The Instigator
debate.unique
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/15/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,681 times Debate No: 5018
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (11)

 

debate.unique

Con

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds.
In the first round, we will present our ideas on the topic and then in the following 4 rounds we will debate and contradict each other's notions.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 4 rounds to debate.

Since I am speaking against the topic and you are in favour, I think you should be starting.
gahbage

Pro

Thank you debate.unique for starting this debate. We will be using the resolution as a figure of speech, saying that the resolution is against a tit-for-tat system.

=================================================================================

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

In a tit-for-tat justice system, the criminal would receive a punishment equal to the committed crime. If this system were to be executed correctly (as in, by definition), many punishments would be "cruel and unusual", to say the least. Here are some examples:

- killers get killed
- rapists get raped
- thieves get stolen from
- kidnappers get kidnapped
- torturers get tortured
- assaulters get assaulted

Not only are some of these punishments cruel or unusual (or both), but they do not justify the actions of the offender. The torturer gets tortured, and all is well again? That is not justice. What is really happening is TWO people end up getting tortured (the victim and the criminal), instead of just one (the victim).

Two wrongs do not make a right; they just make two wrongs.
Debate Round No. 1
debate.unique

Con

Tit for tat, as far as justice is concerned, means proportionality.
Criminals must face the hurt that their victims felt, but that doesn't mean that the same thing should be done back to them. The only thing is that the punishment should be an amount supposedly equal to the magnitude of the crime you committed coz the aim of all this is that the criminal or the offender should learn a lesson out of the punishment. that is what a just society means. raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity.
"Two wrongs do not make a right; they just make two wrongs."
However, punishing an offender is not a "wrong". Thus, this would lead to a just society.
gahbage

Pro

"Tit for tat, as far as justice is concerned, means proportionality.
Criminals must face the hurt that their victims felt, but that doesn't mean that the same thing should be done back to them."

This is true; the fairest way to use tit for tat is to do it proportionally, rather than directly (i.e., instead of flat out raping the rapist, give him/her a good amount of jail time). However, if criminals must indeed face the very same pain that they inflicted upon their victims, then it must be done directly; otherwise, the criminal will either not feel the same amount of pain, or will feel a different kind of pain. This is the kind of tit for tat the resolution is describing; for example, if someone took your eye, the exact retribution would be to take their eye.

"The only thing is that the punishment should be an amount supposedly equal to the magnitude of the crime you committed coz the aim of all this is that the criminal or the offender should learn a lesson out of the punishment."

True again; the punishment should be equal to the crime. However, to be an exact punishment, it must constitute another wrong, and will thus "make the whole world blind".

"raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity."

Exactly, and that's what "an eye for an eye" means - raping a rapist.

"However, punishing an offender is not a "wrong". Thus, this would lead to a just society."

True, but in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment supported is direct retribution. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page for "Eye for an eye":

"The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation."

Thus, "an eye for an eye" means direct punishment/retribution, and it will "make the whole world go blind", or beget an unjust system. To conclude I will re-quote a statement of yours that supports my position:

"raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity."
Debate Round No. 2
debate.unique

Con

"In a tit-for-tat justice system, the criminal would receive a punishment equal to the committed crime. If this system were to be executed correctly (as in, by definition), many punishments would be "cruel and unusual", to say the least. Here are some examples:

- killers get killed
- rapists get raped
- thieves get stolen from
- kidnappers get kidnapped
- torturers get tortured
- assaulters get assaulted"

I am surprised that you do not see the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal.
-killers often get death penalty for killing. so, this is a direct retribution.
-i agree that rapists do not get raped, but they are punished. the consequences are almost equal.
-theives are not obviously stolen from, but what they have stolen is taken back from them, they are imprisoned and are also at times fined.
-the victim of the kidnapping is kept under hostile conditions. even the kidnapper is kept under hostile conditions in the prison, are forced to return the ransom that they have demanded and may also be fined.
- the same thing goes with torturers and assaulters. they are made to go through the same pain even though the method of assaulting and torturing might differ.
_______________________________

"in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment supported is direct retribution."
i agree that in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment is direct retribution. however, you are again taking this in the literal sense. Taking this statement in the literal sense is not possible in the real world. I am surprised that you fail to understand this.
_________________________________

Your turn Ray.
gahbage

Pro

"I am surprised that you do not see the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal."

I do see the way the system is executed; it is a PROPORTIONATE tit-for-tat system. As you have just stated, the consequences are ALMOST equal - but not exactly. This makes our judicial system NOT "insanity", because we do not have such punishments as raping the rapist or kidnapping the kidnapper. Since two wrongs do not make a right, we do it proportionally, so we do not constitute another wrong. However, the phrase "an eye for an eye" implies EXACT[ly equal] consequences, not proportionate/almost equal ones. As you said last round, this would be insanity, or "making the whole world go blind".

"i agree that in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment is direct retribution. however, you are again taking this in the literal sense."

No, I am relating it to real life, which is why it is a figure of speech. I am describing "an eye for an eye" as using direct retribution (which you have just agreed to) such as raping a rapist, and I am describing "makes the whole world blind" as making an unjust society, or "insanity", as you have put it.

"An eye for an eye", or direct retribution, "makes the world blind", or is "insanity"/an unjust society. My opponent has agreed with this.
Debate Round No. 3
debate.unique

Con

my opponent fails to understand this:
"an eye for an eye" is not supposed to be taken in the literal sense. I had used the statement "the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal." This is because the consequences are not equal everytime. However, in most of the cases the they are equal. The victim does learn his lesson. The exceptions are only due to the different mindsets of the people.

_________________________________

'"An eye for an eye", or direct retribution, "makes the world blind", or is "insanity"/an unjust society. My opponent has agreed with this.'
I have not agreed with this if it is used in the real world. I still keep my word and agree with this statement only till it is taken in the literal sense. "An eye for an eye" cannot be used in the literal sense.
The main aim is that the offender goes through the same pain that the victim has gone through and does not repeat it again.
This cannot be ensured without implying "an eye for an eye". (I am not taking it in the literal sense).

__________________________________

we do not have such punishments as raping the rapist or kidnapping the kidnapper, but we do have punishments such as killing the killer. this directly speaks in my favour - it supports the idea of "an eye for an eye" (even in the literal sense)

___________________________________
gahbage

Pro

"However, in most of the cases the they are equal."

Yes, proportionately equal. I am not taking "an eye for an eye" literally. Figures of speech do mean something, however. "An eye for an eye" means direct punishment; this has been established. My opponent believes I am taking "an eye for an eye" too literally, but I'm not. If I was, I would be talking about actual eyes, as that is the literal definition. What my opponent describes as "an eye for an eye" is no different than what I am saying - and this argument about equal punishment has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of any of this, my opponent has agreed with my stance: Such direct retribution as raping a rapist, for example, would lead to insanity. This should be a default win for me, because my opponent conceded to my position.

"{this directly speaks in my favour - it supports the idea of "an eye for an eye" (even in the literal sense)"

This is the only example of "an eye for an eye", and the death penalty has only been used sparingly in the U.S. (42 times in 2007). But, if you want to go the way my opponent is suggesting, then it's her killing a killer vs. raping a rapist, kidnapping a kidnapper, torturing a torturer, assaulting an assaulter and stealing from a robber.
Debate Round No. 4
debate.unique

Con

"the fairest way to use tit for tat is to do it proportionally, rather than directly."
true, very true. I think we both are arguing on the same topic and yet both are supporting it.
tit for tat should be done proportionally, as long as it its consequences are equal.
"an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." implies that the consequences should be equal, i.e., the person should become blind, no matter how you do it.
_____________________________

now let me explain the figure of speech in its LITERAL FORM:
the principle "an eye for an eye" refers to those who have committed a crime. so if someone committed a murder, their life should be taken as well to serve as equal and fair just punishment. well, so long as not EVERYONE commits a murder, then not everyone will "lose an eye" so to speak. meaning the whole world will not go blind.
_____________________________

this is my last argument on this topic. whether i win this topic or not, that would be an entirely different issue. i would just like to thank my opponent for taking this debate and also for such wonderful arguments.
gahbage

Pro

"true, very true. I think we both are arguing on the same topic and yet both are supporting it. "

But I'm Pro, so... =P

"...implies that the consequences should be equal, i.e., the person should become blind, no matter how you do it."

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind", implies that [a system of] direct retribution is unjust.

However, proportionate retribution is not.

"the principle "an eye for an eye" refers to those who have committed a crime. so if someone committed a murder, their life should be taken as well to serve as equal and fair just punishment. well, so long as not EVERYONE commits a murder, then not everyone will "lose an eye" so to speak. meaning the whole world will not go blind."

This is true; however, the statement implies that the "an eye for an eye" practice would be continued. You are right about the literal definition, but in my opening round I defined it as "a figure of speech".

Thank you for starting this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate.unique 8 years ago
debate.unique
gahbage couldn't hv been his name, that is why i had asked 4 it. i dont think there's anything weird in that.
and even if you dont hv a convesation with a guy, u can very well find that out through the way he writes and his thoughts.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Did you read the whole comments section? They asked for it...

And I believe you are wrong; I am, indeed, a genius.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
They know your name, that's weird.

"your turn ray"

"he is really a genius who has used his mind intelligently"

You obviously have never had a conversation with this guy.
Posted by Neil143 8 years ago
Neil143
The pro is very interesting . he is really a genius who has used his mind intelligently
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
It's an inside joke...

25 characters
Posted by debate.unique 8 years ago
debate.unique
I was just curious why you had kept your username as "gahbage"....
Posted by debate.unique 8 years ago
debate.unique
Any help, you are free to ask me. I'll try my best. Anything you wanna know bout India maybe...............
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
No problem

25 characters
Posted by debate.unique 8 years ago
debate.unique
Sorry for the troubles........
Posted by debate.unique 8 years ago
debate.unique
Anyways
Thanx a lot
Bye!!!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
debate.uniquegahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 scottpreston 8 years ago
scottpreston
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by akshaygoel 8 years ago
akshaygoel
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Neil143 8 years ago
Neil143
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jase_the_Ace 8 years ago
Jase_the_Ace
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pappu 8 years ago
pappu
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30