The Instigator
xOs
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
CorOdin
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Is tit for tat a good way to lay down the law?

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 1 vote the winner is...
xOs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 719 times Debate No: 60749
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

xOs

Con

Just in case my soon to be contender has forgotten the rules,

Round 1- Acceptance

Round 2- Main Arguments

Round 3- Rebuttals

Round 4- Closing Remarks
(Closing remarks can not be more than 5 sentences)

Breaking Any Of These Rules Subjects the Offender to a Full Seven Point Forfeit.

BOP is split both ways, as pro must prove that tit for tat is a good thing, while con must do the opposite.

A Quick Message To The Voters-
Please Read all debate material before voting.

Thank you, and happy debating!


CorOdin

Pro

I am happy to accept this debate, I will be arguing for a restorative justice system and I'm assuming that my opponent will be arguing for a punitive or similar system. In any case, I look forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
xOs

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

Now, down to business.

Tit for Tat

Is the court theory that you should get what you deserve. Or, in simpler terms, if someone does something bad to you, it is considered "tit for tat" to do something bad back to them.

Restorative justice

Is the court theory that focuses on the needs of the victims, rather than the punishment of the actual offender, though that is incorporated as well. Not sure if that was a typo, or if my opponent simply thought of the wrong thing.

Why tit for tat is bad

The fact is, tit for tat simply cannot be achieved on a scale of larger crimes. It is sometimes used in courts for things like death penalties, and theft. In these cases, sometimes it is the only option. But in other cases, like Dictatorships and Terrorist Actions, sometimes tit for tat just cannot be carried out.

The goal of tit for tat

Is that the scales are evened, and that everybody recieves (or loses) the same. (For instance, if a man takes $100 from another person, the person must be payed back with the money of the offender, thus the person gets his money back, and the theif loses the money that he stole.) But on larger scale, this simply cannot be carried out. You can't make a dictator die 100,000 times, like the 100,000 people he murdered. You can't make a terrorist burn to death, and then be gunned down, like the men's lives he took. And you know another thing that you can't do with tit for tat? You can't give people their lives back.

The solution

Is to carry out a standardized punishment for the offender, and then help the victims put their lives back together. Help them rebuild their house that was burned down, componsate them for the loved one they lost, knowing in no way can we make up for their losses, but at least we have helped them to pick themselves up! Does punishing the one offender do this? Does killing a single man help the thousands that were injured? Stolen from? Had loved ones killed? The answer, is of course, no. And like Mahatma Gandhi said- "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."(1)

(1)- http://www.brainyquote.com...

CorOdin

Pro

CorOdin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
xOs

Con

As my opponent forefited this round I have nothing to refute. Thus I will give my opponent the time that he needs. please consider this when you vote.
CorOdin

Pro

Excuse my tardiness in responding to my opponent's argument, that was very unprofessional.

Also, I did indeed misunderstand. I will not necessarily be arguing for tit for tat law, but I will be arguing against the system my opponent is describing.

The most efficient court system is the restorative justice form. I believe that in a way, my opponent has described that system. However, he separates punishment from restoration in larger scale crimes. This is wrong for a few reasons.

1. Standardized law isn't meant to handle large scale crimes. You would never take a war criminal to any court lower than an international court. So yes, tit for tat maybe the correct way to lay down the law, because the law is a term applied to the larger generality of cases. Of course there were always extreme exceptions, but that is not what standard law and the lower courts are designed to handle.

2. You can't have restorative justice by punishing innocents. You cannot help the afflicted families by harming innocents and still hold the moral high ground, yet that seems to be what my opponent is proposing. Assuming that the aid will be payed for by taxes and not voluntary donations, you are literally stealing from John (taxpayers) to pay for Paul's (dictator) genocide. This kind of funding is immoral, No matter the intentions.

I apologize for my brief and no doubt poorly written argument, but my current circumstances deny me from using anything other than my phone.
Debate Round No. 3
xOs

Con

Thank you for returning! Those are some interesting arguements. Let's go to refutals.


However, he separates punishment from restoration in larger scale crimes.

As I clearly stated in the definition I posted, the punishment and the actual restorative justice are intertwined.

The punishment is not usually that much of a big deal in the RJ (Restorative Justice) system, but it is nessecary nonetheless.

As I have proven that I in fact did not seperate the two concepts, this point is moot.

Standardized law isn't meant to handle large scale crimes.

In fact, standardized law (or at least how my opponent is proposing it) does not exist.

My opponent is refering to the different levels of court, not the proposed "different levels of law"

There is no "Standard Law" or "Advanced Law", there is simply the size of the crime and the size of the court.

I could go on and on about this but I believe I have refuted this point enough.


You can't have restorative justice by punishing innocents. You cannot help the afflicted families by harming innocents and still hold the moral high ground, yet that seems to be what my opponent is proposing. Assuming that the aid will be payed for by taxes and not voluntary donations, you are literally stealing from John (taxpayers) to pay for Paul's (dictator) genocide.

In fact, in most court cases (like I previously stated) the criminals have to donate their assets to help fund the restoration of the people that they wronged.

Example- A dictator wrongs 1,000 people, but he has a bank asset of 3.5 billion (the average for dictators). He would be forced to give up that money to the people he wronged, which is about $35,000 to each person. This is of course, an example, and the actual court case would be different.

I would like to point out that Pro can't add any new points in this final round, he can only rebute points that were previously stated.


Closing Remarks-

1. Pro's BOP was to prove that tit for tat was a good way to lay down the law

2. Pro has not made a single argument about the good things that TFT brings

3. Pro cannot add any remarks in the final round, only counter mine

4. By not fufilling his side of the BOP, Pro loses this debate


VOTE CON

CorOdin

Pro

I will make refutations where I can. Your solution was, "To carry out a standardized punishment for the offender, and then help the victims put their lives back together." You can see why this would suggest to me the separation of punishment and restoration, the punishment and restoration are in two different clauses! Punishment is not defined as demanding recompense from the perpetrator for the victims but more similar to the court system providing that recompense instead. But since my opponent has referenced his restorative justice definition, it seems like I mistook him, and that he was actually saying that the punishment should include recompense for the victims.

Additionally, you pointed to an extreme case of where the law might be applied. Obviously, the dilemma of paying for thousands of genocide victims would not be a case that come up in the lower courts, which is where most of the cases would be made. That is what I meant by standard law proceedings.

Unfortunately, I went into the debate with a flurry of misconceptions. For one, it appears that me and my opponent were in fact arguing for the same system the whole time! It appears that my opponent seems to be defending a restorative justice system, given that he referenced to his definitions in the final round. I am completely in support of a restorative justice system, and by some mistake I figured tit for tat to mean a system like that, as in "You take my money, I take yours", a restorative justice system where the criminal pays the victim for his crimes.

I would make one suggestion to the xOs, and that is to provide clear and accurate definitions prior to the acceptance stage of debate. Since tit for tat is a somewhat obscure and arbitrary term, I mistook xOs meaning. This may simply be my mistake, but nonetheless, definitions provided beforehand could help a fool like me from making the mistake of debating against something he agrees with.

In any case, xOs made great arguments, offered much better attendance and better fulfilled his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by xOs 2 years ago
xOs
Before I post my debate, I would like to know your parameters of "restorative justice"
Posted by xOs 2 years ago
xOs
Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation".
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wtf is tit for tat
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
xOsCorOdinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - FF + concession. Sp/Gr - The spelling of "arguements" was too much for me, although otherwise both use a fluid prose and clearly structured arguments. Arguments - Pro admitted from the second round that he would not be arguing the prompt, this immediately disqualified him. His later concession cemented Con's victory.