The Instigator
MeganLoaskia
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

3 men 1 hammer should not be online

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,463 times Debate No: 11594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (4)

 

MeganLoaskia

Pro

Firstly for the people who don"t know, 2 men 1 hammer is horrific, namelessly the most disturbing video to be ever leaked online, I will post post the link as i advise if you want to watch it to look it up on Google , i Highly advise you did"t unless you have a very strong stomach.

These two Ukrainian men brutalized and subjected many people to unthinkable torture, Including animals, pregnant women etc.

My argument is that this video is unsuitable and it should have never been leaked online giving the killers the credibility of haing an audience.

Thank you.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate and look forward to a solid exchange.

The Story:
In 2007, two Ukrainian men went on a murder spree killing about 21 people. They videotaped some of the murders and one was leaked on the net. The killers were sentenced to life imprisonment and a third accomplice received nine years for his role. http://www.unian.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The video of one murder made the rounds and greatly affected those who watched it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
The video is horrific and the images will stick with you; it is truly disturbing.

I am not interested in re trying the case as this debate is about the video. For the purposes of this debate, I will stipulate the video is real and an actual murder took place on camera.

Pro's position is that the video should not have been put online because the availability gives the murders credit for the killings. I think by credit she means celebrity status, as the video implicated them in the crime regardless of the fact that it made the net.

Con's Position:
I agree these two killers will be idolized by some people and many will find the horror fascinating, but the video also forces one to put her cards on the table and stand by her convictions in the face of the sheer depravity humans are capable committing. I support the position that every person should watch the video before claiming any position related to crime and punishment.

I come by my liberalism honestly. I am well aware of the heinousness of crime, yet I do not support beating and torturing the worst of us and I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty as a domestic penalty. This video did not change my position, but viewing this will force us to look deeper at the positions we hold concerning crime. This video is a gut check to say the least. Some may find the video to be proof that some criminals should be put to death. Some may empathize with police who deal with these matters everyday. This video brings out many emotions and puts the nature of crime in an unedited, unscripted, real life manner. Many people have never come face to face with such a scenario yet these same people can rattle of all the right rhetoric concerning crime and society.

Brutal murder is a great Hollywood business. We have many movies featuring mobsters torturing then murdering victims (Goodfellas, Casino, Scarface, etc) and the torturers are the heroes of the film in most cases. Mobsters have done this sort of thing for hundreds of years and they are idolized because the movies have desensitized audiences to violent crime by portraying it in a fictional world where the actors get up after the camera is turned off. Real life mobsters are made out to be tough guys and celebrities. This video reminds all of us that nothing is glamorous about murder in this fashion.

The murder video, although heinous, will show the world what true crime is like in real life, not television; therefore, citizens will have a better view on matters concerning crime and punishment so as to evaluate criminal laws in a more informed light.

COST/BENEFIT
If Pro can show that the negative aspects of this video being on the net outweigh the benefit of citizens being more aware of real life crime then I urge a vote for Pro. At this point, her only complaint is that the video gives the criminals an audience. I do not see this as being a bad thing. I want the world to see this and search deep. Information, in this case, is not a bad thing.
Debate Round No. 1
MeganLoaskia

Pro

I thank my opponent for uptaking this debate., I agree upmostly this video is very disturbing and shows the worst sort of mentality a human can ever have,Now these Ukranian men were not just " killers" they were tortures highly disturbed and probably lacked self motivation and self esteem.

Con"s argument is that this video should have its avaliability online as it shows people the "sheer depravity" humans ar capable of thinking, i have no doubt con that this is true, but also by watching the video and suggesting it to friends is purely giving the killers some sort of descrete credibility for their actions as lets face this logically thats exactly why they recording their Killing.

Con also explains this vide gives chance for people to be aware of what punishment they could face and to feel remorse with the police on what they have to deal with. Whilst they are all true they give no real justification why people are so fascinated by this video , thus suggesting it to friends and slightly exploiting it for they"re own entertainment.

Pros Position.
I do believe this video has and is being used for entertainment purposes for the fact if you look on youtube there is various videos Looking at peoples " reactions" some whom may be intrigued some who may have a strong stomach and not think much of the video at all.

Please dont get it wrong i can understand that Curiosity leads people to watch this video but for people who are ecspecially sensitive it can cause alot of disturbing memories not to mention the shear sadness and pain this video is causing to the victims Famiy, knowing people worldwide have watched their son, father, uncle brutualised on camera without being able to defend Himself.

Also they're is no true limits on who can copyright this video now there is many wesbites offering the same video with the advantage of having various chatrooms thus making money out of these horrific killers.

I ask Con why we need that video online to give people a perspective of how crime is really done ? , why do we need to watch this video ? apart from curiosity i have no other reasons.

Me being a true liberal , i don't condone the death penality is any way but i truely believe this video will make people have a skeptic view on capital punishment.

CONCLUSION

I am aware of where my opponent is coming from but he/she hasn't give me any real justification other than curiosity and minimal knowledge on crime and punishment why this video should still be online ?, Its horrific and disturbing its exploiting the victim and the victms familes, and although it may not be on purpose it IS giving the ukranian killers advantage of having an audience whether god or bad. I stand clear on my position and thank my opponent for the intresting argument.
Vote Pro!.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank Pro for her response. After reading her refutations, I still support the Con position.

Pro addressed several issues, but some are not contested by Con. I fully agreed in my RD 1 response that many would be fascinated by the video. I said very clearly, "I agree these two killers will be idolized by some people and many will find the horror fascinating" (Rd 1). I am not contesting this issue, so any points (including the video) are agreed upon. Pro needs to show these points of agreement override my points of contentions.

Pro presents her next point i.e. the killers want this attention and that, logically, that is the only reason they recorded it. Pro is probably right. The killers stated they intended the videos to be sold in the market for "snuff films" and that sort of thing. The goal was to sell them, and now they cannot. The killers received life sentences from the videos, not money. The do have the recognition for the killings, but their confessions accomplished the same goal. The killers would have the recognition for murdering 20 plus people without the videos so I do not see how this could have been prevented. Several serial killers are world famous (Bundy, Zodiac, Dahmer, etc) without any videos. Due to the fascination people have with these killers, the fame will follow. I see no way to prevent it from happening.

Pro feels people are watching the video for entertainment purposes. I agree. I never contested this point. Now, for the websites making money from the video, I ask for proof as I can find the video for free on pages with no advertisements and no charges. I do not know how anyone is making money from this video.

Pro asks, "I ask Con why we need that video online to give people a perspective of how crime is really done? [W]hy do we need to watch this video ?"

I answered both of these questions in RD 1.

In her conclusion, Pro states the Con position shows no real justification as the video only provides minimal knowledge of crime. I adamantly disagree. In support I offer Pro's words, "Me being a true liberal , i don't condone the death penality (sic) is any way but i truely (sic) believe this video will make people have a skeptic view on capital punishment."

If this video will affect a person's view of the death penalty, then we cannot call the effect minor. I firmly support that many anti death penalty advocates will pause after seeing this because some of these proponents have never witnessed a crime of this nature. I recommend state executions to be made public so people can see what they support. People need to witness the true nature of crime and punishment before forming an opinion since these people elect the law makers. Claiming opposition to the death penalty by only watching movies is equivalent to forming an opinion on prostitution after watching "Pretty Woman". Knowledge of true crime for a citizenry who votes on law makers is far from a minor point.

Pro's best point is that of exploitation of the victims. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped when dealing with serial killers. Pictures of victims are displayed and their actions are brought forward to the public with or without a video of the crime. Many victims have been subjected to harsh criticism in the courts and little can be done to prevent it due to the nature of criminal prosecution. Outside the courts, things do not get better. Murder victims and their killers are on public record so news outlets have close to free reign when dealing with this information. As will the point Pro offered concerning the fame the killers receive, this exploitation will result without the video so it is not relevant to the presentation of the video itself.
Debate Round No. 2
MeganLoaskia

Pro

MeganLoaskia forfeited this round.
sherlockmethod

Con

My conclusion will be short since Pro was unable to offer one. The video in question is indeed disturbing. In a country where citizens are asked to vote on lawmakers and must sit on juries so as to decide the fate of criminals, a true picture of crime is needed to allow for the most informed voters. This video does so in striking fashion. I offered Pro an opportunity to use a cost/benefit analysis to weigh the object of my concern, informed citizenry, verses one of people using the video for entertainment purposes. She did not do this. As Pro she had a burden that, without her final round, she could not meet. Vote Con and I recommend this debate be offered again will full argumentation from both sides.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
You gave yourself the spelling point? Cute.
Posted by MeganLoaskia 7 years ago
MeganLoaskia
Ha. " known " sounds so official, I have been forfieted by people on here too & as for the votebombing, Ive voted for myself in occasions where the opponent has forfeited or nobodys voting.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
MeganLoaskia is know for two things, forfeiting, and vote bombing...
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Sure thing tboone,
Make it public. Bring the kids. I think public executions would be the fastest means of eliminating the death penalty.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Definitely death penalty. Should bring back the guillotine! It's cheap & leaves a lasting impression.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Con actually convinced me on this; however, I was impartial at the start.
Posted by MeganLoaskia 7 years ago
MeganLoaskia
No i don't agree for the fact i am debating this topic and have described the brutality of it, i have not posted any link to this video.If people want to watch it its their own choice therfore i won't take responsibility for it, In fact im doing the complete opposite warning people and dicussing it.
Posted by dollydo 7 years ago
dollydo
Aren't you just promoting what you say you are against? By deciding to debate this topic you are just bringing to light this horrific event caught on camera. I have never seen or heard about this video. But the fact that in order to give a fair vote, watching the video would be a crucial point. Therefore what you are trying to warn viewers about is actually going to cause adverse affects. By not talking about, or debating this video, you are not giving these killers a "so-called" audience you are referring to. Don't you agree?
Posted by MeganLoaskia 7 years ago
MeganLoaskia
sorry con for the slight spelling errors! good luck to you to :)
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
If anyone deserves the D penalty, it's those boys. But Ukraine is a capital punishment free place.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Doctor_Murray 7 years ago
Doctor_Murray
MeganLoaskiasherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
MeganLoaskiasherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MeganLoaskia 7 years ago
MeganLoaskia
MeganLoaskiasherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
MeganLoaskiasherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06