Manchester United Talk banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

1,895 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
While banter and good fun are ok, please refrain from interrupting the flow of the debate once it's gotten started.

This is a second round contest.

The Topic: Are strict government rules necessary to keep a country organized and progressing efficiently?

RedForceRising thinks they are a must. Keano!, however, shuns that idea.

RFR will start the debate.

Both people will have 3 days to prepare their debate, with RFR making his opening statements on or before Monday. K! will then have 24 hours to post his opening. RFR will make his rebuttal against K!'s opening within 2 days time. K!'s rebuttal to RFR will come, again, within 24 hours. Closing remarks will be started by RFR within the next 24 hours, followed by K!'s no later than another 24 hours.

Judges will then give their winner shortly after

11,207 Posts
The Topic: Are strict government rules necessary to keep a country organized and progressing efficiently?

I'll try to make this a more manageable read than my last outing.

I believe that strict government rules are necessary to keep a country organized and progressing efficiently?

Living in South East Asia, I can clearly see the difference between countries whose government enforce strict rules and those who do not.

In simple terms, countries where government do not impose strict rules are almost always vulnerable to the effects of crime and corruption and thus have a poor infrastructure and an environment that is not conducive for progres..

Strict rules deters potential offenders from accepting bribes, especially in goverment positions and thus lowers the rate of corruption.

Strict rules deter potential drug traffickers from peddling their drugs and decreasing the quality of life.

Strict rules allow for a safe society with a low crime rate where people can live with less fear of harm.

Countries who do not enforce strict government rules cannot or will find it very hard to create an organized society for a pro-longed basis.

Having lax rules in any facet of life that effects society can have far-reaching and very damaging effects.

Let's take the credit crunch for example. The lax terms that existed in America allowed financial institutions to give loans to anybody who walked through their doors.

The same would not apply in a country where strict laws set out by the monetary authority requires loan-seekers to satisfy certain requirements before the institutions can grant loans to individuals and corporations.

As a result, America is facing what one Nobel prize winner is terming "The Great Depression 2".

In African countries where corruption is rife in virtually every corner of government, absolutely no tangible progress can be made, because the greed of those in power come before the needs of the society.

Some might say that strict government rules inhibit creativity and while this is debatable, it certainly does not mean that the society in question cannot progress efficiently.

While a society with strict government rules might not have the greatest photographers, painters or musicians, they will still be able to produce a talented workforce with a good infrastructure to serve the needs of the corporations that depend on it.

A look to Thailand and Indonesia will show what happens when strict rules are not applied by government - weak infrastructure, low investor confidence, who scramble to maintain their offices in safer countries; engineering and pharmaceutical companies, who keep their laboratories in countries with safe environments.

Without strict rules enforced by government, you get high crime and low quality control. As I write this 53 000 people have fell victim to milk products tainted by Melamine in China. 53 000!

A country with strict food and drugs safety standards would definitely have avoided such a horrendous and wide-ranging damages.

Strict rules protect everyday citizens like you and me from crime, drugs, corruption, child pornography, health hazzards, terrorism, pollution, financial scams, financial meltdowns, retirement fund scandals.....

the list go on and on.

And without strict rules that create an organized, safe environment, a society cannot progress tangibly for a sustained period.

A vote for a country with strict goverment rules is a vote for a more pleasant and rewarding life.

thank you!

9,926 Posts
^^Well said mate

I actually believe that rules are required, so I'm in abit of a pickle here, but
I'll give it a go for the banter...:)

Why Rules Aren't Needed


I believe that the inclusion of rules in our society being of peoples free expression!

*Runs away...*

I concede to RFR, apologies folks! :( :eek:
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.