The Instigator
victorialee
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

THW not punish people under the poverty line that commit economical crimes

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  
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: 1/17/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,347 times Debate No: 99054
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

victorialee

Con

Thank you opponent, in advance for accepting this challenge. Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate.org, so here it goes. Good Luck!

Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e.g. jail, fines.
I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery.

For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third.

Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again.

There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc. This concludes my first point.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hello victorialee.

I initially accepted your debate challenge, just to have fun with the poor wording of your opening statement.

Pangs of guilt, have made me reconsider though.

Always make sure your arguments are worded correctly and make grammatical sense.

I suggest you amend your opening statement and post it again.

Yours sincerely. Sonofcharl.
Debate Round No. 1
victorialee

Con

I'm sorry about that. It must have been such an inconvenience for you.

Here it is, with my opening statement edited:
Thank you for accepting this challenge. Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate.org, so here it goes. Good Luck!

Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e.g. jail, fines.
I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery.

For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third.

Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again. If the rest of the people that are in poverty don't steal or rob?, why should they?

There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, and may not have the time to accept debates for fun just for the sake of a grammar error, which I agree was wrong on my part. I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you would have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc, which will definitely reduce the chances of them being a repeat offender. This concludes my first point.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hello victorialee.

You misunderstand. I was referring to economical crimes under the poverty line.

If you are still happy with this, then repost it and look for another opponent.

Sonofcharl will forfeit this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
victorialee

Con

Hey Sonofcharl,

Since you've decided to forfeit this debate, I'll just post this first, and I suggest you do not reply. I honestly do not find any fault with the opening statement, although it sounds... different.

Goodbye.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hello again victorialee.

Economical:
Giving good value or return in relation to the money, time or effort expended.

Example:
I bough a gun for $50. I robbed a store at gunpoint and stole $500 from the till.
This was good value. An economical crime.
Debate Round No. 3
victorialee

Con

Dear Sonofcharl,

The way you defined economical crimes is exactly the way I meant for it to be. It benefits the criminal, and at the same time is still a crime. Economic crimes refer to illegal acts committed by an individual or a group of individuals to obtain a financial or professional advantage. In such crimes, the offender's principal motive is economic gain.

Hope this addresses your misunderstanding.
Sonofcharl

Pro

"Economical" ....... "Economic"

Two different words. Two different definitions.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sonofcharl 1 year ago
Sonofcharl
You misunderstand victorialee!

I was referring to economical crimes, under the poverty line.

I will forfeit this debate.

Have a think about it, amend and repost. Or repost the original if you are still happy with it.
Posted by victorialee 1 year ago
victorialee
Hey Sonofcharl, I'm sorry about the punctuation error in my fifth paragraph, where I accidentally added an extra question mark. I really can't wait for your actual substantive. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.