The Instigator
Erick
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,943 times Debate No: 13718
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Erick

Pro

Welcome to my debate!
Now, I will give off the key ideas that would come with the resolution.
1- The federal government compensates them with $50,000 per year of incarceration for exonerated felons.
2- All states have to expunge the criminal records of the wrongly convicted.

I will give my arguments and such in round 2, after I get my opponent and his acceptance of the debate.
Thank You.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

While the records should certainly be expunged, governments, like any other payers of civil compensation, can only justly be made liable for well-evidenced damages. Additionally, their liability cannot justly be capped at $50,000 annually per wrongful conviction. 50,000 is a random and arbitrary number. The proper procedure is for a civil trial to be presented before a judge at which the income of the person before imprisonment, the rate at which their income was increasing up to that point, and other relevant factors are considered, deciding an amount on a case by case basis, unless both parties agree on an out of court settlement.
Debate Round No. 1
Erick

Pro

My opponent, as I clearly stated in my first round, was to confirm his acceptance of the debate. He instead gave me his straight up thinking of the whole debate and that is sufficent enough I suppose. An addition to that, he did agree with the second condition of the bill; but not so much of the first. Anyway moving on to my why the first part should be approved.

I would like to say that the $50,000 annually rule is NOT a random and arbitrary number; it is a stable and reliable number for the wrongly convicted to have. The "proper" procedure that my opponent is trying to propose is not so proper whatsoever; first of all, relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do. In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job. Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again; it is an unfortunate situation that I wouldn't wish anyone to go through and because of the posible psychological and mental scars that could come from being wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of inprisionment is a reasonable idea to go with. To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".

This is why I urge you to vote Pro,
Thank You.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do."
It's perfectly rational, it's the major objective factor in how much harm they have suffered.

". In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job."
Whereas many of them DEFINITELY had a higher paying job than 50,000 a year. Uniqueness criterion.

"Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. "
They have not suffered equal damages, hence it wouldn't be fair. Should people whose Ferrari was blown up by someone receive the same compensation as someone whose old junker was?

:Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000.
There is nothing "Reliable" about that number-- it has no relation to damages or anything else but the fact that you ASSERT it's fair.

: To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again
It is to compensate them for damages.

:To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".You have not demonstrated it is fair, and previous income and rate of increase is entirely just. Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions.
Debate Round No. 2
Erick

Pro

1- "relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do."
It's perfectly rational, it's the major objective factor in how much harm they have suffered.

No, their previous money income does not whatsoever determine how much harm they have suffered; that is the money income they received before they were sent to jail, how does that even come close to become the amount they have suffered? The time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered, that is why depending on previous income is NOT a rational thing to do. That is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is a stable and reliable option to go with; because we don't know what the wrongly convicted could of accomplished while they were in jail, relying on $50,000 per year of incarcenation is the best option to go with.

2- ". In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job."
Whereas many of them DEFINITELY had a higher paying job than 50,000 a year. Uniqueness criterion.

And BECAUSE the government is trying to be fair, we must rely on a stable number; not numbers based on their past. We are not compensating them the money they could of made during the time they were wrongly convicted because that could be any number. We are are compensating them in order for them to be able to get back on their feet and $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair enough.

3- "Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. "
They have not suffered equal damages, hence it wouldn't be fair. Should people whose Ferrari was blown up by someone receive the same compensation as someone whose old junker was?

I understand they all didn't suffer equal damages but that is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair to them because we are basing it on the time they were wrongly convicted; we cannot "measure" the "damages" that they went through so the only way we can be fair is by paying them according to the amount of time they were wrongly convicted. That is the only way justice can be achieved. By comparing a Ferrari to an old junker are you trying to simulate that some people that were wrongly convicted are "better" than each other? If you are that is a pretty sad thing to do. An addition to that, basing their compensation on their previous money is unjust, it just creates further problems in the equal rights section of issues.

4- :Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000.
There is nothing "Reliable" about that number-- it has no relation to damages or anything else but the fact that you ASSERT it's fair.

That number IS reliable, that money is to pay off for the government's mistake in sending them to jail but more importantly to try to help them build their future again. How is that number NOT fair? That money can help them in MANY new ways, the way they choose to use it depends on their intentions on the money in itself; but the government would be doing its job to hold justice and compensate them for the government's mistake.

5- : To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again
It is to compensate them for damages.

And could it not also be used to help them rebuild their lifes?

6- :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".You have not demonstrated it is fair, and previous income and rate of increase is entirely just. Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions.

Yes I have demonstrated how it is fair, you should pay more attention and read carefully. I have clearly said many times that is fair because you are basing it on the amount of TIME they spent wrongly convicted. How is that NOT fair? You say "Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions." First of all, you give NO source but I will attack that statement even if you give no proof that is the definition of Justice. Anyway, would the government not be doing that if they accordingly give the wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of incarcenation? They are paying that amount for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail, so how is that not paying for the consequences of their actions? If the actions of the government were to send them to jail.

Conclusion:

My opponent doesn't agree with $50,000 per year of incarcenation because he wants to base the money the wrongly convicted get on previous income before getting put in jail but is that what we should really base the money we give them on? Should we really base it on their past? $50,000 per year of incarcenation provides many things for the wrongly convicted and it is FAIR because they would all get a certain amount depending on the amount they spent wrongly convicted, not based on their past. Basing on their past is the unjust idea, basing on their past is what we DON't need; basing on their past would ONLY create more problems and as you have noticed that is the LEAST thing we need.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

" The time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered,"
Bare assertion.

If I make a million dollars a year, and I have been in jail for a year, 50,000 dollars is total and utter crap. It comes nowhere near objective damages.
By contrast, if I make 10,000 dollars a year, I'm not just having my harms restored by having 50,000 dollars thrown my way, I'm getting a windfall. I'm BENEFITING from going to jail.

:he time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered That is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is a stable and reliable option to go with;
That does not even remotely follow. You have not made an argument for why 50,000 instead of 40,000 or 100,000. It's random. It might be "Stable" but so would those other numbers. "reliable" to produce what?

:And BECAUSE the government is trying to be fair, we must rely on a stable number
That does not follow either. This is not a syllogism, yet you present it as though it is. F therefore S is a premise, not an argument.

:We are not compensating them the money they could of made during the time they were wrongly convicted because that could be any number.
We are compensating them on the best guess available of the money they could made during the time wrongly convicted because THERE ARE OBJECTIVE FACTORS THAT ALLOW US TO MAKE A REASONABLE PREDICTION-- just like THE ENTIRETY OF THE REST OF LAW-AT EQUITY. When a court pursues compensation, there is NEVER certainty-- you can only rely on what the objective factors tell you is probable. 1 year therefore 50,000 means nothing. It's incoherent. It does not follow. There's a missing premise. Sure, you're basing it on time, but TIME AND WHAT? A syllogism, or an inductive simulation of one, needs TWO terms before a conclusion, NOT ONE. Guess what? Basing it on income means BASING IT ON TIME TOO. That means that basing it on income means you have MORE to base your decision on, NOT LESS.

:We are are compensating them in order for them to be able to get back on their feet
That's not what compensation means, that's pity money. If someone was on a mountain, putting them "On their feet" is not compensation, it's a goddamned insult. If someone was on their arse, putting them "On their feet" is a gift, not compensation. The purpose of compensation is, as best you can, to PUT THEM WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE.

"
I understand they all didn't suffer equal damages but that is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair to them because we are basing it on the time they were wrongly convicted"
Um, no. That premise is EXPLICITLY dependent on them suffering equal damages per time.

" we cannot "measure" the "damages" that they went through"
Sure we can. Not with certainty, but reasonable estimates at equity-- like HOW THE REST OF CIVIL LAW WORKS. By your argument, EVERY LAWSUIT EVER should be settled for 50,000 dollars per year stuff has been wrong. Someone steps on your daffodil a year ago? 50,000 dollars. Your factory destroys 10 people's homes that cost half a million dollars each when it explodes, a year ago? 50,000 dollars to each of them. this clearly makes no sense.

:By comparing a Ferrari to an old junker are you trying to simulate that some people that were wrongly convicted are "better" than each other?"
I'm not trying to "simulate" anything. I am stating that WHAT SOME OF THEM LOST is better than WHAT SOME OF THE REST OF THEM LOST in objectively estimable ways. No judgments on their stature in general are stated or implied.

: it just creates further problems in the equal rights section of issues.
Amend for meaningfulness.

:That number IS reliable, that money is to pay off for the government's mistake in sending them to jail but more importantly to try to help them build their future again.
It can be relied on to NEVER pay anything with any relation to the costs of the government's mistake. And no, it is utterly irrelevant how they "build their future." Some of them weren't building their future anyway. Some were. The goal is, as close as possible, to put them where they were before, or more precisely, to how they are likely to have been a year from where they were before. That is the meaning of justice in a civil controversy-- to restore damages, not to be charitable and "Get people on their feet."

"How is that number NOT fair?"
Shifting the burden of proof.

" That money can help them in MANY new ways,"
That has no bearing on its fairness.

"but the government would be doing its job to hold justice and compensate them for the government's mistake."
No. The government's mistake either created costs of more than 50,000 for the victim or less than 50,000. The odds that it cost exactly 50,000 are infinitesimal, the odds that it is in the ballpark are no closer than the odds that a random number generator will be in the ballpark. Hence, it does not help the government do its job.

"5- : To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again
It is to compensate them for damages."
It can do one or it can do the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too, those are TWO DIFFERENT GOALS that require TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES. The latter is the purpose of civil law, the former is the purpose of soup kitchens.

"
6- :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past"
This is nonsense. Their past is the best measure we have of WHO THEY ARE and WHAT THEY LOST. By this argument "To demand that the government compensate for its mistake is wrong because IT IS THEIR PAST, it doesn't determine whether they deserve have to pay." Either the past matters or it doesn't. The latter premise is inconsistent with the very notion of any form of civil controversy other than a cease and desist order.

:er year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point"
Those are perfectly just ideas. Compensation, RESTORATION, is all about RESTORING THEM TO WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

:First of all, you give NO source
That's a moral concept. There is no "Authority" for moral concepts. Putting down a "Source" would be fallacious.

" but I will attack that statement even if you give no proof that is the definition of Justice."
You can't prove definitions, you can only propose alternative definitions and prove why we should give a **** about the alternative concepts enough to attach a word to them.

" Anyway, would the government not be doing that if they accordingly give the wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of incarcenation? "
Because they can easily be demonstrated to have in all probability caused a different amount of damages.

"? They are paying that amount for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail"
There is NO CONCEPTUAL RELATION WHATSOEVER between the amounts "1 year" and "50,000 dollars."

"
Should we really base it on their past?"
Yes. It's compensation for WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

"$50,000 per year of incarcenation provides many things for the wrongly convicted and it is FAIR because they would all get a certain amount depending on the amount they spent wrongly convicted, not based on their past. "
this statement would mean exactly as much if you said 40,000 or 100,000 or just any other number you can imagine. Hence, it cannot possibly prove what you are setting out to prove. The purpose is not to "provide many things," it is to provide what they had back, from the people who took it. Also, this statement is a contradiction, the AMOUNT OF TIME THEY SPENT WRONGLY CONVICTED IS IN THEIR PAST. "Spent" is a past tense word for crying out loud.
Debate Round No. 3
Erick

Pro

"If I make a million dollars a year, and I have been in jail for a year, 50,000 dollars is total and utter crap. It comes nowhere near objective damages.
By contrast, if I make 10,000 dollars a year, I'm not just having my harms restored by having 50,000 dollars thrown my way, I'm getting a windfall. I'm BENEFITING from going to jail."

The government is trying to compensate them not give them their whole yearly income, if we did give them their whole yearly income it wouldn't be fair because the government is trying to compensate them for the time they have been wrongly in jail; not for the equivalent of them working that whole year BECAUSE they did not work that whole year, they were in jail. You are looking at the wrongly convicted's previous jobs and income; what is the government making up for? For the "possible" yearly income that could of be given to the wrongly convicted? No, the government can't do that because it CAN'T tell if they would of worked that whole year or any of those days or them getting fired or many more possible outcomes that could of happened for the amount of time they were in jail. BECAUSE of that, it must present a STABLE number that is fair to EVERYONE because the government is paying them for the time they were wrongly in jail, NOT for the possible money they could of earned. Yes, it might be nothing for people who have high income jobs and yes it might be much for people with low income job but the government would be doing its job in giving them a stable number that is based upon the time they were wrongly convicted, not one of million possible outcomes that could of occured if they hadn't been sent wrongly to jail.

"That does not follow either. This is not a syllogism, yet you present it as though it is. F therefore S is a premise, not an argument."

It sure does follow, the government would be trying to be fair because it would be compensating the wrongly convicted an equal amount of money depending on the amount of time you have wrongly been sent to jail. That isn't difficult to understand, well at least it isn't to me. What part of it do you NOT understand?

"We are compensating them on the best guess available of the money they could made during the time wrongly convicted because THERE ARE OBJECTIVE FACTORS THAT ALLOW US TO MAKE A REASONABLE PREDICTION-- just like THE ENTIRETY OF THE REST OF LAW-AT EQUITY. When a court pursues compensation, there is NEVER certainty-- you can only rely on what the objective factors tell you is probable. 1 year therefore 50,000 means nothing. It's incoherent. It does not follow. There's a missing premise. Sure, you're basing it on time, but TIME AND WHAT? A syllogism, or an inductive simulation of one, needs TWO terms before a conclusion, NOT ONE. Guess what? Basing it on income means BASING IT ON TIME TOO. That means that basing it on income means you have MORE to base your decision on, NOT LESS."

Well, those "Objective factors" that you have are no good considering you are basing it on the wrong things to base it on. Let's say there are two wrongly convicted people. A and B. A has spent 1 year wrongly convicted, and so has B. A has been through the same things B has. Now once everyone figures out they were both wrongly convicted they get a compensation; A gets 1 million dollars and B gets $5000. Is that really fair? NO! That is what your whole plan is going to do, create even more unjustice. The whole purpose of giving them a compensation is to have justice; GIVING THEM A WHOLE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY WERE WRONGLY CONVICTED FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IS NOT FAIR. The government SHOULD NOT base it on their previous income because AGAIN we are compensating them on THE TIME THEY WERE WRONGLY CONVICTED, NOT FOR WHAT THEY COULD OF EARNED.

"That's not what compensation means, that's pity money. If someone was on a mountain, putting them "On their feet" is not compensation, it's a goddamned insult. If someone was on their arse, putting them "On their feet" is a gift, not compensation. The purpose of compensation is, as best you can, to PUT THEM WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE."

First of all, you SERIOUSLY need to calm your tone down; cursing and using God's name in vain will not help you in any way. Now, I think you missunderstood my point; I didn't mean literally "put them on their feet", I meant it in the way we are trying to help them keep on going with their life, even after the unfortunate occasion. I also agree, it is to TRY to put them where they were before; even if the psychological problems may not ever go away, but because the government doesn't know were their carreer was headed, the best option to go with is with a stable number compensating them for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail.

"Um, no. That premise is EXPLICITLY dependent on them suffering equal damages per time."

So are you now saying they should be paid depending on their psychological problems? Isn't that going against you're whole view on how they should get paid?

"Sure we can. Not with certainty, but reasonable estimates at equity-- like HOW THE REST OF CIVIL LAW WORKS. By your argument, EVERY LAWSUIT EVER should be settled for 50,000 dollars per year stuff has been wrong. Someone steps on your daffodil a year ago? 50,000 dollars. Your factory destroys 10 people's homes that cost half a million dollars each when it explodes, a year ago? 50,000 dollars to each of them. this clearly makes no sense."

No, i am not whatsoever saying every lawsuit should settle for $50,000 for every single thing. I am just using it for this case, obviously. All of those incidents that you named are very different than this debate, and cannot merily compare.

I'm afraid I only have 3 minutes left so I have to make this as fast as I can.

The point of giving them a compensation is to have JUSTICE, the government CANNOT without any means achieve justice if it bases its compensation on previous income because it is supposed to pay them according to the time they wrongly served, not pay them what they could of made of or accomplished. If it does do that, Justice wouldn't be served, Justice wouldn't perserved and the whole purpose of the compensation wouldn't be RIGHT.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
The government is trying to compensate them not give them their whole yearly income"
Compensate means you get what you would have gotten had the problem not arisen. A, not A?

", if we did give them their whole yearly income it wouldn't be fair because the government is trying to compensate them for the time they have been wrongly in jail; not for the equivalent of them working that whole year"
The fact that they didn't work that year resulted directly from them being in jail. Indeed, the inability to do one's work is a major drawback of jail, especially for the innocent.

" BECAUSE they did not work that whole year"
That's what compensation in court is all about-- you compensate people for what they couldn't do because you prevented them from doing it.

"You are looking at the wrongly convicted's previous jobs and income; what is the government making up for? For the "possible" yearly income that could of be given to the wrongly convicted? No, the government can't do that because it CAN'T tell if they would of worked that whole year"
Certainly it can, just not with certainty.

"BECAUSE of that, it must present a STABLE number that is fair to EVERYONE "
The possibility of being wrong about something does NOT mean you ought to guarantee being wrong about everything, which is the result of a random "Stable" number. And such a thing would not be fair to those who would in fact work.

"to EVERYONE because the government is paying them for the time they were wrongly in jail, NOT for the possible money they could of earned."
To pay for something you have to have a pricing mechanism. There is no better determinant of the price of time than the money they are normally paid for that time by their employers.

"Yes, it might be nothing for people who have high income job"
Proof that it isn't fair to follow your proposal, since jail is a great big negative nonnothing. You cannot compensate for a nonzero with a zero.

"
It sure does follow, the government would be trying to be fair because it would be compensating the wrongly convicted an equal amount of money depending on the amount of time you have wrongly been sent to jail."
Fair does not automatically mean equal. Indeed, people aren't equal.

" What part of it do you NOT understand?"
The part where you've had several rounds and nothing in it be made into a logical argument. Fair because equal because nothing but time is not how logic works. There are missing premises which you have yet to justify.

\"
Well, those "Objective factors" that you have are no good considering you are basing it on the wrong things to base it on"
It's wrong because its wrong ("No good" is a synonym of "wrong") is not an argument.

"et's say there are two wrongly convicted people. A and B. A has spent 1 year wrongly convicted, and so has B. A has been through the same things B has"
This is a faulty assumption. If one falls from a greater height, one has not been through the same occurrence as one who falls from a lower height.

"Now once everyone figures out they were both wrongly convicted they get a compensation; A gets 1 million dollars and B gets $5000. Is that really fair?"
Yes. Its proportional to what they lost.

" The whole purpose of giving them a compensation is to have justice; GIVING THEM A WHOLE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY WERE WRONGLY CONVICTED FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IS NOT FAIR."
It certainly is. A man smashes your new 3000 dollar alienware, he smashes my 20 dollar thinkpad. It is perfectly fair that our compensation be in proportion to the market price of the different things we have lost, despite the fact that we can reduce them to the words "1 computer" or "1 year." No two years are the same. People invest different amounts in getting the most from different years.

"Now, I think you missunderstood my point; I didn't mean literally "put them on their feet""
I don't either. It's a metaphor. I addressed it metaphorically.

" I meant it in the way we are trying to help them keep on going with their life"
To do that you have to take into account what rate their life was going at and where it was going.

"I also agree, it is to TRY to put them where they were before; even if the psychological problems may not ever go away, but because the government doesn't know were their carreer was headed"
The government has plenty of data to make a good estimate. To argue otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, is to argue that career planning is futile.
I don't know whether your computer was going to get a virus tomorrow before I smashed it today. I should still have to compensate you for it.

"
So are you now saying they should be paid depending on their psychological problems?"
. I'm saying they should be paid based on financial damages. I didn't say anything about psychological problems. However, if clear cause and effect can be demonstrated for the psychological problems, and there is a market price for the services of a psychiatrist to treat those problems, yes, that should be added to damages.

"Isn't that going against you're whole view on how they should get paid?
"
I said that they should be paid for demonstrable financial damages. Such as lost pay. This does NOT argue that they should not be paid for something else as well. One can pay for your lost financial damages AND the pills to treat the syphilis you got when Bubby raped you while held defenseless by a cell, for example.

"
No, i am not whatsoever saying every lawsuit should settle for $50,000 for every single thing"
This is the logical conclusion of your assertions.

"I am just using it for this case, obviously."
Until you can justify something particular about the case, that's known as the ad hoc logical fallacy. In other words, you just declared that your entire argument is invalid.

"All of those incidents that you named are very different than this debate, and cannot merily compare."
You have not defined the relevant contrast.

"
The point of giving them a compensation is to have JUSTICE, the government CANNOT without any means achieve justice if it bases its compensation on previous income because it is supposed to pay them according to the time they wrongly served, not pay them what they could of made of or accomplished."
Again, this is merely assuming the conclusion, circular argument fallacy.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
I'm pretty positive it has little or no effect on the reader's opinion of the overall debate but, thanks anyway. I'll take that comment into consideration but, I don't stress about it; after all I am only 15 years old.
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
He ignored me :(
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Just one constructive comment for Erick. You twice use the phrase "should of" in place of "should have". The first makes no sense as a construct, the latter is proper, and allows the reader to focus on your arguments instead of being distracted by grammatical errors. Good luck in the debate!
Posted by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, the resolution is to pass a bill to compensate the wrongly convicted according to those two points I listed, as Con you have to find anything you can to prove why it shouldn't be passed, you decide which rode to take. Understand, now?
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Can you state the resolution any better? I'm not sure if a Con position would be a) no compensation, b) different compensation

You'd be hard pressed to find an argument for no compensation and keeping their criminal record...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
ErickRagnar_RahlTied
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 Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
ErickRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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