them but if its in the bets interest of the unborn kid... then it should be considered (eg. if u cant raise the kid)

What's the "right" circumstance?? Getting raped?? That's probably the only valid point in your whole argument.
What's the point of having sex? To have kids!!! I know, I know, for some fun...but probably you can do other things to get an orgasm and be safe.

Go Yinka

- Think about how many children end up in foster homes and how little families pick them up... as Riot said.... ^

How many? Give me a number, I seriously can't imagine.

- I read that most of the Africans are so superstitious and 'religious' that they dont accept any western help or teachigns... its hard to enforce what they want to teach those people because alot dont listen... And its not like they havent tried

It's not the point of the thread. We went from abortion to Africa and AIDS. They don't do abortions, don't they??

- Must disagree with that... teen suicide is on the rise apparently.. why? The home they live in isnt exactly the best environment to grow up in, it is true that alot of kids live up in the 'hood' and endure hard times but alot of the time they turn to drugs and stuff. And most of the kids who grow up to be successful only struggle financially to get by... the kids im talking about are kids being abused physically by their parents

And the reasons are that they didn't get aborted 'cause their parents weren't ready, or made a mistake??
Also, drugs happend everywhere. Rich families, poor families, it's not like having just the mother will turn you into a drug dealer or commit suicide.

Ur main point is that u've already done the mistake but why kill the kid u created??? Think about the parents, kid and their futures. You're just screwing them up for life.... how can u live with urself? Soon the world become a worse place because many kids are being raised poorly and we will have crazy babies all over the place.

I'm in no way screwing them up for life. They screwed themselves.

And if someone does get an abortion... would u send them to jail with murder???

I'm not a cop or anything, but they commited murder of a human life. If they don't get to jail, they will still live with the thought of killing a future person.

- Exactly and the foster hoems will struggle too to cope with the kids... there will be too many of them. Not just will the Foster homes not cope but the government wont. Taxes will go zooming and the economy will start to fall. The standard of living for whole economies will plummet... Trust me, we will go into a very rapid recession... it wont be too nice

C'mon man, abortion is a way to mantain the economy??

lol because MISTAKES HAPPEN! And believe it or not, there are people who don't even know what a condom or birth control pill is! You can't just protect the educated, you have to protect the uneducated too as the government of the USA.

Why don't they also educate the uneducated? That would solve lots of problems.

Also, in other countries THEY DON'T HAVE FOSTER HOMES and some people don't want to put their child in foster homes. Once again, it's a choice if they want to continue with the pregancy or not.

How they won't want to put their childrens in foster homes and decide it's better to just kill it (your talking about a born person now). Once again, it was their choice in the begining to have sex. If you are uneducated, it was a "mistake", you just had fun, got drunk, whatever, abortion is not the only choice.

I still have a hard time believing you think everyone should be held accountable for their actions despite being naive and uneducated.

As I said, they can do other things besides doing abortion. They risk their lives more.

Shit happens; and as the government of the United States of America their job is to protect everyone...not just the educated.

Protect! Protect your future citizen. Shit happens, but there's always more than just one way to clean the mess.

You say there are a lot of people who are willing to take on babies, if that is the case why are foster homes overpopulated as it is?

'cause people are stupid! They do things without thinking of the risks. Also, the world is overpopulated as it is. Wouldn't it be better to have birth control??

Think if the foster houses are overpopulated its not gonna decrease our standard of the economy but also will encourage child smuggling which is illegal... this means crime will be rising and so on... please don't make our world a worse place when there are already too many problems to deal with!

If the kids got a good education, they wouldn't be in the position of smuggling. Countries (specially the richest) can do anything when they propose it. If it's their job to protect every citizen, why can't they do something for kids??

[The Host]

TEAM RODMAN vs. TEAM KEMP

TOPIC: Topic: Is there a gun problem in the USA? Should gun laws be changed?

FOR: Team Rodman
AGAINST: Team Kemp

TEAM RODMAN'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

you said it yourself , guns aren't the problem , people are , and parents should educate their kids about guns .

That's hilarious. Do you honestly believe that'll work? "Sonny boy, this dangerous weapon is called a gun. Now, guns aren't used to kill for no reason, they are used to kill for a reason. Now that reason is called, 'self defense.' Now, do you understand why we own guns?"

"Fuck that shit, pa, I got called a cracker at school today, and I'm gonna fucking blow that motherfucker's head off!"

Seriously, do you think kids are any more rational than adults when it comes to using guns? Do you think even educating kids about alcohol is going to make a difference? Please.

its not about guns its about the people in the world and how the media image corrupts peoples minds .

Well, of course the media corrupts people's minds. You said it best. That's why we have violence with guns on tv every single day, video games with guns, and movies with guns. That's good enough to corrupt people's mind. Oh shit, there's guns all over the streets. It's in the second amendment??!?! Oh fuck. Ok, maybe you're wrong about the, "it's not about guns" part.

guns are supposed to be for safety and protection , not for murder .

That's a big barrel of laughs! Shit, somebody's breaking into my house right now! Good thing I have a gun for "safety and protection!" Blam, blam! Uh oh... I think he's dead. But that's ok, I used it for safety and protection! Think about it, when it comes to guns, "safety and protection" and "murder" goes hand in hand, and one can't go without the other. Now, if we didn't have guns, safety and protection could be using your damn fists or a baseball bat. At least it would punish and teach a lesson rather than fatally punish without a lesson learned.

the laws shouldnt be changed because the laws are good enough . its not lke changing the laws are going to change the people , they are still going to find a way to get a hold on guns .

Yeah, it's good enough to witness Columbine, innocent people dead every day, for gun accidents where kids are playing with a gun and it goes right through their head. Seriously, guns are a problem in the US, and something needs to be done. I'm sure people are tired of living on the streets in fear because of a destructive weapon called a gun. And you know what, even if we outlawed guns, of course people are still going to try to get their hands on guns. But think about it, if you wanted to kill somebody, would you go through all the trouble to try to get a gun? It's certainly a lot easier to have that motivation when you have a gun under the pillow because the "second amendment" says so.

Can you really be that naive? Do you honestly think that by outlawing guns, you'll make crime disappear? Just like that, everything will be okay? Come on, be serious.

Wait a minute, did I say that crime will disappear? Did anybody on Team Rodman say crime would disappear without guns? No way. Impossible. But one thing is for certain: There wouldn't be nearly as many deaths as there is now.

Get this in all your heads: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Guns do not operate by themselves, they don't have a mind of their own. The problem is not guns.

The problem is guns. If people wanted to kill other people, do you think they could muster up the courage to beat somebody with a baseball bat with the chance of failing? Or do you think it's a lot easier to pull the trigger from a good distance, knowing that your plain is fool proof? Bingo! There would be a lot less deaths if a powerful weapon such as guns were eliminated. Can a little scrawny kid kill a buff guy with a baseball bat? Maybe, but unlikely. Can a little scrawny kid with a gun kill a buff guy? Definitely.

Do you think if someone were to commit a crime, they would actually purchase a gun legally? It's on records people, how stupid would someone be to do that? Trace the gun, trace the person. And do you honestly think banning guns will deter people from using guns as a weapon? Does banning weed make people want to smoke up less? The truth is, people WILL go through the "trouble" to get weed even though it is illegal. And well, it's just as easy to get a gun.

It's easy to get a gun because it's everywhere, and my point is, the gun provides all the motivation in the world to kill someone. To smoke weed is for the purpose of pleasure, and to shoot somebody with a gun for pleasure is intself sadistic. Banning guns won't deter people from using guns from a weapon, but if they don't have it in the first place, they would rather use a knife or a baseball bat as a weapon rather than go through the trouble for a gun, where it is too damn risky, if guns were outlawed.

Cyanide, education is extremely important in today's society. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but it is very effective. And if you educate the youth about guns, yes they will become more rational as they grow up. Why do you think the government invests so much in sex ed and drug seminars?

You know what, education is important and effective in today's society. I agree with that. But the sad thing is, there's so many illiterate and uneducated youths in today's society. Sure, sex ed and drug seminars help, but it doesn't stop the problem! There's still so much premarital sex and everybody is still smoking weed, it doesn't eliminate the problem. So guns education wouldn't eliminiate the problem. It'd help, but it would not eliminate the problem. The difference between sex and drugs and guns is that sex and drugs are pleasure inducing tools, and guns, is well, if it's for pleasure, once again, it is sadistic, and guns inflict pain and death on others, if not on oneself.

And cyanide, a gun is ten times better for protecting than a bat. Hm, let's see, the robber has a gun and you're swinging a bat? I wonder who will win. And don't be so blinded by Hollywood, this isn't a movie. When you've got a gun and someone's walking around your basement, firing a shot in your house can be enough to scare that person off. You don't have to participate in some kind of Denzel Washington shoot off in your house. Hold him long enough to call the police.

Yes, ten times (actually higher) the chance of dying. How often do robbers have guns? Robbers are cowardly. At any sight where they might be suspected, they will run off and escape. Robbers don't break into homes and kill people, they break into homes to steal, and most of them are smart enough not to risk getting into jail for killing.

If you really wanted to, you could want into a school with a piece of string and produce the same results as Columbine. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's people.

Hmm, can I kill 12 people with a piece of string? Do you think I'll actually be able to kill just one person with a string? It's people with guns that are the problem. It'd be ridiculous for people to kill without a gun if one wants to pull a Columbine.

Gangs, criminals, murderers, they will get those guns irregardless of what kind of laws are in place. Look at other countries that enforce gun control. Is crime non-existant? No, it's just as big of a problem as in the US. Guns are the only way for people to protect themselves in their homes.

Like I said before, I know criminals will get their hands on guns, but does it matter? No, they're criminals, their intent may be to kill. Normal people who are not criminals wouldn't be likely to become one if they didn't have a gun in their possession, and if they were invovled in some domestic abuse, they wouldn't have a gun, thus, lose any motive to kill or threaten murder. Personally, I don't even have a gun in my house, and many of my friends and family don't even own a gun. There is no point, and "protection" is a form of constant fear. What kind of life would I want to have, with a gun under my pillow, living in fear that somebody is going to break in and try to kill me? What are the chances of that? Maybe the chances are higher in the US because of the guns.

BrokenWings is right, and I just want to add that restricting something from someone will only make them want it more.

Nice try. Sure, when it comes to candy or sex, or other pleasure enhancing substances, but guns?

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

Do you think if someone were to commit a crime, they would actually purchase a gun legally? It's on records people, how stupid would someone be to do that? Trace the gun, trace the person. And do you honestly think banning guns will deter people from using guns as a weapon? Does banning weed make people want to smoke up less? The truth is, people WILL go through the "trouble" to get weed even though it is illegal. And well, it's just as easy to get a gun.

There are two questions in this debate with the second relating to gun laws. The first question in the debate is whether there is a gun problem in the US. You have just admitted via the above statements that there is a gun problem in the US. If criminals have easy access to guns then there is clearly a gun problem.

TEAM KEMP'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

Gun laws are hypocritical, and outragous. There are multiple reasons why, but the main one is that in a democracy, the people must have power. If the government has guns, the military has guns, and the police have guns, then it gives the government more power over the people and makes government more and more like a authoratorian government then a democracy. If a government becomes too corrupt and the people have less and less choice about what happens in there country then they have to uprise against the government. Imagine what would have happened if the people in the colonies of the United States didnt have guns, how would we have ever broke away from the corrupt government of Britain?

Ok, what does that have anything to do with gun laws? Your example of said "Tommy" can get guns irregardless of laws, so is that a problem with regulations or US mentality?

And the argument with the government is totally valid. I don't understand how you can dismiss it. NEWSFLASH: Do you know what the 2nd ammendment is for? This ammendment, that grants people the right for individuals to bear arms, is not there so that people can defend themselves against criminals, though it's a legitimate use of force. It was put there so that the citizens would be able to resist the armed forces of a tyrannical government. If you create a society where weapons are not used or allowed, you have a weak society, one in which a person necessarily has to rely on some entity other than himself for protection.

Right, drug laws are hypocritical too then.

yes, they are.

You keep gibber gabbering about the government having more "power" over us. That's the point. If they didn't have control over us, we'd be out raping any gorgeous woman we saw, we'd be stealing PS2's from all over & we'd be getting stoned 24/7. (Again, those gangstah's, damn them!!)

why? do you push and shove people to get on the bus just because there arent cops around? if you dont see cops around do you go around beating people up? Does the government stop people who want to be stoned 24/7 from doing so?

Seriously, bringing up an argument such as "if the government has guns, why can't we?" is just weak. You're not in a position of power & you don't have to keep a whole country (or a large amount of people) in order. The reason police officers have guns is to maintain order. You, as a civillian have no excuse to have a gun except for protecting yourself. Last I checked a baseball-bat did just a good a job protecting someone.

So we should just put our lives in the control of police and the government even if they become corrupt? What if the government has no checks or balances anymore? In a democracy the people are one check, they have to be. A democracy is a government of the people, if electing different officials isnt changing anything anymore, the people need to take the initiative themselves to make change.

If you had to keep a large amount of people in order and then needed a gun, I'd gladly had one to you myself. Since you don't. Hush.

This isnt about keeping people in order, its about fighting back against the ones who are supposed to be keeping people in order but are doing a damn shitty job of it. Its bullshit to say power never corrupts people, thats ignorant as hell. Look at the labor riots, look at the democratic convention of 1972, look at the thousands of people that get harrassed by cops every day. What if it gets worse? The cops have guns, we dont. The people have no voice and like i said before, that makes government authoritarian, not democracy.

[The Host]

TEAM ARTEST vs. TEAM WEIS

TOPIC: Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?

FOR: Team Artest
AGAINST: Team Weis

TEAM ARTEST'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions. etc etc etc ........

You took your whole post from the net you dipshit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1366

Jae, can we have a max post size limit for these debates? I didn't think in real debates you were allowed to talk endlessly without giving people a chance to argue your points.

Dweaver, being a 17 year old who got an 84 in gr 12 english (although the teacher was a jerk) I clearly lack the ability to write arguments so intellectual that they become almost totally incomprehendible to anyone to doesn't have a degree in law or the patience to read them over a few times. However, I'm going to attempt to argue the general concept of your post, as I took it.

It seems that basically you're just trying to show that the paparazzi aren't breaking any laws, by showing that what the celebrities claim as violations aren't really against the law. The issue I have with this is that the purpose of the debate is an opinionative on whether or the paparazzi "go too far". Obviously, breaking laws could probably be considered as going too far. But I really think that the two are totally separate. I mean, lets say you were late for work and sped 10km/h over the limit. It's against the law, but is it going too far to attain your needs, in this case getting to work on time? I don't think so.

In the case of the paparazzi, sure what they're doing (for the most part) is law-abiding. The thing is, I know if I had someone following me around taking pictures, after a while, I would call the cops on them. Even so, this is also besides the point.

The point is really that when the paparazzi become more than just photographers and really become disruptions in people's lives, then the have gone too far, period.

In the States and Canada
murder = pre-meditated (ie. you stalked someone home from work and killed them)
manslaughter = accidental (ie. took a corner in your car too fast and hit someone)

Closing statement: The paparazzi need to respect the celebrities privacy and property. As Jowe pointed out "If [it] looks like stalking, smells like stalking, it is stalking." These people are destroying people's reputations, and whether it's their sole purpose does not matter, only the result of their actions matter. The fact that through this legal loophole something that is normally a crime is considered legal is reason enough to realize that the paparazzi do go too far.

TEAM WEIS'S 3 DEBATE ENTRIES

Three things caused her death, a bad crash, not wearing seatbelts, and paparazzi standing around taking pictures instead of getting help.

Okay, since the whole paparazzi issue was elevated to a whole new level after the princess' death, with the people's main gripe againts the photo boys being that they did not assist her after the crash, I'm going to start off from here and gradually move on to the main issue of media intrusion.


The death of Princess Diana quickly prompted calls for new laws, specifically Good Samaritan laws and restrictions on the activities of celebrity photographers. Both ideas should be rejected.

The paparazzi allegedly photographed Diana instead of helping her in that tunnel along the Seine in Paris. But before sympathy for Diana clouds our judgment, we should recall that the Western philosophy of jurisprudence does not permit the government to impose positive obligations on citizens.

Each person is the owner of his life. As such, he has no positive legal obligations to others that are enforceable by government except those that are voluntarily accepted. All that government can require of you is that you abstain from violating the rights of others by subjecting them to force or fraud. Thus, even if you believe that morality requires you to help an accident victim, that requirement is not enforceable by government. A theory of individual rights could have no other outcome.

people typically help accident victims, not because the law forces them to, but because they are motivated by good will. In a free society, where people do not look to government to take care of them, good will is the exception not the rule. In the early days of the republic, Alexis de Tocqueville visited from France and marveled at how active people were with their neighbors. Americans, Tocqueville said, had associations for every conceivable purpose. No law forced them to participate. They did it because they wanted to be involved with their communities and wanted to have a place to turn when they were in distress. They didn't look to government to do what they thought they should be doing for themselves.


This whole issue arose when certain political and media figures required that new laws should be instated in order to force paparazzis to assist their subjects first before photographing them, thus making a legal case against the ones who refrained from helping Lady D during her accident. The whole argument above proves that we cannot use the law in such a side and misdirecting way in order to negate paparazzis effect on the life of celebrities...


As far as the main intrusion issue, the argument is something in the likes of the one below:

Many people have expressed their feelings for the paparazzi in various ways. Those who claim the paparazzi are stalkers say they have gone too far by trying to get that exclusive shot. It has been said that they "make a career out of pushing their way into other people's lives in a way that makes them repugnant." Such actions have given them the title of "modern-day bounty hunters," carrying cameras instead of guns, who go where the stars are in search of a photo that will sell.

Those who express disgust for the paparazzi have made extensive pleas to the government by lobbying for laws that will make it a misdemeanor to publish photographs taken without permission. Their argument for such laws reflect the ideal of equality, testifying that public figures are human beings also, and they deserve the right to privacy like everyone else. Furthermore, they shout that the paparazzi frequently use illegal actions to gain admission into the private lives of many celebrities. Such violations include breaking and entering, the use of trickery, impersonation, fraud and disguise.

Those who defend the paparazzi say they have a first amendment right to take photos of any celebrity. It lies within that realm of journalism we call "newsgathering," which is protected within the clause of "freedom of the press." But there are some photojournalists who contend that the paparazzi are not real journalists.

"The majority of professional photojournalists,including the ones so called 'paparazzi', are highly educated, not only in the use of a camera, but also in journalism skills. Their training includes classes on communication, law and, most importantly, ethics.... "

In defense of the paparazzi, many journalist figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their right to privacy as part of an unwritten contract with the members of society who pay their salaries as fans. David Cuthbert, a reporter for The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, said that both celebrities and the paparazzi feed off each other. In other words, one doesn't exist without the other.

"Celebrities preen for photographers only when it suits their purpose. When it does not, they hide their faces, engage in public prowls and haul photojournalists into court. Each needs the other, but it's a love-hate affair, a dance lit by strobe light.

Paparazzo Alan Zanger said that photographers are not at fault, but instead, celebrities invite the paparazzi attention through lavish lifestyles.

"These people earn lots of money. They are very promiscuous with their love affairs. That leads to these pictures being taken," Zanger said. "We don't provoke their affairs. We photograph it."

Topic: Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?

Since the topic itself mentions media intrusion in general, we should probably bring this generalized issue into view in this debate, not focusing strictly on paparazzi's good- or mal- doings.

Especially, we should not only focus on the obvious moral issues that occur, byt also on th elegal ones that surface every now and then due to increased media activity.

Each of the following could represent a major legal problem:

-a TV news report quoting a police officer about a drunk driver who caused a fatal accident


-a mistake that associated the wrong name or home address with criminal wrongdoing


-a record bought at a local store that's used as background music for a commercial


-a TV drama based on the life of a well-known person


-publishing controversial excerpts on a web site from a new novel


-a TV cameraman who accompanies the police into a home during a drug raid


-a photo from a web page used in a student newspaper


-announcing that a local businessman has contracted AIDS


As you can see, there are a number of occasions when the media are ALLEGEDLY intruding, with paparazzi activity being only a minor, non-focal point in the larger scheme of things.

The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT talk about a right of privacy or invasion of privacy, and this is very important from a legal point of view.When it comes to invasion of privacy, the law makes a distinction between private and public individuals.Once individuals enter the "public spotlight" (either intentionally or through accidental circumstances), they are afforded much less legal protection, and this not just by gaping 'holes' in the legal system, but intentionally through and through.

Let's just contemplate on the following examples:

-If a man is convicted of child molesting, can he claim it's private information? If so, does he have a right to keep the press from disclosing that information (and the people in the neighborhood where he lives from knowing about it)?

-If a politician is found guilty of sealing money from the public treasury, do we have a right to know it (especially before the next election)?

-If a respected and married evangelist who regularly preaches against illicit sex has sexual affairs, can he claim that this information is private and should not be publicly disclosed?

In these cases, many people feel that not only does the public have a right to know these things, but that in a democratic society they must know them in order to make informed choices. Thus, the responsibility of a free press is to bring such things to the public's attention.


Another, different example to portray a different side of the issue:


Let's assume you are a journalist.If you were televising a public event and wanted to show general shots of the audience in attendance, there would be no problem, even if one of the members of the audience was well known. Individuals in this case are considered "background."

But, if one of the people in the audience was a well-known person and you appeared to go out of your way to bring this fact to the attention of the audience, you could be guilty of trying to "cash in on" the person's prominence. At the same time, stations and networks know that few prominent people sue in these circumstances; and, in fact, many appreciate the publicity.

This goes to show that the very nature of 'media intrusion' is in fact indefinable, depending itself upon many variable factors, such as the current mood of the people being 'victimized'. So what do we do in such cases? Hold another Holy Inquisition and deny the press its basic rights in order to protesct a few pampered celebrities that woke up on the wrong side of their bed that morning? Because that is the only way to 'achieve' total and guaranteed privacy. But at what cost? Is it worth it?

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions.

In the case of the belligerent paparazzi, one must take note of any violation of the celebrity's property rights, the supposed "victim" of the paparazzi's plot. Contrary to mainstream understanding, harm to an individual does not make a violation of that individual's property inevitable.

For instance, suppose two young men, A and B, are wishing to ask the same young woman out for a date. If young man A asks first and the young woman accepts the invitation, young man B will probably perceive some level of harm. But, were any of young man B's property rights violated? Clearly the answer to this question, assuming no illicit activities or threats took place against young man B, is no.

The paparazzi-celebrity case presents a similar situation as this example. Although a celebrity may feel some level of harm from the acts of the paparazzi, a violation of property rights is not guaranteed. Therefore, one can deduce that an act is only criminal when the harm perceived by the 'unfortunate' party arises out of a violation of that party's property rights.

A common case celebrities present against the paparazzi is that they are guilty of assault. Once again, an analysis of the nature of paparazzi activities is necessary before passing judgment on such an allegation. In accordance with the aforementioned validity of a criminal act bringing harm in conjunction with a property rights violation, in contrast to a non-criminal act wherein harm does not arise from a property rights violation, a clear definition of assault must be constructed. In order for assault, be it physical or verbal, to be legitimately criminal it must pose a threat to violate property rights.

This idea is similar to the distinguishing element between simple blackmail and extortion. Although each act is a threat coupled with a demand, extortion consists of a threat to violate a property right or contract, whereas blackmail poses no such threat. Just as the blackmailer fails to threaten an individual's property rights, the paparazzi, assuming they are not bound by contract, fail to violate any property rights, and hence cannot be justifiably accused of assault.

Another pair of accusations celebrities set forth upon paparazzi relate to ownership. The first, concerning ownership of photos, charges paparazzi with theft on the grounds that individuals own images of themselves. This accusation fails to realize the very basis of property rights. they exist "to allocate ownership of scarce resources to a specified owner…. Thus, it is only things that are scarce… that can be property."

Scarce resources are homesteaded as property to alleviate controversy over their usage and allocation. The fact of the matter is that an image, be it perceived by an individual through their sight or captured in a photograph, does not restrict others from witnessing the same image. An individual cannot have ownership over another individual's senses or abilities to utilize those senses.

Another property issue that celebrities raise against the paparazzi is that photographs occasionally taint the reputations of the individuals they capture. Such allegations acquire popular support, and from time to time favorable judicial verdicts, given the mainstream belief that an individual's reputation is that individual's property. An individual's reputation is, in reality, nothing more than the subjective opinions others hold about that individual, thus an individual has no ownership over their reputation.In light of these ownership clarifications, any attempts to bring the paparazzi before the courts on the basis of theft or damage to an individual's reputation are illegitimate given the fact that, once again, no property rights are violated.


One notices in the analysis of paparazzi and individual property rights that the underlying cause of any debatable occurrence regarding paparazzi activities is a "tragedy of the commons." As is the case with any incident within the arena of public or unowned property, be it public goods or public services, the involved parties in the paparazzi-celebrity case face a conflict of interests. The only clear-cut solution would exist within an absolute free market whereby privatization would alleviate many social disputes and disturbances individuals face today.


PS: Colin, one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics'. That's why Law is there. To define 'ethics' and preserve them from violation. And as I have repeatedly stated in this debate, the Law DOES NOT agree with the statement ' Paparazzi go too far '. That must say something, no?

[J@3]

There we go... still a bloody long thread.

[8-Hype]

No wonder Dweaver chose his own three...

[Jackal]

Hehe, surprise, surprise.

Notice the hint of sarcasm.

[FendeR`]

Wow, I really wish I could cast a losing vote, because Jowe OWNED Dweaver.

[Ruff Ryder]

Hehe, surprise, surprise.

Notice the hint of sarcasm.

[8-Hype]

Team Weis up by 2.

[GloveGuy]

to teams who chose posts that involved more quoting than actual argument. It makes me not want to read them.

And why the fuck does Team Weis have the most votes when Dweaver's third post wasn't even written by him? Yeah, how about I go find pro-abortion articles on the internet and use them as my whole argument.

[Colin]

I was thinking Team Weis would end up with 4 votes, from Team Weis. Yet somehow they have 5.

I too am perplexed GloveGuy.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Such anger, such passion... This is a true reality show

[The X]

I shouldn't really say this, but in the interests of fairness and equity for all teams involved....

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: NRS - Mass Debate Over, A Twist In The Works (All Read)

Alright, I think we've had enough time for this weeks task so as of now the Mass Debate is officially closed.

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject:

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions. etc etc etc ........

You took your whole post from the net you dipshit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1366

As you can see, one of Team Artest's nominated posts was after the closing of the debate....just curious if this is allowed....

cheers
X

[cyanide]

Question: For debate A, B, and C, once the results are tallied after the two days, then what happens next when we have three team winners?

[J@3]

There'll be 3 winners lol that's it... the team who gets the most votes are allowed to change their team name to whatever they want.

Re: The X. I allowed it because I felt it was an important part of the debates people might not have seen.

[cyanide]

There'll be 3 winners lol that's it... the team who gets the most votes are allowed to change their team name to whatever they want.

So that means each leader from the three winning teams gets immunity, and the three losing teams get mass evictions? Or am I jumping too ahead?

[Indy]

Shit, i think i accidentally voted for team rodman

[cyanide]

Shit, i think i accidentally voted for team rodman

Actually, I don't think you did, I remember it was 4-4 last time, and now it's 5-4 in your favor.

[Indy]

Shit, i think i accidentally voted for team rodman

Actually, I don't think you did, I remember it was 4-4 last time, and now it's 5-4 in your favor.

After i voted it was 4-4 tied, someone voted for team kemp since then

[cyanide]

Shit, i think i accidentally voted for team rodman

Actually, I don't think you did, I remember it was 4-4 last time, and now it's 5-4 in your favor.

After i voted it was 4-4 tied, someone voted for team kemp since then

Oh, in that case, maybe that someone accidently voted for Team Kemp

[Indy]

Shit, i think i accidentally voted for team rodman

Actually, I don't think you did, I remember it was 4-4 last time, and now it's 5-4 in your favor.

After i voted it was 4-4 tied, someone voted for team kemp since then

Oh, in that case, maybe that someone accidently voted for Team Kemp

Ok we'll go with that

[J@3]

poor Team Kemp.

There'll be 3 winning teams, which means the 3 captains will be immune from nomination next week. The 3 losing teams will be the ones who have to nominate guys from their own team for eviction. Hopefully we don't have any more fucking ties

As it stands right now:

Team Darko vs. Team Yinka: Team Darko leads 5-3
Team Rodman vs. Team Kemp: Team Rodman leads 5-4
Team Artest vs. Team Weis: Team Artest leads 6-5

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

As you can see, one of Team Artest's nominated posts was after the closing of the debate....just curious if this is allowed....

cheers
X

Let them have their way, X... If they claim I cheated, than let them cheat to make things even.

[Jackal]

Let them have their way, X... If they claim I cheated, than let them cheat to make things even.

Don't try playing the bigger man here? It's just pathetic. Everyone knew (or was bright enough to know) that the debate was between the teams & their members. The point was to NOT use others' opinions but your own. What's the point of a debate if you're quoting someone else's shit.

And that crock of shit that you studied his shit is even more pathetic because had Jowe not found that article/post, you would've passed the whole thing off as your own.