First of all, the concept and category of law, the illegality of evil law will definitely be emphasized by the other party.
If the argument lies in the ruthlessness of law, it is necessary to demonstrate legislation (substantive law, procedural law) and law enforcement; Moreover, the concept of "emotion" needs to be clear-this is the basis of argument-and the other party's definition of "emotion" is also crucial, and it is more beneficial for us to be a little partial.
Procedural law Procedural law is also called "trial law" and "procedural law". The symmetry of "substantive law" regulates the law of litigation procedure. This type of law seems to be easier to discuss its cruelty. Ruthless law enforcement is also easy to discuss. The key is that substantive law really embodies humanity, humanity and humanistic care. . . . For example:
The "sentimental" argument of the opponents is probably based on the fact that laws are more humane: for example, China's maternal and child health care law, product protection law, state compensation law, consumer rights protection law, environmental protection law, etc., all protect and care for our people from personal, economic, political and social perspectives. For another example, the law stipulates that pregnant women under the age of 18 at the time of trial are not sentenced to death, but can be executed outside prison when they are sick, and take care of the needy party when divorced. All this tells us all the time that the law is affectionate, and it shows the light of humanistic care. Besides, to err is human. The law gives people a chance to turn over a new leaf. Its ultimate goal is not to punish criminals, but to achieve the ultimate goal of guidance, evaluation, prediction and education.
For the other side's argument, first look at their definition of love and see if the other side has expanded the concept of "love". In addition, the two sides may have to debate the meaning of "love" first. If the meaning of love and ruthless "love" is not clear, it is impossible to prove it at all-we don't know anything, so how can we know if there is one?
The following is the opening words of the heartless theory. . . The above remarks are not original and are for your reference.
"We believe that the law is ruthless. From the Babylonian code of hammurabi to the modern Constitution of People's Republic of China (PRC), law has gone through thousands of years. We won't discuss all the laws today. Among so many kinds of laws, there are evil laws that are out of date and violate the essence of society. Illegal laws. There are good laws that meet the requirements of productivity, and this is the real law. Laws are formulated by the legislature and implemented by the state, which is a code of conduct to protect people's interests. And what is heartless? Ruthlessness does not mean cruelty and bloody violence, but rational reasoning and fair judgment. And law enforcement is not mixed with personal thoughts and feelings.
First of all, from the perspective of law-making, Marx said: "Legislation is not to create laws, but to describe them. Law is a process of discovery, not a product of creation. " Laws are made according to the material laws of society, not created by the subjective will of a few people. People can only describe the law, but can't create it. Reasonable laws have existed in objective laws for a long time, regardless of people's subjective will, so it is determined that laws are ruthless.
Secondly, the law embodies the principle of fairness everywhere. From the former monarch, minister and common people to the present legal society. For thousands of years, law has been the norm. As long as it violates the warning line of the law, it will be severely punished by the law. Does the other side want those criminals to get away with it and not be punished by law? I'm afraid everyone is worried about having such a harmonious society now.
Chapter II, Article 33 of the Constitution stipulates that the people and citizens of China are equal before the law. Do the other four defense friends run counter to the Constitution? The sea of suffering is boundless, it's time to turn back! Please ask the other debater to clear the fog of misunderstanding, abandon your dark theory and come to our bright side! The law is merciless.
Finally, from the perspective of law enforcement, only ruthless law can be fair and reasonable; Only when the law is ruthless can law enforcement be independent of personal feelings; The law is ruthless, and the law enforcers have reasonable analysis and fair judgment. The law is about evidence, and law enforcers must eliminate all prejudice against the subjective feelings of the parties. Governance and law enforcement with rationality and fairness. Only in this way can the real murderer be punished by law and justice be done. I would like to ask, if law enforcers are lenient with their relatives and friends, where is the justice of the law? Where is social stability? We firmly believe that impartial is the eternal axiom of law. It is the ruthlessness of the law that fills the world with true feelings; It is the ruthlessness of the law that makes the sentient society work normally. To sum up, we insist that the law is merciless. "