Need some points as to why there SHOULDNT be mandatory imprisoning for lighting fires???

Question

Need help for an up coming debate!
Im on the negative team and the topic is; should there be mandatory imprisonment for people who light bushfires

Answer 1

Oooh, I loved debate in high school.

First things first, find crimes that ARE mandatory imprisonment, such as murder and downplay the comparisons of the most heinous ones versus lighting a fire. (Rape doesn't even come with a mandatory imprisonment, for instance, but find a RELEVANT fact to back it up, several if you can. For instance, the state of Georgia, California and Alabama don't have a mandatory imprisonment for [henious crime] so therefore, why should arson?).

While someone could die in a fire, someone could die crossing the street. Lighting a fire doesn't guarantee someone will die, and thus, punishment equal to someone who DID kill someone outright would be ludicrous!

Second, find loopholes in the obvious arguments that they will have.

"People who set fires are bad" could be someone who had to pull over to the side of the road and their muffler caught a dry bush on fire. Are those "bad people"? Are those "criminals" deserving of PRISON? Someone who had to change a tire should be locked up with the worst of society?!!

Third, say that this current proposition is bad and should be voted down because the wording is bad. Then offer a better one, like "There should be mandatory imprisoning for people WHO INTENTIONALLY LIGHT FIRES with the hopes of damaging property or injuring people".

No matter what, always state that this is the worst proposition you've heard of.

Good luck.

Answer 2

Bush fires or Bushfire's?
Here in the desert, some people accidentally start them. It just happens. Some environmentalist wackos burn luxury homes while they are under construction to fight "Urban Sprawl". Makes a lot of sense. There was even two guys that went around starting fires at Wal-Marts because they didn't like them. Serial arsonists should get imprisonment but some need to be on a case by case basis. What happens when a control burn gets out of hand? What if it's some elementary school kids that are bored and find a lighter or matches?

Answer 3

Repressive countries have such arcane, inane laws.

For example, I lived in Argentina for 1977. There is no such thing as an 'accident' there, or in most South American countries. Those cultures don't have much insurance, either.

So if a house burns, someone is blamed, arrested and jailed. If there is a brush fire, same solution. No inquiry, no judgment allowed to determine if the fire was an accident, even an unavoidable accident.

What does this mean? It means that fires go UNREPORTED, because people don't want to go to jail arbitrarily. That means that a house fire that could have been contained to one kitchen can rage to the level where it destroys a whole city block.

A brush fire that could be contained to a few square feet will rage to cover many square miles, as the person who accidentally lit it won't report it, and neither will anyone who stumbles upon it while it is small report it, for fear of being blamed for starting it.

This is wrong-headed, counterproductive, and repressive.

Answer 4

Where i live when a farmers orchard becomes unproductive the trees are cut down, pushed into piles and burned. We call them brushfires. If it was mandatory to imprison everyone who lites a brushfire then many farmers would be sentenced to prison. Argue that the wording of the law as you stated is too vague to be enforced. Secondly the DNR will sometimes light brushfires to stimulate the growth of pine forests because some pine cones will not germinate unless they have been exposed to extreme temps. Now why would you want to imprison farmers and DNR workers?

Answer 5

I can't think of any. But since you have to have some for a debate, argue that they are disturbed and society would be better served by inpatient pyschiatric treatment.

Answer 6

Well, you could argue that after a fire, stuff grows back bigger and better!

Answer 7

i am also doing same debate thanks 4 preparing us to rebut against these points