frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why is the Capital Punishment/Death Sentence for murderers wrong?

Opening Argument

Persuade me why the Why is the Capital Punishmest/Death Sentence for murderers and other similar criminals wrong? Even in cases where there is infallible evidence, murderers are let go with imprisonment. 

Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower.
natbaronsBlank
  1. Is capital punishment for murderers wrong?

    12 votes
    1. Yes
      16.67%
    2. No
      83.33%

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • @1Hacker0, I can take either side of this debate.  From economic standpoint if the process of aiuthorizing death penalty would be simplified it has potential of great economic savings.  The reason many will argue it is wrong is because of religious believes that it is wrong for us to condemn someone to death.
  • Yes, the death sentence is inhumane and shouldn't be allowed. Jail may result in less or more suffering for the person. 
  • @islander507 Religion and the state are separate. Religion can't interfere with laws. 
  • @natbarons Yes, but what is your argument. Why is it inhumane. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    At one time, I thought my science book was infallible. Nothing is absolute. People get set-up. I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat There are a number of cases with infallible evidence. One recent case is the Barcelona van attack. The driver of a van drove through a crowd killing 13 people. It continuously plowed through for seven blocks before the they tried to escape and two out of the three suspects got caught. There is no way someone could have set that up. 

    This is not the only case with infallible evidence. There are also many cases where video evidence of the murder taking place was recorded. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I see you've never heard of a false flag. You thing Osama bin Laden attacked America don't you. What about the Boston Bombers, you know they were innocent? Don't believe everything you see on t.v.. 
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 87 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Then what is the best way to serve justice to murderers? Also what religion do you imply when you say I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    1Hacker0 said:
    @Erfisflat Then what is the best way to serve justice to murderers? Also what religion do you imply when you say I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
    https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/sentencing-life-americans-embrace-alternatives-death-penalty

    No religion needed to be a theist.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    This is one of those debates that has two appealing sides to it no matter how you approach it.

    1.  I support killing murderers.  Looks pretty good on your resume, casts your character in Justice, makes you appealing to the victims and generally says that you care enough to not let innocent people die.

    2.  I don't condone the murder penalty: Makes you look sympathetic, speaks volumes about your view of Humanity, casts you as "Above retribution and revenge" and generally says that you're more willing than others to "Turn the other cheek".

    We all know that the death penalty is legal.  That's not the question here, this is a matter of what ought to be...so we're talking about Morality.  Now I'm sure everyone here can agree that Morality and the Moral code are real things, they truly exist and they do govern us to varying degrees...but what is the physical composition of Moral codes?  What is the chemical composition of Morality?  Can you see it?  Can you measure it?  Is it observable?  Are moral codes of the physical realm?  I'm afraid the answer is no.  Moral laws are above the physical realm, cannot be observed and cannot be measured.  No lineage can be drawn from our Moral laws nor can we state with any degree of fact where they come from.  So they are supernatural.  While science may speculate, theorize and attempt to explain morality...it's beyond scientific understanding and therefor we are now in the realm of the supernatural.

    Now the question of what we ought to do in regards to the death penalty is not as simple as everyone would like it to be.  It's not just about what he/she did and who was affected.  We as Humans can be just accountable for our inactions as we are for our actions, there's also what's called "Second and third order effects" to be considered when making choices.

    The difference between a direct choice and a choice that takes into account the second and third order effects is as follows:

    "Should a murderer be killed for his actions"?
    VS
    "Should a murderer be killed to prevent them from doing it again"?

    Now an example of Humans taking responsibility for inactions AND second and third order effects

    "Should a murderer be killed for his actions"?
    VS
    "Should a murderer be killed to prevent them from doing it again"?
    VS
    "Am I responsible for killing a murderer for their actions"?
    VS
    "Am I responsible for subsequent deaths of innocent people if I don't stop a murderer by killing them when I have the chance"?

    There's also the moral dilemma of creating unnecessary burden upon innocent people by refusing to kill a murderer.

    "If a Woman is murdered by a Man, can I justify requiring that the Woman's Family financially contribute to providing all the necessary provisions for the Murderer for the rest of his life so that we may avoid killing him in return"?

    Do you pay taxes?  You do!?  Well then you are financially contributing to the provisions (Food, hot water, clean clothes, air-conditioned facilities, free medical care) of all the convicted and incarcerated criminals in this country.  How would you feel if your Father or Mother were murdered in cold-blood and instead of receiving the death penalty...you had to pay your fair share to put the Murderer up in a cushy U.S. Prison for the rest of his life.  I was a correctional officer in Texas for 3 years, they got fed and taken better care of than most U.S. Service Members did overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Does that even remotely sound fair?  Does it sound "Just"?

    It doesn't to me.  I agree with the death penalty.




    1Hacker0
  • Erfisflat said:
    I see you've never heard of a false flag. You thing Osama bin Laden attacked America don't you. What about the Boston Bombers, you know they were innocent? Don't believe everything you see on t.v.. 
    well what evidence is there to suggest that Osama did not bomb the u.s
  • I certainly agree with Vaulk and their reference to the supernatural nature of morality.
    Though I would prefer to regard morality as conceptual.
    That is to say an intangible creation of the human mind, that has no realistic bearing on the function of the universe and therefore no realistic bearing on the function of human society.
    The same logic can also be applied to "right and wrong".

    Obviously, these conceptual rules are applied to give society a modicum of stability.
    But in times of conflict, look at how quickly we are prepared to allow these rules to be broken down.

    Nonetheless, perhaps it's best to maintain a modicum of stability.
    That means applying conceptual rules to society.
    The taking of another human life shall be considered as wrong.
    Therefore if society is to command the very highest moral ground, it should never allow itself to sink to the level of the murderer.
    Erfisflat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    Nonetheless, perhaps it's best to maintain a modicum of stability.
    That means applying conceptual rules to society.
    The taking of another human life shall be considered as wrong.
    Therefore if society is to command the very highest moral ground, it should never allow itself to sink to the level of the murderer.

    Taking the life of another isn't always wrong.  Leaving aside abortion and euthanasia for the moment (although the case could be made that this is just a form of euthanasia), every country has a military and an armed police force.  Just as freedom of speech has limits, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, so too does the protection of life.  It does not extend to the enemy on the battlefield, the armed criminals endangering the lives of innocents, nor to the most violent convicted criminals.
    1Hacker0
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 87 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Prisoners are treated better than people in poverty. If this was the normal punishment for murder and I was in poverty, I would go kill someone and go to prison. Then I'll just stay in prison with the taxpayers taking care of me.

    Also I'm assuming that you are agnostic theist.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "well what evidence is there to suggest that Osama did not bomb the u.s"

    That's another debate altogether. The point is, people get set up. There are no absolutes when it comes to this. Innocent people are sentenced to death row all the time. @1Hacker0 poverty is another issue entirely. This country has become judgemental and bloodthirsty. The media plays you against each other. I'm not falling for it anymore.

    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat I know poverty is another issue. I wasn't talking about how to solve it. I'm saying that if I was in poverty, I could just murder someone to go to prison and be taken care of for the rest of my life. It doesn't have to be poverty.

    This alternative punishment is not good. It is injustice that a murderer should be taken care of for the rest of his life with tax money. If there is no absolutes when it comes to crime, then we can't punish anyone. People are sentenced to life in prison innocently just like people are sentenced to the death row innocently. The difference is that prison is more of a reward to murderers than a punishment.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 18 Premium Member
    @1Hacker0
    I don't consider being locked away as any kind of reward. People in poverty are being taken care of by tax dollars all the time, it's called welfare. If an innocent person is sentenced to life in prison, the window of chance to clear his or her name is... the rest of his life, killing an innocent person is probably unforgivable if there is a God, which I believe there is.
    1Hacker0
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 87 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Yes you are locked away, but you are taken care of. I don't want my tax money going to prisons to take care of prisoners. Even prisoners who refuse to work are given sufficient meals, although they are restricted to staying in one room. Normal people have to work for money and food. Murderers are treated better than people in poverty. People in poverty barely get enough from welfare to earn three meals a day, and are nowhere close to getting shelter. 

    Also innocent people die from war all the time. It is a necessity, otherwise more people will die. Same thing with the death sentence. The difference is that there is a higher percentage of criminals dying when compared to innocent people, in the death row, than in war. Militaries don't recruit murderers so there are more innocent people dying in war.

    There is always a danger that murderers can escape and kill more innocent people:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/08/nyregion/prison-escape.html

    The two murderers in the link escaped a maximum security prison.

    I'm pretty sure God would have preferred that we had killed those two. There is a risk in killing an innocent person, but it is worth the risk due to the other lives saved, and the justice served.

    The death sentence is a punishment without a warning, and it is the last punishment the murderer gets. This would incline others to not murder as well.

    The death sentence also requires absolute evidence. Court cases on the death row can go on for many years. Over 130 people on the death row have been released last year, due to uncertainty. Many of them are still believed to be guilty. Ted Bundy's case went on for many years. They had to even prove that porn hadn't altered his mind to viewing women as objects. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "I don't want my tax money going to prisons to take care of prisoners."

    That's always going to happen, nothing we can do about that. People are sentenced to years, even life in prison for carrying or selling a plant. There's not much said about it, and they haven't harmed a soul. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/missouri-man-sentenced-life-no-parole-marijuana-related-charge-walks-n419376

    As for the cost, deathpenaltyinfo.org makes a good point with:

    " The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial."

    https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/millions-misspent
    THEDENIER
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat I'd rather have more of my money spent to kill a murderer than to have less of my money spent to support his life. Justice for the victim and the victim's family should be given no matter the cost.

    Also the second trial for death sentence would be obsolete if it is required for all murderers to be executed like I was arguing for. Once there is guilt of murder there is instant death.

    I agree you might have refuted one of my arguments: "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower," but once again, it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost. I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete.

    By prisoners I meant murderers who are prisoners. Sorry I didn't specify, but from now on that is implied. I agree that weed users and sellers shouldn't be imprisoned.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "I'd rather have more of my money spent to kill a murderer than to have less of my money spent to support his life."

    So now that you know that the cost of killing someone is a lot more than just locking them away, cost, even millions, is tolerable. This money should be spent on actual rehabilitation. The current prison system is just a for profit business. 


    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvpzkp/whos-getting-rich-off-the-prison-industrial-complex

    This doesn't even address the issue of wrongful conviction. I saw the Boston bombings on my daughters day of birth and I, while at first I wished death on those poor boys, saw through the media induced propaganda, and figured out they were innocent. 
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat So you think we shouldn't have a death sentence because we should use the money on rehab instead.

    Am I right?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    1Hacker0 said:
    @Erfisflat So you think we shouldn't have a death sentence because we should use the money on rehab instead.

    Am I right?
    I mean you're oversimplifying a very complicated system. The death penalty isn't saving any money, and it isn't preventing crime in any way. Killing a person shouldn't be legal. It's the first and most important commandment. You can't get any more obvious.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat The death penalty isn't about saving money or preventing crime. It is about justice.

    Is it moral to kill a person who committed genocide?
  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    @Fredsnephew,

    Man that got me right in the feelers!  A VERY well posed argument my friend.  I would offer though, that there is a distinction between killing and murder.  If killing a Murderer was to be considered Murder itself... then killing in self-defense would be considered Murder.

    In the end my simple opinion is that...if you Murder someone...I won't waste an ounce of effort more than I absolutely have to to make sure you don't do it again...if that means killing you instead of creating a national institution of free living for criminals...then so be it. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @1Hacker0 said:

    "The death penalty isn't about saving money..."

    And:

    "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower."

    "or preventing crime."

    It should be. Preventative measures should be a priority, but I digress. Stopping the first murder

    "Is it moral to kill a person who committed genocide?"

    Depends on the circumstance. Most of the time some mental condition is responsible, like this guy.




    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    1Hacker0 said:
    @Erfisflat The death penalty isn't about saving money or preventing crime. It is about justice.

    Is it moral to kill a person who committed genocide?
    Self defense would be an exception, but even then disabling a perpetrator is as easy as killing them.
    1Hacker0
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat I already said:

    "I agree you might have refuted one of my arguments: "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower," but once again, it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost. I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete."

    Preventative measures are different from the punishment. I'm not saying preventative measures aren't a priority. I don't get how punishments can be made to prevent crime. The most they do is deter some people from committing crime, in which case the death sentence does a better job of than your alternative punishment which uses taxpayer money to take care of the criminal.

    You said that killing a person who committed genocide should be allowed depending on the circumstance. If killing a person who committed genocide is ok then why not someone who murdered someone. Both criminals have killed victims, and harmed their families. 

    I agree that certain circumstances can allow a criminal to not be put on the death row, such as having a serious mental disorder.
    Erfisflat
  • @Erfisflat Yes. Sometimes in the heat of the moment it is possible to kill an attacker, but it is best to try to just disable the attacker.
    Erfisflat
  • @1Hacker0

    It's not only about the murderers it's the potential of killing someone innocent a study says that 1 of 25 people sentenced are innocent, plus there are cases where the death of the person sentenced is inhumane in a way where it is painful.

    Finally, it is actually a myth that prison costs are going to be lower if we kill criminals, executing people has a costly process, plus costly instruments "of humane murder." 

    Plus, I don't like the way you phrase this debate, you phrase it in a sort of scummy way, where it's like moral ransom. What I see from this is like, "Hey, why should we not kill murderers, is it not okay to punish killers?" which is an inaccurate way to represent this debate. 

    You represent the "Pro" of Capital punishment fairly, "Con" is misrepresented through the question of "Is capital punishment for murderers wrong?" The debate would be much fairer if the question was "Is capital punishment for murderers wrong?" 
  • Murder and killing in self defence are essentially the same thing. That is to say, the extinguishing of a life.
    The only difference, is in the definition of terms. Which as I have already suggested is merely a concept, an intangible thought process.

    The question I would like to ask, is. Why does punishment have to be so easy?

    What's wrong with hard labour, or just labour. Let's make criminals productive, an asset to society.

    Why does prison life have to be so comfortable?
    As long as basic needs are met, what more do criminals, especially murderers, need or deserve?

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 87 Pts
    edited August 19
    @SnakesOfferingApples Innocent people get imprisoned for life. Should we stop imprisonment? Innocent people die in war. Should we stop war? (In the case where the war is for a good cause) One in 25 people end up in the hospital due to hospital acquired infections. Should we stop hospitals? The numbers one leading cause of illness is hospital related (wrong medication being the main cause). Should we stop all of that? Innocent people die all the time. We still have to try our best to solve everything, even though it is impossible.

    I have already made an argument about the cost, in response to ertisflat.
    Regarding cost: "I agree you might have refuted one of my arguments: "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower," but once again, it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost. I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete."
    The second trial is obsolete because it determines whether the murderer was cruel enough for an execution. I think all murderers are cruel enough for an execution, so the funding for the second trial should go into the first trial to save more innocent people. Innocent people usually go to the death row because of a bad defense from their underfunded lawyers. Free lawyers are underfunded and increasing funds to them can save many innocent people from wrong convictions. This is a major flaw in court which causes rich people to have less wrong convictions.

    I did not intend to phrase this argument in a way which is misleading. I added the word "murderer" to specify what kind of criminal we are dealing with. Last time I tried to argue with someone about capital punishment she brought up how drug dealers in southeast asia are getting executed which had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    I have made some other points in my previous posts as well.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 21 Premium Member

    @1Hacker0
    "...it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost."

    Life in prison without parole is justice enough for killing someone. The you kill us so we kill you back is a two wrongs making it right argument.

    "I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete."

    You've still got the much longer and more expensive initial trial, pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection and any appeals. 

    " I don't get how punishments can be made to prevent crime. "

    Rehabilitation is one such punishment that can prevent crime. The current system is not working I agree, but an eye for an eye approach is not the answer in my opinion. 

    "You said that killing a person who committed genocide should be allowed depending on the circumstance."

    That circumstance being witnessing a genocide in person. As I've said, if you're relying on 3rd party information from the media, it's fallible.

    Even if I saw a person killing someone myself for instance, I would attempt to disable the person. If he was killed unintentionally is the circumstance. 

    "I agree that certain circumstances can allow a criminal to not be put on the death row, such as having a serious mental disorder."

    In my opinion, intentional murder almost always stems from some mental disorder. Not one of us is born with intentions to kill another human. In essence, teaching people not to kill by killing is hypocritical, and a newer system is needed.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 465 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Say a 21 year old is driving home drunk (not that I condone this) after his birthday. Hits an old lady crossing a highway. Off with his head? He technically just murdered someone. Is he a danger to society? Should we NOT give him a chance at life?
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 265 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 21 Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    Say a 21 year old is driving home drunk (not that I condone this) after his birthday. Hits an old lady crossing a highway. Off with his head? He technically just murdered someone. Is he a danger to society? Should we NOT give him a chance at life?
    No, the 21 year old isn't guilty of murder, as there was no malice aforethought.  He would be guilty of a conscious disregard for human life; in other words, manslaughter.
    Erfisflat
  • @Erfisflat Like CYDdharta stated the 21 year old isn't guilty. It was also not premeditated
    Erfisflat
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 87 Pts
    edited August 23
    @Erfisflat

    "Life in prison without parole is justice enough for killing someone. The you kill us so we kill you back is a two wrongs making it right argument."

    I have already made an argument against this. Taking care of murderers isn't justice. I made the argument that people in poverty are in worse situations than these criminals. Criminals get sufficient meals and shelter. People in poverty (even when using welfare) barely get enough for three meals and are nowhere near getting enough money for shelter. This would mean that murdering someone would be a better option for them. It isn't two wrongs. I don't consider killing a murderer a wrong.

    "You've still got the much longer and more expensive initial trial, pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection and any appeals."

    This trial is present for any crime. Even if you want to send a murderer to prison you will need this.

    "Rehabilitation is one such punishment that can prevent crime. The current system is not working I agree, but an eye for an eye approach is not the answer in my opinion."

    Rehabilitation isn't a punishment. Rehabilitation is also not 100% effective, and is only effective for some people. Releasing them into the public after rehabilitation is risky as well. Many more innocent lives can be taken.

    "That circumstance being witnessing a genocide in person. As I've said, if you're relying on 3rd party information from the media, it's fallible."

    Yes I agree. Witnesses aren't solely enough for infallible evidence.

    "In my opinion, intentional murder almost always stems from some mental disorder. Not one of us is born with intentions to kill another human. In essence, teaching people not to kill by killing is hypocritical, and a newer system is needed."

    None of us are born with the intentions of saving another human either. These are developed morals. Some people know that murder is wrong. They just don't care. It might be for a good reason or a bad reason that they don't care, but it is still a thing. A good reason might be because it was necessary for self-defense, and so the killer didn't care in the moment. A bad reason might be because the killer was doing theft. In the bad case, the killer didn't have a mental disorder. He was simply selfish by killing another for his own gains. Being selfish is a basic human trait, and it is just more prevalent in some. We teach people not kill only when they are little. Many things we tell little kids are to just hide them from the truth. It is almost impossible to have a moral society without killing. Without a military killing our enemies, we would get overrun and face a worse situation. If someone is about to kill you it is possible to kill them in self defense. This is also acceptable as you have said. If we can kill in these situations, it is not hypocritical to kill.

    Honestly, I think your rehab solution is morally good, but I just don't think it would work. Rehab has been proven to be extremely costly, whenever trying to include many people in it (let alone all the murderers in prison right now). It has also been proven to be ineffective and in some cases dangerous as I have stated before.
    Erfisflat
  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    I'll weigh in here. 

    I think we've established that while the cost should be considered, this debate is about morality.

    That said, my opinion is that there's two sides to this argument on the pro side (For Capital Punishment) that are central to one idea:

    ~Murderers have to be stopped~

    Firstly: The concept of justice is not simply reactionary, in fact it's mostly proactive which is why the laws on what you can and cannot do encompass the majority of any legal code while the repercussions for violating those laws are usually just 25% of a page for each violation.  So in keeping with the proactive approach in regards to justice, as a nation of civilized people we have to focus more heavily on preventing the need for justice than exacting justice itself. 

    The threat of punishment is only as effective as it is credible.  So essentially, if you kill someone as punishment for a crime...it's sends a clear message to future would-be criminals of that caliber..."Make this mistake and we'll kill you".  History, if nothing else, serves as epirical proof that the threat of imprisonment is insufficient to convince our civilized population that they shouldn't murder each other.  The threat of death serves as the ultimate warning within the realm of socially acceptable humane punishment, but only if people actually believe that you will follow through with the threat...enter the death penalty.

    Secondly: Tied into the first point is the idea that the statute of limitations for "Self-defense" extends much further in regards to national response than at the personal level.  We as people have the right to stop someone from seriously hurting or killing us by using lethal force and in layman's terms "We can kill people to stop them from hurting or killing us".  At a national level though, we can kill people to not only stop that specific person from hurting us but to also make strides in preventing others like them from attempting the same thing in the future.  Essentially, the death penalty IS self-defense.  On one hand we're killing the person who tried to kill us in order to prevent them from doing it again.  If it was premeditated then it stands to reason that we have all the evidence and reason to believe that they will do it again and so while not necessarily in the moment of life and death...the act of ending their life is in essence the defense of our own life.  Subsequently we're also furthering our own self-defense by establishing in the harshest way possible that Murder will not be tolerated and reducing the chances substantially that we will receive an attack on our life.  The statistics on countries with versus without the death penalty in regards to homicide rate can be found here:

    https://fullfact.org/news/do-countries-death-penalty-have-higher-homicide-rates/

    Unfortunately there's not enough accounted for variables to get an accurate picture of anything other than some countries have higher homicide rates with AND without the death penalty and some countries have lower.  Keep in mind some countries have different statutes for Homicide and as I said...there's not enough data to really conclude much other than we just really don't know definitively that the death penalty is or isn't an effective deterrent. 

    Lastly I'll toss this one out there for fun: If we took a "No death penalty" approach for crimes then what would you do with an Adolf Hitler?  I know it's extreme but I like working with extremes so let's go with a serial child rapist and murderer who's managed to successfully rampage for 10 years without being caught.  Let's say that he's racked up about 50 or so children under the age of 5, raped all of them and then slowly murdered each one.  What would you do with him?  Lock him up in a cell next to the guy who stole cars for 20 years?  Would you put him in solitary confinement like you did with the serial arsonist who destroyed 10 buildings downtown?  There's not exactly a way to even out the punishment...at some point giving someone 10,000,000 consecutive life sentences just sounds stupid.

  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @SnakesOfferingApples Innocent people get imprisoned for life. Should we stop imprisonment? Innocent people die in war. Should we stop war? (In the case where the war is for a good cause) One in 25 people end up in the hospital due to hospital acquired infections. Should we stop hospitals? The numbers one leading cause of illness is hospital related (wrong medication being the main cause). Should we stop all of that? Innocent people die all the time. We still have to try our best to solve everything, even though it is impossible.

    I have already made an argument about the cost, in response to ertisflat.
    Regarding cost: "I agree you might have refuted one of my arguments: "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower," but once again, it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost. I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete."
    The second trial is obsolete because it determines whether the murderer was cruel enough for an execution. I think all murderers are cruel enough for an execution, so the funding for the second trial should go into the first trial to save more innocent people. Innocent people usually go to the death row because of a bad defense from their underfunded lawyers. Free lawyers are underfunded and increasing funds to them can save many innocent people from wrong convictions. This is a major flaw in court which causes rich people to have less wrong convictions.

    I did not intend to phrase this argument in a way which is misleading. I added the word "murderer" to specify what kind of criminal we are dealing with. Last time I tried to argue with someone about capital punishment she brought up how drug dealers in southeast asia are getting executed which had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    I have made some other points in my previous posts as well.
    1 - Just because it is a minority doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything, death is THE END! If we accidentally imprison, infect, etc there will always be compensation - don't pretend that imprisonment is the same as death. (And also - Really? Of course, we should always prevent and avoid war even if it is for a good cause. Which is a nitpicking, by the way.)

    2 - I agree that cost doesn't matter in terms of justice, but the death penalty fails on all fronts of justice according to deathpenalty.org, so the cost starts to matter more if the system is a failing one. (It fails to bring closure to the families who were affected by the murders of the accused, it is cruel and painful, and most importantly has killed innocent people who have no compensation.)

    3 - Ok so is it accused murderers or just murderers? Because right now, it seems like moral ransom - I will drop this though because it is irrelevant, it just something that kind of ticked me off at the moment because such cases happen a lot in my debate class and it's usually to give one side the upper hand.

    P.S Apologies for my lateness I am preparing for school, so I don't have much time anymore. 
  • ImbsterImbster 93 Pts
    edited August 26
    I'd like to mention the whole chapter of Exodus 21 supports such customs with any type of interpretation.

    Several testimonies state that Moses actually listened to God and executed these laws.

    1. I'm religious I support anything God supports- There you have it! Stop being picky and and just reading the 10 commandments repeatedly.
    2. I'm not religious- Well let's just say God told men to kill men and didn't dare stop.

    If God doesn't think killing a murderer, a law offender is not inhumane then why shouldn't humans? We have a population to a balance even God's almighty omniscience comprehended this. He don't start letting death touch people other humans would be forced to adapt gills.

    If we're talking about morality here well religious logic, whatever God promotes must be moral since he is omnibenevolent. Here you have it! It says and I quote Exodus 21:17 NIV ""Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession". Look at any version and the wages of kidnapping is death. What does the political system of USA or even the international system, United nations, demand again if someone is kidnapped?

    Exodus 21:16 NIV "But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death."

    Yeah I'd like to see someone give a metaphorical interpretation that doesn't imply taking the murderer's life with this verse.

    Why could God have said these things? Simple. You only die physically but not spiritually and so I ask of the Catholics why do you care about a murderer getting killed when it's just physical death? Even God doesn't care cause the good guys have a faster ticket to heaven and bad guys teleport in a zap to hellfire and eternal spear-stabbing.

    God is also above the law, above his own Word such that he can extend anytime and say "You shall not kill unless I say so"

    There you have it, don't blast me with the 10 commandments oh please that wasn't the only law, people couldn't follow simple rules so God had to hand down death penalty. Such statement in the Bible is significant even if only mentioned once for this whole chapter could be a basis for argumentation.
  • @Imbster

    This isn't about God, this is simply about the death penalty, why are you trying to divert the conversation?
  • @SnakesOfferingApples

    That was just weakening leaning on God for moral basis for religious people in the light of killing a murderer.

       Murder is always defined as unlawful and killing a murderer is quite a life for a life. If we were to take Cardinal Tagle's father as an example, that is a weird case to deal with. His father may have been murdered by a fellow church guy but the man seems changed now anew attending seminars, doing church service but I would still condemn him to die.

       He was still responsible for someone's death Heck since the talk of probability was early about innocent people getting framed how about murderers who get away and change like this example of a man? He starts paying taxes, He plays with kids, He helps the neighbourhood. Has he done much to become friendly neighbourhood ex-murderer?

    http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Death-penalty-is-just-plain-wrong-1349891.php
    "Society murders individuals..."

    Hold up, it's not murder because it is lawful with political basis from across many countries and past text.

    While there are many biases as mentioned in above arguments. The murderer must die for killing someone. I wouldn't be happy with giving a life sentence knowing the murderer killed a family guy for whatever reason and he's gonna get the average care as someone who jaywalked because everyone will condemn me for imposing such punishment. The state is to apply any punishment befitting the offender and this would be highly opinionated on the judge if the offender is acting murderous to everyone in the room surely he will die or be confined to a higher place compared to a calm and repentant murderer, this should not be the case and both befit death penalty.
  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    @SnakesOfferingApples

    The statement @Imbster made regarding God and religion is related to the debate at hand because while the topic is about the Death Penalty, the debate itself is whether or not it's wrong.  So to clarify we're debating about what "Ought" to be and not about what simply is.  In order to determine whether or not something ought to be a certain way we must consider morality. 

    Since morality is not of the physical world and Science (While I'm sure scientists have tried) cannot explain it...then it is Supernatural.  The VAST majority of the U.S. is still a God believing country according to recent Gallup polls and therefor it stands to good reason that any discussion about morality will lean towards a discussion about God.  Therefor, from a U.S. standpoint...the topic of this conversation very much has to do with God.

    Likewise the debate says nothing about the current U.S. laws regarding the death penalty...but since the U.S. laws on the death penalty are one of the standards we use to determine right and wrong...it also has a place in this conversation. 

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx

    SnakesOfferingApples
  • @Vaulk

    1 - Morality can entirely be based on science, an example of this is gay marriage - 

    - It was wrong back then because it didn't expand the population and it was thought to be unnatural.  But now since science has come out to say that's it's completely normal most people are ok with it.

    2 - It doesn't matter that majority of Americans think that God exists, most people also think that God should stay out of our courts. 


    Vaulk
  • @Imbster

    Leaving out the religious mumbo jumbo, ( because of separation of church and state). the punishment of captivity is the reduction of personal freedoms, and there is a clear time disparity between someone who jay walked and a murderer, their punishments are nowhere near as close. 

    What would you do if you accidentally executed an innocent man? How would you have executed him, without violating the 8th amendment? (Because lethal injection is torture) How do you know that you have committed justice? Are the families of the victims justified? If you have killed an innocent man, how would you then provide compensation or justice to him?

    You must answer these questions before you can stand in affirmation of the death penalty.
  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    @SnakesOfferingApples,

    The law of the land is not in question and arguing that something being illegal makes it immoral is innaccurate at best.  Spitting in front of a Woman or Child used to be illegal in some parts of the U.S. and still is if I'm not mistaken but the point is that the law is not the ultimate authority on what is and is not Moral.  Laws did not come before morals. 

    To respond to
    @Vaulk

    1 - Morality can entirely be based on science
    This is true and I don't contest it, just as laws can entirely be based on the whim of an oppressive tyrant.  Again we're not talking about what is but what "Ought to be" and subsequently Morality.  Just because you base something on science does not mean that it's a fact or necessarily true.  Morality exists outside the physical and natural realm (Science is the study of the physical and natural realm) and therefor is supernatural.

    Your argument does nothing to refute mine.  Arguing that an individual can base their morality on science does nothing to refute that morality is supernatural.  I can base my supernatural beliefs on science...that doesn't mean that the supernatural is in fact scientifically sound. 

    Also you've made an argument from assumption and subsequently without any supporting evidence that
    @Vaulk

     It was wrong back then because it didn't expand the population and it was thought to be unnatural. 
    Exactly who told you this?  Where did you get this information?  You and I need to discuss your ability to have lived long enough to know this from first hand experience because you stated this as if it were a fact.  So either you were alive back when it was thought to be unnatural and your horizon's were absurdly broad, or you just made this up because it sounds decent and supports your argument.  Either way this is a logical fallacy.

    @Vaulk

    2 - It doesn't matter that majority of Americans think that God exists, most people also think that God should stay out of our courts.
    What's it called when you make an argument based on logical deduction and someone uses an irrelevant statement to unfairly compare two things with seperate contexts?  When you do it while appealing to popular belief or suggesting that many people simply believe a certain way...it's called the Bandwagon Fallacy.  People believing that God should be kept out of the Courtroom is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether or not Capital Punishment is wrong.  We're not here to discuss what the law says about capital punishment otherwise this debate would already be over.  Instead we're here to discuss whether or not it's wrong and that means we have to dive into morality.  I've already explained through logical deduction how morality is tied to the supernatural so I won't go beating that horse.

    I pass the speaking stick to you.
    SnakesOfferingApples
  • edited August 31
    @Vaulk


    QUOTE 1


    " This is true and I don't contest it, just as laws can entirely be based on the whim of an oppressive tyrant.  Again we're not talking about what is but what "Ought to be" and subsequently Morality.  Just because you base something on science does not mean that it's a fact or necessarily true.  Morality exists outside the physical and natural realm (Science is the study of the physical and natural realm) and therefor is supernatural.

    Your argument does nothing to refute mine.  Arguing that an individual can base their morality on science does nothing to refute that morality is supernatural.  I can base my supernatural beliefs on science...that doesn't mean that the supernatural is in fact scientifically sound.  

    Also you've made an argument from assumption and subsequently without any supporting evidence that" 

    RESPONSE 1

    First of all addressing the obvious straw man, you say that I don't provide any evidence for the fact that "Morality can be based entirely on science" when one I give you an example of homosexuality, and I made a clear distinction that "Most Americans want God out of their court rooms" This is because of separation of church and state which I clearly mentioned. 

    Secondly, who says that science can't say what we ought to do? Morality is very much like science in a sense that it is trial and error, you don't know that pointing at someone is rude until you talk to someone who has pointed at someone, or until you do it. Here is this in action - This person that I just pointed to was hurt by my action, thus I ought to not do it anymore. In many debate formats also such as in LD morality, law, and science collide. You seem to contradict yourself, where you agree that morality can be based on science, but then you also claim that morality is supernatural.


    QUOTE 2

    "Exactly who told you this?  Where did you get this information?  You and I need to discuss your ability to have lived long enough to know this from first hand experience because you stated this as if it were a fact.  So either you were alive back when it was thought to be unnatural and your horizon's were absurdly broad, or you just made this up because it sounds decent and supports your argument.  Either way this is a logical fallacy."


    RESPONSE 2

    So gay discrimination didn't exist, moreover, it was never recorded in history? You are going to ignore a whole period in history which was recorded just so you could go trigger happy with fallacies. I never made anything up - ever heard of this slur "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder
    (When homosexuality stopped being a mental disorder)

     The fact that homosexual discrimination existed is common knowledge, and assuming common knowledge is not a logical fallacy (It's a completely logical part of game theory). The main reason for homosexuality being taboo was because it was thought of to be unnatural by the majority, what part was vague about that? (Rhetorical) Nothing


    QUOTE 3

    "What's it called when you make an argument based on logical deduction and someone uses an irrelevant statement to unfairly compare two things with seperate contexts?  When you do it while appealing to popular belief or suggesting that many people simply believe a certain way...it's called the Bandwagon Fallacy.  People believing that God should be kept out of the Courtroom is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether or not Capital Punishment is wrong.  We're not here to discuss what the law says about capital punishment otherwise this debate would already be over.  Instead we're here to discuss whether or not it's wrong and that means we have to dive into morality.  I've already explained through logical deduction how morality is tied to the supernatural so I won't go beating that horse."


    RESPONSE 3
    The death penalty is legalistic - so God should stay out of a legalistic debate by U.S law - because of obvious conflicts between religious beliefs and diversity among religions would arise. When I committed the bandwagon fallacy I was only entertaining your fallacious ideas. (Just because many Americans are religious it doesn't justify the inclusion of religion in a legalistic setting.) This is in a way a bandwagon fallacy in itself, if not that then it is a
    non-sequitur.

    Because most Americans are religious, religion is relevant to the topic of the Death Penalty. It doesn't follow.
  • VaulkVaulk 239 Pts
    edited September 1
    @SnakesOfferingApples,

    1. The separation of church and state is irrelevant as to what "Most americans want" unless you can show that most americans agree with it which you haven't.  I didn't introduce this argument therefor I do not bear the burden of proof.

    2.  Science cannot say what we "Ought" to do because Morality is beyond scientific understanding.  I've already explained twice how morality is beyond the physical and natural world and at this point you're beating a dead horse.  I agreed that  Morality can be based upon science...that doesn't make it right.  You can base your logic on a misunderstanding and therefor your logic would be flawed but none-the-less based on a misunderstanding.  This is the degree to which morality can be based upon science...you can do it...but then you'd be incorrect in your understanding of morality.  People are entitled to be wrong if they choose.

    In addition to this, pointing at someone can be considered rude but is not morally wrong.  Your example is an unfair comparison and a logical fallacy in that you've tried to compare pointing at someone as being rude as a trial and error and compared that to discovering morality.  Being rude is mutually exclusive to being Immoral in that one does not neccessitate the other.  Likewise hurting someone's feelings is not the same as behaving immorally.  Immoral hahavior can hurt feelings but it's not an automatic qualification and therfor is a faulty comparison in your example. 

    3. You've taken my request for proof (As you introduced the statement, you have the burden of proof) and twisted it into a suggestion that I somehow disbelieve that gay discrimination ever existed.  You've intentionally misrepresented my argument in an attempt to undermine my rebuttal instead of addressing it outright.  This is called a Red Herring.  I never said that gay discrimination didn't happen, I didn't suggest it, infer it or hint to it in any way, shape or form.  In addition to this, the fact that you or I may have heard a slur does not qualify your previous argument that gay marriage wasn't legal because "It didn't expand the population and it was thought to be unnatural".

    4.  Again we're here to debate what ought to be, not what currently is.  The fact that the death penalty is part of our law is irrelevant in this debate as the law is simply what currently is.  This is not a "Legalistic debate", it is a debate about what ought to be and therefor Morality.  And I never said that because most Americans are religions then religion is relevant to the topic of the debate.  I said...and I'm repeating myself here, that Religion is where a majority of Americans derrive Morality and since this debate is concerning what is morally wrong, then the majority of Americans will undoubtedly make references to God and Religion and rightfully so as to qualify an opinion on Morality with supporting arguments. 

    Let me end on an example.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien-able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  This statement from our Declaration of Independence is concerning Morality, what "Ought to be".  It is concerning human rights...specifically "Our" human rights.  And our founding fathers, at the time of this Nation's establishment, cemented our unalien-able rights by qualifiying them as entitlements from "Our Creator".  This is a CLASSIC example of how Moral laws came to be in the United States, there are few things in this world that would be considered of higher moral importance than Human Rights and OUR human rights are guaranteed to us because they are bestowed upon us from a higher authority than the Government....God.

    Therefor it stands to good reason with high authority that any discussion about whether or not something in our Law is Morally right will ultimately lead to a discussion that includes God and Religion.  God and Religion are fundamental in our Declaration of independence, fundamental to our Human Rights and fundamental to our Freedom.  Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to mention God and Religion in this debate.
  • edited September 6
    @Vaulk

    INTRO
    - I apologize for my tardiness as I have been busy with school interviews, tours, etc. 

    QUOTE 1 - "1. The separation of church and state is irrelevant as to what "Most Americans want" unless you can show that most Americans agree with it which you haven't.  I didn't introduce this argument, therefore, I do not bear the burden of proof."

    RESPONSE 1 -  Easy. U.S law is determined democratically by majority rule. The separation of church and state is a part of U.S law. Thus the separation of church and state was approved by the majority. Again this is common knowledge, it is not a fallacy to assume so. If you are ignorant as to how the U.S functions, why bring it up in the first place?

    QUOTE 2 -  "Science cannot say what we "Ought" to do because Morality is beyond scientific understanding.  I've already explained twice how morality is beyond the physical and natural world and at this point, you're beating a dead horse.  I agreed that  Morality can be based upon science...that doesn't make it right.  You can base your logic on a misunderstanding and therefore your logic would be flawed but none-the-less based on a misunderstanding.  This is the degree to which morality can be based upon science...you can do it...but then you'd be incorrect in your understanding of morality.  People are entitled to be wrong if they choose."

    In addition to this, pointing at someone can be considered rude but is not morally wrong.  Your example is an unfair comparison and a logical fallacy in that you've tried to compare pointing at someone as being rude as a trial and error and compared that to discovering morality.  Being rude is mutually exclusive to being Immoral in that one does not necessitate the other.  Likewise hurting someone's feelings is not the same as behaving immorally.  Immoral behavior can hurt feelings but it's not an automatic qualification and therefore is a faulty comparison in your example."

    RESPONSE 2 -  You seem to be taking some creative liberties as to what the definition of morality is, so I looked up the actual definition - 

    1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
      synonyms:ethics, rights, and wrongs, ethicality More
      • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
        plural noun: moralities
        "a bourgeois morality"
      • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
        "Behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
    So it's just principles of right and wrong.

    So science can understand why people think a certain way (psychology, neuroscience, etc.) 
    Can motivate people to act a certain way (you even admit this yourself) 
    That's why science can understand morality.

    Not only that, but I think you interpret morality as an ultimatum, but it isn't one. It's simply right and wrong, so my example of "pointing" is still applicable, because hurting someone's emotions is not ok, (there is a nuance to this, but I'm speaking generally.)

    QUOTE 3 - "You've taken my request for proof (As you introduced the statement, you have the burden of proof) and twisted it into a suggestion that I somehow disbelieve that gay discrimination ever existed.  You've intentionally misrepresented my argument in an attempt to undermine my rebuttal instead of addressing it outright.  This is called a Red Herring.  I never said that gay discrimination didn't happen, I didn't suggest it, infer it or hint to it in any way, shape or form.  In addition to this, the fact that you or I may have heard a slur does not qualify your previous argument that gay marriage wasn't legal because "It didn't expand the population and it was thought to be unnatural". 

    It's getting a bit frustrating attacking this frivolous point.

    RESPONSE 3 - I used homosexuality to point to a transformative morality based on science, then you said to provide proof of this type of thinking, at which point I rightfully assumed you were talking about homosexuality discrimination because the reasoning I gave of "It didn't expand the population and it was thought to be unnatural" is irrelevant (making your argument more of a Red Herring). Assume that I provided no reason, "Homosexuality was thought of as wrong, but now because of scientific discoveries, people have changed their views on the issue." Does that change the meat of the argument? No. P.S The homosexual slur of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a slur directed at the natural parts of sexuality alluding to the fact that homosexuality is not natural it's like saying "Men are made to procreate with women, not other men, thus homosexuality is wrong"  You attack things which are so irrelevant and so known that it's become frustrating to respond to them. What's next? Are you going to argue against the existence of oxygen? (Note this is a comedic effect known as a hyperbole, not a fallacy, don't get trigger happy now :I )

    QUOTE 4  - Again we're here to debate what ought to be, not what currently is.  The fact that the death penalty is part of our law is irrelevant in this debate as the law is simply what currently is.  This is not a "Legalistic debate", it is a debate about what ought to be and therefore Morality.  And I never said that because most Americans are religious then religion is relevant to the topic of the debate.  I said...and I'm repeating myself here, that Religion is where a majority of Americans derive Morality and since this debate is concerning what is morally wrong, then the majority of Americans will undoubtedly make references to God and Religion and rightfully so as to qualify an opinion on Morality with supporting arguments.  

    Let me end on an example.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  This statement from our Declaration of Independence is concerning Morality, what "Ought to be".  It is concerning human rights...specifically "Our" human rights.  And our founding fathers, at the time of this Nation's establishment, cemented our unalienable rights by qualifying them as entitlements from "Our Creator".  This is a CLASSIC example of how Moral laws came to be in the United States, there are few things in this world that would be considered of higher moral importance than Human Rights and OUR human rights are guaranteed to us because they are bestowed upon us from a higher authority than the Government....God.

    Therefore it stands to good reason with high authority that any discussion about whether or not something in our Law is Morally right will ultimately lead to a discussion that includes God and Religion.  God and Religion are fundamental in our Declaration of independence, fundamental to our Human Rights and fundamental to our Freedom.  Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to mention God and Religion in this debate."

    RESPONSE 4 - I agree that the death penalty can and is a moral issue, (but I also I believe that the issue still concerns law since the death penalty is already in effect, and by your logic of ought and is then the death penalty falls under is because it's still legal in some states.) But that and the bandwagon fallacy aside - (Just because most Americans will make reference to God doesn't mean he should be included in the discussion), we don't need God or the supernatural to define morality. Imagine the Ancient Greeks, their Gods have been debunked so when the Greeks developed a moral system, how did they do it without a God? They did it because they didn't need one.

    As for the Declaration and Constitution, looking at the non-existent role God plays in deciding law in America, I would say the "evidence" you're providing is nothing more than poetry to suggest "Hey all humans should be born with these rights" It's like me saying "I swear to God" it just adds kick to my statement and is nothing more than a rhetorical device.

    P.S - There are so many Gods 

    This is how the discussion would go - Person A believes in God A, Person B believes in God B.

    Person A - My God says murder is wrong, so no death penalty.
    Person B - My God says murder is ok if the person killed was a sinner. 
    One Catch - Both people claim to believe in the "One True God"

    Who do we listen to?

    God or the idea of God, has no credibility, I mentioned this in a previous argument, but you didn't respond to it.



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch