The Death Penalty
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is for acceptance ONLY!
My opening thesis:
If a person has intent and malice to cause mental and physical harm and gets the sensation of enjoyment out of it, that person should be punished by death. Once you murder someone (and feel enjoyment), rape, and touch a child inappropriately; you should not be seen as a human being in the eyes of the law and deserved to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is justified at this point.
Many will argue that killing a human being after he/she killed another human being (with malice and intent, of course) is unjustifiable as it results in the ending of a human life which is illegal and immoral. I, however, (and many more) disagree as that allows that person who ended a human life to still be alive. Many believe that imprisonment is too humane for these people who commit such heinous acts.
Now, onto the subject of rape. Rape is as heinous as murder. You have the intent to cause harm, both physically and psychologically. The result of the rape to the victim is as devastating as murder. You have to live with the thought of being raped and not trusting another human being after the act. Now, onto the physical harm of it. The physical harm of rape is terrible. Rape victims have cuts, bruises, vaginal (or anal for both men and women) damage, and (possibly) broken bones.
Pedophilia is devastating to a child. That child will not be the same as he or she was before the incident. They have to live WITH the rest of their lives psychologically and emotionally broken. Children are delicate people. As soon as a man or women lay a finger on a child inappropriately; they should be seen as an animal for ruing that CHILD's life.
When I say, "animal;" I mean it as you are seen as a barbaric piece of human flesh with a mentally unstable brain. These animals aren't fit for society and should be excluded from it as a result of their heinous actions. Humans are meant to be reasonable and socially fit people.
That is where I end my argument.
I will continue my arguments in upcoming rounds. I am very ill and I find it hard to participate at the moment
Note how Con ignored my points on rape and pedophilia.
A, "person," who can't see it but they choose to ignore it shouldn't be allowed to live. If you chose to ignore right from wrong; you don't deserve to be considered a human being. However, in terms of insanity (They can't see right from wrong); that person should be put in an asylum. If that person cannot value the person's life that he/she ruined or ended should not be a human being and therefore should be put to death like an animal.
As I mentioned, I have been under the weather and have been in no shape to debate. However, I do not want to disappoint the audience, so despite my illness I shall not disappoint.
A person who does not value a life like they should should not be here? Well then if you're willing to execute someone, kill them, end their life, then a human life is also provably not valuable to you. If you are willing to end a life, then you have proven that a life is not worth having around. That's rather insulting.
And what about second chances for mentally sane people? Even mentally sane people reach a snapping point and react outside of their normal self and end up killing. I know this first hand. I don't care to get personal. I reached my snapping point in life, and I was ready to kill... myself. I am normally sane, and now very happy, but so much stress entered my life, and I was ready to kill myself. Should I have just done it anyways? Because I have been proven harmful and provably valued life less than I should have. And that is the question I want answered. If nothing else, the last paragraph I want a response to. Tell me that because I stopped calling life for a period of time because I snapped, that I ought to be dead. Tell me that. If you do, I won't report you for hateful talk. I will forfeit this debate and encourage a unanimous, seven points to be awarded to you by each voter. So go on.
There's not enough character space for me to address every argument and then finish what I previously wanted to finish had I not been too ill to participate sooner.
*Note how Con, yet again, ignored my points on rape and pedophilia.
A Mentally Sane Person's Breaking Point:
I, somewhat, agree that if a psychologically sane person snaps that they should be able to receive a second chance. There should be leniency towards those who snap as he human brain can handle so much psychological stress at one time. IF it reaches its limit then the brain loses its control and has the person kill. That's what sucks about being human.
"Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order..." (http://drrimatruthreports.com...)
I extend my arguments of rape and pedophilia.
Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.