The Instigator
shneeba
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pokemonzr
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Punishments over crimes

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 52621
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

shneeba

Con

I personally believe that sick people who committed serious murders who will be in jail for life should be publicly embarrassed, raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered. Let's not be easy on these terrible people and make sure when someone does a terrible crime they know what could be the consequence.
Pokemonzr

Pro

Hello, this should be an interesting debate... I hope.

To start out, I would like to define the key terms of this debate, as my opponent has failed to do so.

Crime: any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. [1]
Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. [1]

Now, I would like to refute my opponents sole argument.

Refutation 1:
My esteemed colleague stated the following:
"sick people who committed serious murders who will be in jail for life should be publicly embarrassed, raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered. Let's not be easy on these terrible people and make sure when someone does a terrible crime they know what could be the consequence."
I disagree with him for a few reasons actually.
1. Why? Why should we unjustly treat criminals? He hasn't stated a reason why.
2. This is unconstitutional. We have a constitution and laws to prevent against sick people like my opponent who believe this. There are laws regarding the punishments, and going this far would be breaking these laws and going against the constitution that our country, the USA, was founded on.
3. Put yourself in their shoes. I would like to ask my opponent to follow this, and imaging everything I am saying. Imagine that a burglar broke into your house into the middle of the night. You have your handy gun on your night stand as protection. The burglar comes into your room, and you get scared. You grab your gun, pull the trigger, and next thing you know, you killed a man. But it wasn't a burglar, it was your father. The cops come and arrest you. Now, you're in jail. You're in court, and you plead innocent, and your lawyer tries the case and to give you a fair chance. But, with your idea, opponent, you, the innocent man who did not mean to kill his father, will be "raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered." I'm sure you wouldn't want this to happen to you.

I will not formally present main arguments in this round, as they have been intermingled into my refutations. However, in round two, I will separate them to give my opponent the ease of refuting them, if he dares to do so.

Thank you for creating this debate, opponent. I would like to welcome you to DDO and wish you good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
shneeba

Con

Before I begin accidents do not apply to my definition of a "serious murder" that I should've specified. By serious murder I mean terrible, but not legally insane people, who tortured or killed multiple people. for example that babysitter who drowned the kids because she wasn't getting paid enough. For people like that we should go medieval on their a$$ and put them a brazen bull or the rack. The death penalty is not unconstitutional http://constitution.now77.com....

That example is extremly you presented unlikely and this person definitely wouldn't be put in jail for life and wouldn't apply to be apart of the torture methods.
Pokemonzr

Pro

Well, I'm not exactly sure how to start this out... So... Hi?

Firstly, I would like to lay out the road map for this round. After this, I will present new definitions, then
will refute my opponent's arguments, then introduce my own arguments. My own arguments are not coming in too late since my opponent still has a round to refute them.

Definitions:
Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. [1]
Serious: of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner. [1]
Serious Murder: the killing of another human being under condition specifically covered in law of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner. [1]
Crime: any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin. [1]
Punishment: Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. [1]

Refutations:
1. Bad/Late Definition. My opponent has stated a definition in his second round argument. Firstly, this said definition is extremely late. It does not work, and is not appropriate to bring up this definition late in the debate without staying it in his first round to support his arguments. Secondly, this is not a correct definition and has no source attached; it is an opinionated definition that should not be accepted in this debate. He even stated "my definition of". I have stated the correct definition above that has a source attached and should be accepted into this debate.
2. Revolving around a false definition. My opponent's entire argument revolves around his incorrect definition of a serious murder and should therefore be discounted.
3. Misquote. My opponent has provided a misquote/misinterpretation of my argument. He brought up that the death penalty is not unconstitutional in response to one of my first round refutations. However, this response is irrelevant due to the fact that I was talking about how it is unconstitutional to "publicly humiliate, rape, cleanse, then rape again" and to "go medieval on their a$$ and put them on brazen bull or the rack". Therefore, I believe my opponents weak refutation is invalid and completely irrelevant to my argument.
4. Accident. My opponent has stated that my "accident" argument is invalid and used his false definition to support it, therefore this refutation is invalid due to false/no evidence.
5. More incorrect mumbo jumbo. My opponent stated the following: "That example is extremly you presented unlikely and this person definitely wouldn't be put in jail for life and wouldn't apply to be apart of the torture methods." I disagree since this is a highly relevant example that applies to many people, more than my opponents pea brain can think of. Also, they would be put in jail because they killed somebody and they broke the law. I even stated in my example that they did go to jail! And, how does he know that that person wouldn't apply to his torture methods? He hasn't properly specified the people it applies to, only "sick people" or "people who commit serious murders".

Main Arguments:
1. This is unconstitutional. We have a constitution and laws to prevent against sick people like my opponent who believe this. There are laws regarding the punishments, and going this far would be breaking these laws and going against the constitution that our country, the USA, was founded on.
2. Put yourself in their shoes. I would like to ask my opponent to follow this, and imaging everything I am saying. Imagine that a burglar broke into your house into the middle of the night. You have your handy gun on your night stand as protection. The burglar comes into your room, and you get scared. You grab your gun, pull the trigger, and next thing you know, you killed a man. But it wasn't a burglar, it was your father. The cops come and arrest you. Now, you're in jail. You're in court, and you plead innocent, and your lawyer tries the case and to give you a fair chance. But, with your idea, opponent, you, the innocent man who did not mean to kill his father, will be "raped, cleansed then raped again then murdered." I'm sure you wouldn't want this to happen to you.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent has not replied to my question, which was as follows: "Why should we unjustly treat criminals? He hasn't stated a reason why."

Thank you for reading, and please vote for my side of this debate.

Citations:
[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
shneeba

Con

Of course torturing someone is unconstitutional why the hell would I be having this debate if it was all legal you idiot. Now also to be clear I said sick but not legally insane people, so this means that the people who torture and kill one or more people should have their punishment be very similar. I am a firm believer in the saying "what goes around comes around" so if some babysitter drowns a 5 and 7 year old because she isn't being paid enough, they should get their own punishment if its the brazen bull, iron maiden, or even the guillotine. Now to simplify the definition of a serious murder, it is when someone doesn't just kill another human, but they either brutally tortured one or more people, or they kill a mass amount of people.

Unconstitutional arguement- the constitution is designed to grow and change as our nation grows and changes. The constitution has changed and grown many times since it was first developed so adding to it isn't out of the picture like you make it seem to be. Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law. Your main argument is putting myself in their shoes...wow that is so pathetic, it has nothing behind it other than me just imagining, and I'm sorry but I can't imagine myself brutally torture and murder someone.

I am also proposing that the torturing of the person will be voted on in court as well on what kind of torturing method. If your example of the complete accident of a kid shooting his dad because he walked in his room (which is retarded I might add) happens, then the kid obviously wouldn't be tortured because we don't have evidence that he meant to do it.

Bringing back the crazy torturing methods of the medieval times not only would make the victims families feel better, but they would also make the murderer think twice before carrying out such sick deeds.
Pokemonzr

Pro

I apologize for mentioning my opponent's pea brain.

With that aside, I do not wish to debate this any longer. My opponent has deeply offended me by calling me am idiot, cursing twice within the debate, and treating me and the debate with disrespect.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never heart me." Words have hurt me.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
shneeba
Well @Ja50n u bring up a big question whether if it is better to leave the "scum of the earth" with us or to just get rid of them. The difference between them killing and us killing is that we kill for justice and for the victims families because if a loved one was brutally murdered by someone, letting them live an all expensive paid for life in jail would make me feel like he got the better of us
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
"I am a firm believer in the saying "what goes around comes around" so if some babysitter drowns a 5 and 7 year old because she isn't being paid enough, they should get their own punishment if its the brazen bull, iron maiden, or even the guillotine. Now to simplify the definition of a serious murder, it is when someone doesn't just kill another human, but they either brutally tortured one or more people, or they kill a mass amount of people." quote round 3

Here's a thought, If we torture the criminal wouldn't that mean that we as a society are no better than those "scum of the Earth". I mean we can attempt to justify our actions however we want but what right does a group of people have to decide if someone is tortured to death? An example can be found in the movie "12 years a Slave" where the main character quotes "Slavery is a burden no one should be subject to". In a sense the Americans condemned black people to series of hardships and torture without any regard to their culture's or reasons. Does this mean that we did not learn from our mistakes as a modern society?

Anyway when you say "they would also make the murderer think twice before carrying out such sick deeds." I'm sure when someone is so insane they enjoy violence, they wouldn't even think about the penalties that will incur if they get caught. Like I said before if you start torturing these people then you are technically no better than they are
Posted by Macumba 2 years ago
Macumba
False words cannot hurt physically
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
shneeba
My opponent started it all I did was defend myself

And I also should win........
No votes have been placed for this debate.