The Instigator
Beginner
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
G131994
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Debater's Choice

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
G131994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 944 times Debate No: 32578
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Beginner

Pro

Rules:
1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules:

2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind.

3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i.e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments.

4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here: http://www.debate.org...)

5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that.

6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications.

7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible.

Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc.
I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion.)

If there are any changes you feel are necessary before accepting the debate, please make some indication in the comments section

Without further ado......
G131994

Con

'There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century'
I will be con
Debate Round No. 1
Beginner

Pro

The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it.
Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances.
I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case.
You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start.

Precautions:
If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.
G131994

Con

Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances.

and
yourself ;there should be no death penalty,
Debate Round No. 2
Beginner

Pro

As according to my opponent, my side of the resolution is: "there should be no death penalty,"
In fact, let me take this further and declare that there should be no penalty at all whatsoever.

I contend that moral apathy is the correct ideological position and that, under moral apathy, the necessity of anything, including the death penalty, is not adequately justified.
How do you justify necessity?
My answer is that you can't.
Let's look at the inadequacy this way:
First, I advance that the goal behind society's system of laws and punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity.
Second, I contend against the necessity of this peace, happiness and well-being. What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? Do any of the categories of crime really matter? The answer, I believe, is that there are no objective reasons for the existence of life or humanity. We just are, and that's all there is to the question. Our petty prioritizations of life, humanity, the environment, order, peace and well-being, when applied to an infinite moral regress, fall under an astounding lack of justification.
Simply put, there is no objective reason for anything. There are subsequently no reason to indict/punish criminals for the maintenance of peace; there are no compelling reasons for the maintenance of peace (or even life, for that matter).

If my opponent cannot name a compelling objective reason for existence, then PRO's premise, that there should be no penalties (including the death penalty), stand.

I'm even going to go one step further and declare that any justification CON may elicit can only be appeals to the human's evolutionary instincts of survival (peaceful coexistence falls under this) and reproduction; emotional appeals.

Ultimately, there is no reason for anything at all since objectivity doesn't exist.
G131994

Con

The argument is titled "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century'

I am going to argue there is strong evidence to support the death penalty. Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up. A prime example is that of the uk. In 1965 when the death penalty was removed murder rate in the uk increased and is still to the current day far higher than it was in 1965 when the death penalty was removed.

Take for example the Boston bombings why should the farther of the 8 year old child killed have to pay for his sons murder to be kept in prison for the rest of his life paying for his food , clothes, heating , and people to guard him to make sure he does not get back into the community and kill again.

You advance the notion "" punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity"" but fail to meet the burden of proof thus making the argument redundant.

"" I contend against the necessity of this peace, happiness and well-being. What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? Do any of the categories of crime really matter?"" Just because this is your view does not mean it is a universal fact and again you fail to meet the Burdon of proof.

You have therefore put forward two of your own opinions without proof or reason other than ""this is what you think therefore it must be so"" to back them up factually .
Debate Round No. 3
Beginner

Pro

"You advance the notion "" punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity"" but fail to meet the burden of proof thus making the argument redundant."

I fail to see the redundancy. Simply stating that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof tells me nothing. It is an incredibly vague statement that leaves me confused about what I supposedly did not cover. Please clarify in a more exacting statement. If you would like to know how I arrive at this notion, then I will provide the theorem, but you will have to bear with me.
First, let us look at capital punishment this way: Why do we have capital punishment?
This is the first link in the logical theorem. I am simply questioning capital punishment's basis of necessity. What makes capital punishment necessary? As you, my opponent, has forwarded, the advantage of capital punishment is: "Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up."
Let me sum up this section of your passage for you: Capital Punishment is justified because it, along with the system of law and punishment, detracts from the total number of crimes (murder specifically). Thus, it's basis of necessity is that it provides safety for the societal unit that practices it.
Let me further this logical chain by looking at the necessity of providing for the safety of society and its units (humanity). This is a tricky element and I think this is where my opponent becomes lost and labels my entire round an 'unfulfilled burden of proof'.
Putting it another way, this chain in the theorem formulates the following question: How is the safety/survival of humanity an obligatory necessity? What reason is there for humanity to exist?
I would like my opponent to seriously consider these questions.

In light of an inability to provide proper objective justifications, I will now return to the original notion (I will list this in a logical chain):
1. Punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity.
2. There is no proper objective reasoning for this peace, happiness and well-being.
3. There are no objective reasons to implement capital punishment, whose ultimate goal is, as established earlier, Number 2 in this chain.

This is logic and its up to you to point to substantial logical fallacies. It also means that each chain in the logical theorem stands as proof within itself. It's up to the opposition to provide compelling detriments to the statements within.

Speaking of lack of justification..:
"Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement."
I would like to know exactly which studies are you talking about and who conducted said studies. Simply giving me 1965 UK without proper sources allows me to nullify this statement as potentially fabricated and false.
ALWAYS provide sources when making such statements. Here is a good link you may use for later debates on this topic to prove this point:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

In sum, I believe my opponent to have misconstrued the entirety of my third round. Nonetheless, I hope this misinterpretation has been clarified. My opponent still has yet to provide compelling objective reason(s) for humanity's existence. This is the ultimate final factor in the theorem which, when fulfilled, will, according to the theorem, prove the necessity of capital punishment.
The following statements stand:
1. There should be no penalties at all due to a lack of proper justification(s)
2. There should be no death penalty.
G131994

Con

"" This is the ultimate final factor in the theorem which, when fulfilled, will, according to the theorem, prove the necessity of capital punishment.
The following statements stand:
1. There should be no penalties at all due to a lack of proper justification(s)
2. There should be no death penalty.""

To sum your argument up. It is your opinion that there is no justified reason to lock away a rapist, murder, child killer under any circumstances. I am sorry but I don"t feel I need to provide justification or proof why we should lock away these types of people. Given you have ""yet to provide compelling objective reason(s)"" why we should let them walk our streets.

"" In light of an inability to provide proper objective justifications, I will now return to the original notion"" I would like to remind my opponent the original notion was "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century'. You have not provide any substantial reasons why the death penalty is no longer relevant in the 21st century instead you have been on some rant about what is the meaning of life." I believe my opponent to have misconstrued the entirety" of the argument.

I am sorry I failed to provide sources in my previous round but I would like point out so did you here is a sources showing the murder rate in the uk and how it has risen since the abolition of the death penalty (1965) www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03805.pdf .Here is a news article highlighting the discrepancy. http://abclocal.go.com....

To some up my opponent has failed to provide compelling evidence why child murderer or mass killer such as the man who committed the Boston bombings should not face the death penalty. In fact he suggests that there is no reason to keep them locked up and they should be allowed to mix with the general public. I find this impossible to accept.

On a purely personal view point why should the farther of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison?. I really don"t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough.
Debate Round No. 4
Beginner

Pro

I'm afraid my opponent misunderstands my theorem establishment.

What my opponent is asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove 1 + 1 = 2.

A theorem clause is as basic as one can get in epistemic terms. Asking me to provide further 'evidence' is an impossible request.


"It is your opinion that there is no justified reason to lock away a rapist, murder, child killer under any circumstances."
Here you misconstrue my argument. As through the established theorem, I went over the ultimate justifications of humanity's necessary actions. Everything leads toward survival and happiness; emotional & evolutionary baseis. It isn't my opinion. That there is no compelling objective reason for this ultimate justification is, as according to my theorem's conclusion, fact. By indicating the astounding lack of evidence (theoretical and logical), I feel I've adequately established justification against my opponent's resolution. We have no reason to do anything at all. There is no such thing as objective necessity, therefore you cannot justify imposing anything on anyone (including the death penalty) under any and all circumstances. I have proposed a direct negative to the death penalty. The theorem's uncontended status confirms that doing nothing (including not implementing the death penalty) is the more correct policy which corresponds to the ideological stance that stems from it: Apathy.

"I am sorry I failed to provide sources in my previous round but I would like point out so did you"
The difference between my statement and that of my opponent is that mine are not anecdotal or statistical claims. I'm not claiming an applied mathematical statistic or generalization (such as saying x% of the population is y), I am establishing a theorem that runs within the philosophical realm. The argument is 100% original and requires no source. It is a self-supporting theorem that derives its strength from its undeniable clauses. It is not possible to prove any part of the theorem wrong.

"On a purely personal view point why should the farther of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison?. I really don"t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough."
On a personal, subjective viewpoint, I actually agree with my opponent: there is good reason to selectively implement the death penalty. It has been statistically proven that societal units that implement the death penalty have lower rates of murder. Remember, I'm a human too. I also have the human desire to attain happiness, survival and reproduction.


However, the theorem still stands as hypothetically correct. There appears to be no way to prove it wrong. Accordingly, apathy may be the correct ideological & philosophical stance, but that doesn't mean you or I have to follow it. I don't care a bit for apathy. I am human. I have emotions. Screw objectivity.


I hate to be repetitive, but, although I don't support the system, it is 'politically' correct (unless you find some way to prove it wrong, of course). Until my opponent does prove it wrong by providing compelling objective reasons for the desires of humanity and subsequently the death penalty, the theorem stands and I am yet victor. Since I absolutely believe my opponent cannot do so, I will go ahead and urge a strong vote for PRO.
G131994

Con

"" What my opponent is asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove 1 + 1 = 2"" Well sine you didn"t/couldn"t do it I have found you the proof. However you still fail to give any objective proof for your Theorem.

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D

My opponents assertion that "", the theorem still stands as hypothetically correct. There appears to be no way to prove it wrong."" 400 years ago it was accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe , my opponents ""logic"" if applied to this situation would be Just because there was no way to prove otherwise our plant was the center of the universe this has subsequently been proven to be false. This therefore shows just because I do not have the means to prove, using evidence his argument is false it does not mean it is true. He has provided no evidence to show that it is true but merely made assumptions such as the ones made 400 years ago.

Back to the debate at hand which again you fail to provide any relevant evidence to suggest there is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century. I fact you even support my argument "" On a personal, subjective viewpoint, I actually agree with my opponent"" We live in the real world not the hypothetical therefore the debates should refer to only the real world.

You accept my statement that the death penalty lowers murder rates "" It has been statistically proven that societal units that implement the death penalty have lower rates of murder"" so we are both in agreement it has a positive effect on society as a whole and therefore by your own admission "" There is a place for the death penalty in the 21st century"".

To summaries I will repeat what I asked in my previous round to you the reader. If you were the parent of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings would you like to pay to keep your sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison? If the answer is no you accept "" There is a place for the death penalty in the 21st century"" and are therefore compelled to vote con.

Thankyou for a great debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
Beginner
VOTERS DO NOT READ THIS OR THE TWO PRECEDING COMMENTS! VOTE FIRST, THEN READ!

On the matter of opinions, you say that everyone has their own opinion. I don't contradict that. The purpose of establishing the fact the necessity is a human construct is to lead to the point about the necessity/credibility of humanity itself as a standard or construct. I am not developing any opinions, and I do not know where you've derived the claim.

I am only questioning the use of humanity as a credible standpoint through which morality can be objectively measured, and, from this inquiry, arrive at the proposed answer: It is not a credible standpoint; nothing ultimately matters. Just as scientific theories and 'facts' (such as the existence of gravity), are based purely on observation (meaning we cannot be absolutely certain of our proposed gravitational laws), the answer I proposed similarly lacks an absolute indicative. It has, however, a very strong base of empirical support which culminates from the fact that objectivity, as developed before, does not exist. This is not opinion. This is a solid theory based on observations and continuous cognitive tests (i.e. develop solid objective grounds by which we can ultimately apply judgments of necessity).

The easiest way to address the math issue is this: Prove one of the points in your theorem that you used to establish 1+1=2. For the purposes of this debate, it is entirely silly to ask your opponent to prove each and every little thing, especially when proof is elusively asked for (proof for what? Give me the EXACT clause that you want proof for), and when proof is unnecessary. I could also have marked every single point in the 1+1=2 theorem as lacking further evidence (meaning you have to prove P1, P2, P3, etc.). Please see my point already.

Please be more concise. Point to the exact statement(s) that you are marking as opinion. The accusation is very vague, just as were your accusations of my not fulfilling the BoP.
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
G131994
VOTERS DO NOT READ THIS, VOTE FIRST, THEN READ!

"" It is only necessary to the human mind that implements the claim."" Exactly everyone has their own opinion yet you rate your opinion above everyone else"s surely it is up to the voter to determine whether they themselves fell the death penalty has a place in the 21st century.

""Concerning the 1+1=2 statement, I threw it out to show you the fact that asking me to prove the clauses is like asking me to prove indubitable ( impossible)"" as shown you can prove 1+1=2 as you can every other FACT. You fail thought the debate to offer any proof but merely repeatedly sate your opinion.

"" The moment you put 'should' in the resolution, the debate, although having the appearance of physicality, has fallen into the theoretical realm"" Again you state and portray your opinion as fact and refuse to acknowledge any other valid interpretation.

As for your last point "" I can completely imagine you calling abortion-choice advocates baby killers. If you aren't a baby-killer, vote yes.
Also, by forcing emotional subjectivity upon the reader, you've clearly ignored the fact that rule #7 asks for maximal objectivity from the voters"" I am entitled to use valid examples of cases where the death penalty maybe applied. It is totally relevant to look at it through the victims eyes in order to gain a full understanding of the situation. "" asks for maximal objectivity from the voters""" I think it is very ironic considering your entire argument was based on hypothetical arguments.

I am thoroughly disappointed you suggest I could be so offensive and believe you are unduly personal in this attack. "" can completely imagine you calling abortion-choice advocates baby killers. If you aren't a baby-killer""

Here is a link to such a debate I participated in "" http://www.debate.org...; As you can I said nothing along those lines.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
Beginner
VOTERS DO NOT READ THIS, VOTE FIRST, THEN READ!

The claim of necessity is a human construct. It is only necessary to the human mind that implements the claim. Since necessity is a metaphysical construct, its metaphysical argumentative treatment is thus more appropriate than a physical one. Since the theory of the earth's central location in the universe is a claim on the physical realm, such a claim cannot adequately compare to my theorem. Its use to discount the philosophical clauses within is entirely fallacious.
Concerning the 1+1=2 statement, I threw it out to show you the fact that asking me to prove the clauses is like asking me to prove indubitable, metaphysical facts [metaphysical facts.. feels oxymoronic, oh well] You've completely missed my point.
The moment you put 'should' in the resolution, the debate, although having the appearance of physicality, has fallen into the theoretical realm because necessity is, again, a theoretical human construct. What one thinks is necessary, others don't. Thus quotes such as: one man's trash is another man's garbage. Some may think donating to charity a necessity, others may not.. It's nice and potentially saves lives, but it is not, objectively necessary. Necessity is subjective.
Last point: " If you were the parent of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings would you like to pay to keep your sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison? If the answer is no you accept "" There is a place for the death penalty in the 21st century"" and are therefore compelled to vote con."
I can completely imagine you calling abortion-choice advocates baby killers. If you aren't a baby-killer, vote yes.
Also, by forcing emotional subjectivity upon the reader, you've clearly ignored the fact that rule #7 asks for maximal objectivity from the voters. Although not exactly a breach of the rules, this imposition is clearly a misconduct.
I am thoroughly disappointed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
BeginnerG131994Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I guesse I agree with bladerunner
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
BeginnerG131994Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving Pro conduct just for being willing to debate anything; he took on a tough job, particularly with the tack he took on attacking the death penalty. Con showed that "There is no place for the death penalty" lacked support from Pro's arguments, which seemed mostly semantical. There were some tangents here, but again, I think that had a lot to do with the "go ahead, hit me with your best shot" nature of the resolution.