- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
In my opinion, voting should not be compulsory in Brazil or any other country. Some believe that a larger share of voters result in a more democratic election, but in fact it contradicts the democratic system itself as the enforcement of the voting law is an infringement of the citizens' freedom and right of choice – the right “to choose” necessarily includes the right “not to choose”. Another negative consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes", as citizens who are voting against their free will may chose a candidate at random.
I do not think prostitution should be legalized. If anything, it should be criminalized, as prostitution is often connected to other illegal activities. It is not the moral aspect that matters the most. If one is willing to pay for sex and one is offering it for a price, it is alright for both, and it should be alright for other people as well, as prostitution does not cause any direct harm or damage to a third person. The most important fact is that prostitution is usually connected to criminal activities such as human trafficking, pedophilia and illegal drug trade. When you consider public security, the legalization of prostitution under these circumstances would be very irrational.
Although plastic contributes to the issues of world's pollution on a large scale, it is known that there is no environmental concern regarding the prohibition of plastic bags' free distribution in Brazil. Supported by the government, the Brazilian supermarket companies are concerned about profit only. If both government and supermarket companies were actually worried about the environmental pollution, they would have managed to prohibit the manufacturing of all kinds of plastic food container and plastic packs. The prohibition of plastic bags' free distribution is not enough to solve the Brazilian pollution problems.
I support the right of abortion under any circumstance. In a pluralistic society with diverse values and beliefs, there is a need for tolerance of such diversity. Force the entire population to follow the religious beliefs of one group has already had an impact on other issues, such as the Catholic Church's condemnation of the use of condoms which has hurt prevention efforts against AIDS. One must realize that an unwanted baby most likely will grow up as an unsupported child. The situation turns out to be even worse when it comes to a pregnancy of an anencephalic fetus, which has no chances of surviving. Forcing a woman to carry on with the pregnancy of an anencephalic child will only bring her pain, as it resembles a countdown to death. Therefore, the woman herself should be the only one to decide whether she wants to terminate her pregnancy or not.
In my opinion, all murder crimes should be punished with death penalties. Retribution or "an eye for an eye" helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy. Some say that this capital punishment does not seem to fit the crime, but the victim did not earn or deserve their fate, whereas the murderer voluntarily took their lives and thereby volunteered for the punishment available within that jurisdiction. The death penalty is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment.
Guns are responsible for over 39 thousand deaths a year in Brazil, which is more than 107 deaths a day. It is more likely to die as a victim of gun violence in Brazil than in a country embattled by civil wars.
Having a gun at home for self-protection is just as imprudent as stopping at the red light at 3am in downtown of São Paulo – you are claiming to be a victim of violence – either urban violence or accidental violence.
It is well known that having weapons at home is no more secure than not having them. Keeping guns for self defense means you are prepared to react to any kind of conflict that may happen in your house: if a thief invades your property you may think you have a great chance to defeat him – or, at least, to scare him away. The possession of a gun brings self-confidence and the idea of security. Though it may be helpful, it is stated that the worse way to act in a robbery is REACTING to it; one most probably is going to accidentally shoot a member of the family while trying to hit the outlaw.
This is not the only harm that having a gun at home might cause. People all over the world are tired of hearing in the news about individuals armed with weapons who enters school and kills innocent people (it does not matter if they are rich or poor, in USA or in Brazil, this kind of crime has become common). A very noticeable example of this happened in Rio de Janeiro, at a school in the neighborhood of Realengo: a man invaded the school campus and killed eleven children before shooting himself dead. If he didn’t happen to have a gun at home, there would be minimal chances for this violent event to have occurred.
Besides that, accidental deaths by misusing of guns are far more often than we may think. Children that find weapons in their houses and happen to play with them or show them to their friends, most likely end up killing themselves or the people around by accidental shots. Once there is a weapon at home, domestic violence most likely ends up in shooting and even death of a family member.
There is no such thing as being protected by something that kills: this is not protection, this is reaction – and if you need a gun for that reaction, it is no longer about self-defense, it is about killing.
Paula Rosa e Marcus Vinicius
The ownership of fire weapons at home is a particular form of self-defense widely used in Brazil and in many other countries such as the United States.
With the increasing violence in big cities, denying gun ownership to good citizens is to encourage outlaws to take over these cities.
The State cannot provide citizens the security they need. There are not enough police officers to keep the cities secure in Brazil, and even when there are officers in the police department, it is well known that if you order a pizza and call the police at the same time, the pizza will arrive there first. Therefore, these citizens must appeal to more drastic measures in order to protect themselves. The purpose of having guns at home is not to use them without any care, but to use them when it is absolutely necessary.
It is important to state that even if a citizen uses a legitimate weapon for self protection, they might be sued and judged regarding the judicial review of the legality of their acts. The usage of guns is not random: there are training courses for those who decide to own a gun.
It is also notable that the black market for handguns in Brazil is so strong that handguns are readily available to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Moreover, to disarm the population has always been a typical measure of dictatorial and authoritarian governments. In an authoritarian government citizens are subject to extensive state control, have limited civil liberties and the political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces. The forbidding of personal handguns is necessary to prevent a possible resistance of the population. Therefore, the banning of personal handguns is an authoritarian measure that certainly should not occur in a liberal democratic state as Brazil.
Thus, the prohibition of weapons for self protection cannot be regarded as something positive. To disarm only law abiding citizens offers no benefit to a democratic society.
Caroline Frabetti e Renata Rabaça