The Instigator
breaker11
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Rob1Billion
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Capital Punishment

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
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: 1/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,731 times Debate No: 1504
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

breaker11

Pro

Capital punishment (death penalty) should be the, with out a doubt, punishment for murder. Especially for the murder of the men/woman of any branch of law enforcement. Capital punishment should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment; but if you still believe it is than take into consideration that the person who is on trial or sentenced to the death penalty had no respect for the right of whom ever they murdered. When the criminal decided to take the life of another human, he took that persons right of security entitled to him by the constitution, and also the murderer took one of the victims "natural" rights of life, which is a right of which you are born with. The BIBLE also says that we should treat others, the way we want to be treated. In history, the punishment fit the crime, as in the statement "an eye for an eye". I am not surprised at all that the crime rate back then was almost none. That is because the people knew exactly what would happen to them if they were to commit the crime. Capital punishment is a necessary punishment for the crime, because of the extremely high crime rates. Put your self in this situation before you reply back, what if someone were to take the life of a family member? How would you react, and what how would you want that person to be punished?
Before I'm done, i have a rhetorical statement pertaining to one of your past articles on another topic i feel very strongly about. You said that the death penalty is no different than abortion. There is a huge difference, a baby is completely innocent, a murderer is a criminal.
Rob1Billion

Con

thank you for the invitation, breaker, this is my first con debate.

I, of course, disagree.

It is very bad when law enforcement people are murdered, for obvious reasons, but you cannot support your argument with any success that law enforcement people's lives are more valuable than yours or mine, any more than you could support the argument that their lives are LESS valuable than yours or mine.

Breaker, you seem to be falling into the logical fallacy that many of my opponents fall into, which is that you have this divine ability to judge worthiness of other people's rights to life. I would argue that this right is reserved for God alone; you and I are sinners, imperfect, and should not have the ability to judge other people fit to live or die.

Our legal system is quite imperfect, and although there has not been a case that absolutely proves that a person was put to death unjustly yet, there is a very good chance that someone HAS been put to death unjustly, in the past, being wrongly accused of murder. This is unacceptable.

Eye for an eye logic is quickly dismissable. If everyone lived this way, our society would be a complete disaster. Do I have to pose hypotheticals here to prove that?

Ancient crime rates are not my specialty, but if you'd like to be more specific about them, I will offer my opinion.

If someone killed a member of my family, killing another person would not bring them back. Sure, I'd change my tune if I was actually in the situation, but it is clear to see that I would not have a level head in the matter. You see, breaker, I would be acting out of wrath, or vengeance. This is one of the chief vices, that dictates that I am doing the WRONG thing.

As to your final sentence, I will do away with your argument in the same manner that I have been using in every argument on this site. Innocence and guilt, in respect to a person's right to life, are not able to be judged effectively by other people. This right should be reserved to God. An embryo/early fetus is not yet a person, and does not have the same right to life as you or I. A blood thirsty killer is a person, with all the basic human rights that you and I have, regardless of his actions. We can lock him up, so that he can't get out and continue his murder spree, but killing him is crossing that line that humans should not have the right to cross. MAYBE it's OK in this case, MAYBE it's OK in that case, but there doesn't exist a person among us, who is perfect enough to be that judge. There doesn't exist a person who has the God-given right to pass that kind of judgement on the people, and if we grant it to him artificially, it will create injustice and the potential for abuse within our justice system. There is no moral way to kill another person intentionally. Period. Gas chamber, lethal injection, electrocution, draw and quartering, hanging, and firing squads are the best ways humanity has come up with so far, and all of them still make us look like a bunch of barbarians that haven't learned our most basic lessons in human rights yet. Our justice system works most of the time, but it is very far from perfect and until it is we can't even THINK of using an imperfect system to kill people with, no matter what emotional reactions the killers have evoked in ourselves. Even if our legal system WAS perfect, the "eye for an eye" logic would quickly make our legal system imperfect once again. We have to seperate ourselves from beasts, before we can deal effectively at punishing the beasts.
Debate Round No. 1
breaker11

Pro

Sure, men and women of law enforcement are people just like you and me, but i do think that they are more valuable. My reasoning is that they risk their lives every day, for low pay i might add, to keep us safe from the criminals in our country.

I never said that i had the right to judge people, nor have i tried to do so. Also as a Christian i completely agree with you that God is the only one who does have the right to judge. But for the purposes of my argument, i do not believe that sentencing somebody to the death penalty is in anyway judging them. When any criminal, no matter the crime, they have a trial for sentencing. Now, do you believe that we are judging them too?

Why would our society be a complete disaster if the eye for eye logic was used?

As i said before, when a person kills another they have taken their right to live. So that person should give up their right. By putting them in prison for life they don't give up that right. Also our prisons in this country are to crowded already. The techniques used in executing these people do not cause them any pain.

Abortion is murder, no matter when it is done. The embryo is a living human organism. By having an abortion you are taking its life.
Rob1Billion

Con

I absolutely do not support your attempt to classify people's lives into categories of importance. First of all, it is a slippery slope that should NEVER be approached, because it encourages racism, sexism, and every other "ism" you could possibly make up. You would send human rights back a century by proposing reasoning like this, and wouldn't be any more just than saying that slaves are only worth 3/5's of a person. Second of all, even if there was a system like this, your arbitrary opinion of who is more important than others is not valid. Maybe I think that scientist's lives are more valuable, for perpetuating our technology that is the foundation of all of our lives, or maybe important politicians lives are more valuable, for controlling the most important decisions in the country. Do you see how ignorant this whole notion is? Do you see how much damage someone could do, if they could misuse this reasoning? The notion of "this person is more inherently valuable, in the most essential of ways, than that person", is preposterous. I cannot stress how much I utterly disagree with you on this essential point, and everything else in this discourse pales in importance to the point I am making in this paragraph.

With that said, I will address the rest of your points.

You are indeed putting yourself up on a pedestal, breaker, by saying that "I have the right to decide that this person's life is more valuable than this other person's life". Pride means "an overestimation of one's own abilities", and is considered by many to be the absolute cardinal sin, or motivation, that can affect one's own character. It is the sin that all other sins grow from.

How you would defend that you are not judging someone by sentencing them to death is interesting, to say the least.

While our courts do reserve the judgement of guilty or not guilty, the judgement of "right to life" and "no right to life", to a person, should be reserved to God. It isn't only that our justice system is imperfect, and would inevitably kill an innocent person, or maybe a person who is not innocent but still not deserving of death. My point has more to do with the very value of a person's life to begin with, and how you would cheapen the value of all of our lives by giving the gov't the deeds to our souls. Again, it is a slippery slope, and we should avoid setting this dangerous precedent at all costs.

Eye for an eye: Well, since you are going to make me spell it out, I will spell it out. So I kill your brother, you must kill my sister, I will have to kill your father, you must kill me, and then my friend will kill you, your son, and his neighbor. Then, why don't your neighbor's friends come and kill my dog and cat, and maybe my Grandma. My Grandfather can come kill your mother's neices cousin, twice seperated.... So you are honestly saying that if someone does something despicable to you, then you must do the same despicable thing back to them? Outrageous! The whole notion of our justice system is meant to intercept these occurences, and level them out without the need for retaliatory action. Being fined or imprisoned is not "eye for an eye" because while the punishment fits the crime, it is not IDENTICAL to the crime. Eye for an eye means that the punishment be identical to the crime, and offers no relief from the infinite perpetuation of the crime. I really didn't think that there was anyone out there who even thought this logic held up at all, I always thought that the general notion of "eye for an eye" was an automatic way to show how bad someone's argument is, just like "the ends justify the means".

Crowded prisons are a problem, but not enough to justify your argument. Your argument about "no pain" is not very compelling either.

Embryos are not people, so I argue that no murder has been commited. I don't think that when a man impregnates a woman, that before she can light up a cigarette, there is ALREADY 3 people in the room. This is ridiculous, and I believe it is only perpetuated by superstitious reasoning. I use God as a rhetorical device in my debates, but I don't count on the existence of God to justify my points. I think that an embryo is too early to grant personhood rights, and that birth is too late. That is my personal opinion, and I think that it offers a very good way to appease both radical pro-lifers, who believe in instant personhood, and radical pro-choicers, who believe in late-term abortions. My belief system in this matter offers a middle-ground to work with, which I think is a good start.
Debate Round No. 2
breaker11

Pro

breaker11 forfeited this round.
Rob1Billion

Con

well that is very unfortunate that pro could not post, this was a pretty good discussion up until now. I think that the pro really did need to address some of my points...
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
hence why I support capital punishment.
Posted by patrock2 9 years ago
patrock2
I wouldn't give those people my attention for one second. I would not reward their actions with my attention. This would be exploitation at it's morbid worst. So Shwayze you're right in that a reality show would be produced. Too bad as that would defeat the purpose of complete and utter isolation for the rest of their lives no matter how short or long that may be.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
rob1million i think that convict island thing would actually be really tight. that would be the most gnarly reality tv show ever everyone would watch it and we would reduce global warming because no one would want to leave the couch. perfect.
Posted by patrock2 9 years ago
patrock2
I like your idea Rob1Billion regarding a citizens' social contract with the United States. After all it is about citizenship; civic responsibility. The penultimate question then becomes; What will our contribution be,as individuals,to the social fabric of our United States? Are we a part of the problem or part of the solution?
There is the gray area when people find themselves with a foot in both worlds-between a rock and a hard place. It is the choices made in those defining moments that determine the consequences, those moments that differentiate the salvageable from the incorrigible...just my thoughts from this side of the river...
I am a human under construction; I am a spirit being having a human experience..
Zero tolerance is for computers-not people
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Yes, a rich person never will be executed, and that is just one reason out of a mound of problems that accumulates when an illogical policy is put forth.

I've thought about the convict island theory before, and it is very appealing to me. Instead of jailing them, which is kind of ridiculous in principle to me, they would in instead opt out of their social contract with the united states. Kind of a capitalist idea, if you may. You break the laws, you break social contract, and have to fend for yourself on an island of barbarians, scavenging for food and never able to sleep without worry of what will happen. I like it.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
class warfare has nothing to do with capital punishment.
Posted by patrock2 9 years ago
patrock2
I personally think we should put all of the most violent, hardened criminals along with the pedophiles,and sociopaths on an isolated island in shark infested waters(as long as the sharks survive their own slaughter)with no way off. Just drop them there and let them figure it out. Isn't this how Australia was originally populated along with several boat loads from England to the states?...other than this idea I don't pretend to have the solution for what to do with those persons who can never be let loose upon society again. I do remain strong in my conviction though that the government should not be involve in killing people.I'm sure an answer can be gleaned from all the various think tanks that abound in this country.
To restate ad-nauseum..A RICH MAN NEVER DIES IN THE CHAIR..
Until all persons are equal under the law, given the same high quality representation as people with money, there can be no true justice...
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Maybe we should run them over in big 4X4 monster trucks, with american flags painted on them.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
good question because i have no idea. but i would advocate for the least painful...bottom line is it doesnt really matter which one is least painful i was just proving a point that i'm not for the criminal experience excruciating pain. whatever gets the job done the quickest.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
the most unpainful... which one is that.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 The_brick 9 years ago
The_brick
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 NickUnderwood 9 years ago
NickUnderwood
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 NonZeroBubble 9 years ago
NonZeroBubble
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 buttercupx224 9 years ago
buttercupx224
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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 patrock2 9 years ago
patrock2
breaker11Rob1BillionTied
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