The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
A_time_and_a_place
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The Death penalty is a just form of punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,790 times Debate No: 4757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (11)

 

CiRrO

Pro

I affirm: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

[Definitions]

Death Penalty: execution; putting a condemned person to death.

Just: in accordance with justice, i.e. giving each their due.

Punishment:

1. the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive in response to an unwanted or disobedient behavior.
2. The act of punishing; penalty for wrongdoing, especially for crime.

Convicted: declared guilty of a crime in a court of law.
=================================================================================

Contentions:

I. Kant's Scale of Justice Argument

According to Kant, when one kills another person, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. The criminal has universalized the action of death and has tipped the scale of justice. Thus the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized, i.e. death, and put the scale back into balance. The equality between victim and criminal must also be realized. The government must put equal worth between the victim and the criminal. Therefore, to maintain the balance, the government has an obligation to kill the criminal. Only then, has the scale of justice been balanced.

II. Locke's Right Violation Argument/Social Contract Theory

According to Locke, when one person kills another then the killer loses their right to life as well. The Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society. Essentially, the killer has broken the contract between himself and the government. Thus, the government has the right to remove this person from society. The government would be violating the contract if they did not because: A) They would be letting a killer keep the right that was taken from another member of society. B) They could possibly be putting other members of society at risk as well.
A_time_and_a_place

Con

Firstly I'll thank my opponent for his offer to debate.

I have perhaps a slightly different, preferred style of debating than that I've seen so far on this website, but I will try to be as clear and systematic as possible.

Contentions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Kant's Scale of Justice Argument

"According to Kant, when one kills another person, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. The criminal has universalized the action of death and has tipped the scale of justice. Thus the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized, i.e. death, and put the scale back into balance."
----
This I think omits the fact that it, in a way, it actually makes us play by the criminals rules. By stating that "The criminal has universalized the action of death" and "the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized" you are stating that THEY have set the standard, not us, and that we should be as unforgiving as they. Also "they themselves have sentenced themselves to death" is not true, they only actually die if we say they die (barring natural causes etc.). This is a clear subconscious attempt at removing accountability from us and passing it on to them. This is only done as the person who invokes this argument, knows this is an act that they do not want to take full moral responsibility for, logically, because part of them thinks it is wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"The equality between victim and criminal must also be realized. The government must put equal worth between the victim and the criminal. Therefore, to maintain the balance, the government has an obligation to kill the criminal. Only then, has the scale of justice been balanced."
----
Is it really equal worth though? Say the victim was anti-death penalty, do we then still execute his attacker? We have no way of knowing whether they would have changed their minds either way after they were murdered for example. If they would not want the person that killed them to be executed (and not necessarily in a Gandhi way, they may think they will suffer more in prison then die) then by executing them, we are in fact dishonoring the victim's wishes. Also, what if the perpetrator is suicidal? Is that equality to kill a person who wants to die/is not that bothered by it, to counter someone who didn't want to die?
--------------------------------------------------------------

II. Locke's Right Violation Argument/Social Contract Theory

"According to Locke, when one person kills another then the killer loses their right to life as well. The Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society."
----
There is no contract, as with balancing justice, I contend you are being scientific in a situation that is inherently unscientific (it's very hard to be scientific when you are dealing with individual persons, we acknowledge that everyone is different, yet strive to treat them the same in the "interest of fairness").

A contract is an AGREEMENT (http://dictionary.reference.com...), if the perpetrator was to actually (provably) state that if he/she ever killed someone that they consent to being put to death, then I would agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society. Essentially, the killer has broken the contract between himself and the government."
----
There is no "obligation", there is a clear choice. That politicians use the death penalty (pro and con) as a way of distinguishing themselves from other politicians to rally votes behind them is the closest to an "obligation" the government has, and that is an obligation to their own career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thus, the government has the right to remove this person from society."
----
I agree but there is a big difference between removing from society and removing from life. I fully support life in prison MEANING life in prison, no parole, no TV etc. Four walls, food and a lot of time to reflect on why they shouldn't have committed their crime.
-----------------------------------------------------------

"The government would be violating the contract if they did not because:"

Again, there is no "contract" but...

"A) They would be letting a killer keep the right that was taken from another member of society."
----
That is what distinguishes us from them, I would rather not stoop to their level or anywhere near it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"B) They could possibly be putting other members of society at risk as well."
----
If they are put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for the rest of their life I support it. There are other ways to protect society. If we think like that then we might as well execute anyone involved in a serious violent/sexual crime.

To conclude this round I will just copy/paste my other points from the comment section that resulted in this debate, as most have not been covered yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Variables suggested by Biowza and the basic but subjective moral issues aside. I'll debate this one.

1. It's financially more expensive to impose the death penalty than to imprison someone for life.

2. As has been seen recently, this punishment can be expanded at the whim of public opinion/political agenda (child rapists as well now, not just murderers). At which point will it stop? Someone stole my car once and I wanted to kill them, doesn't make it right.

3. It might not bother people to kill the person who has committed the crime, but it doesn't take into account the family/friends of the person to be executed.

4. Bearing in mind the above, it's clearly about retribution/revenge. This is a destructive mindset both on a personal level and in terms of society. If revenge is what's most important, then we may as well have a vigilante society.

5. It doesn't prevent crime. When people commit murder for example, aren't expecting to get caught or aren't in control of themselves. Punishment of prison for life is as good/bad at deterring murder as the death penalty. The US has a much higher murder rate per capita than say the UK, and yet they don't have the death penalty. It's a social issue comprised of many factors.

The death penalty is irrationally driven for the ill-informed public, and a lazy political tool for politicians struggling to define themselves from other politicians."
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

I'll defend my own case then move to refute my opponents.

My Response: I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Kant's works, but I'll refute this attack anyway. Essentially, the criminals are held to their own actions. We, as a government are giving which they have set up. We are all individuals, the criminals have set the standard of death, thus they deserve death. We are essentially giving them what they want. We are not being "unforgiving", but we are showing that killing cannot be done in society. The government cannot give the criminal life for death that he has brought onto an innocent of society. I also do not think that it is wrong. I believe the death penalty is right. However, I believe that the criminal must take full culpable responsibility for their own actions.

"Is it really equal worth though? Say the victim was anti-death penalty, do we then still execute his attacker? We have no way of knowing whether they would have changed their minds either way after they were murdered for example. If they would not want the person that killed them to be executed (and not necessarily in a Gandhi way, they may think they will suffer more in prison then die) then by executing them, we are in fact dishonoring the victim's wishes. Also, what if the perpetrator is suicidal? Is that equality to kill a person who wants to die/is not that bothered by it, to counter someone who didn't want to die?"

My Response: It doesn't matter if the person was anti-death penalty. The criminal deserves the same worth he gave his victim. Which is no worth. Allowing a criminal to life, while their victim is dead, is a crime in and of itself. Essentially, it is showing that the government values the life of a criminal more then that of the victim. you also like the idea of subjectivity. For this, human worth is objective. Killing without full retribution devalues the human worth of the innocent.

"There is no contract, as with balancing justice, I contend you are being scientific in a situation that is inherently unscientific (it's very hard to be scientific when you are dealing with individual persons, we acknowledge that everyone is different, yet strive to treat them the same in the "interest of fairness")."

My Response: I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Locke's philosophy as well.... Locke who is the basis of enlightened democratic government philosophy theorized that in a democracy/republic the state and people make a tacit agreement. The agreement, aka the Social Contract explains that the government has an obligation to it's people to distribute justice. when a criminal kills, they lose their right to life. Also, when the criminal is born into society and if they keep living there, they agree to the contract. When they commit a crime they have broken it. Thus its the obligation for the government to take that right away. They forfeit a right for committing a crime.

"A contract is an AGREEMENT (http://dictionary.reference.com......), if the perpetrator was to actually (provably) state that if he/she ever killed someone that they consent to being put to death, then I would agree."

My Response: The Social Contract is a contract between people and state. Also, the criminal does indeed agree to this agreement. According to Locke if a person does not leave their country then the submit to the contract. When they leave, the contract is let go. Its all about free will.

"There is no "obligation", there is a clear choice. That politicians use the death penalty (pro and con) as a way of distinguishing themselves from other politicians to rally votes behind them is the closest to an "obligation" the government has, and that is an obligation to their own career."

My Response: No offense, but you seem to be confused with polticial philsophy with political application. The obligation is an objective obligation when people live in a society. The government has certain obligations, and so does the people. Politicians increasing their own career have nothing to do with this.

"I agree but there is a big difference between removing from society and removing from life. I fully support life in prison MEANING life in prison, no parole, no TV etc. Four walls, food and a lot of time to reflect on why they shouldn't have committed their crime."

My Response: Ok, and what does the victim have left? Can the victim watch TY, fall in love, eat, enjoy the world. No. Sadly. The victim ahs lsot everything, and then the criminal has the right to maintain that which has been lost to the victim.

Again, there is no "contract" but...

My Response: Of course there is. We as people agree to living in a particular society. You are very ignorant with political philosophy/science. If you universalize your actions, then we have the right to do what ever. Laws mean nothing.

"That is what distinguishes us from them, I would rather not stoop to their level or anywhere near it."

My Response: It is not about stooping to their level. The resolution has the inherent value of justice. That is what the debate is about. Giving each what they are due.

"If they are put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for the rest of their life I support it. There are other ways to protect society. If we think like that then we might as well execute anyone involved in a serious violent/sexual crime."

My Response: I never debated consquentialism as a point of mine. I am debating from a deontological perspective.

Therefore, extend all my arguments. His attacks never touched upon the actul points behind them.

Going to his case:

1) This is only true because the appeals process is so long. Also, even if it is more expensive, good things don't come cheap. Cleaning the earth costs billions of money, but we still do it.

2) The bill to make the death penalty an option for child rapists has been struck down. also, the law is based on proportionality. Stealing a car does not warrant the death penalty.

3) The killer didn't think of that when he killed the victim. The government is essentially creating equality between the victim/murderer and victim's family/criminals family.

4) Governmental Retribution is not revenge. Revenge is a personal retribution. The government doesn't have hate as the motivator for the death penalty. It uses it to achieve proportionate justice, equality, to show show how some crimes warrant death for how evil they are. i.e. killing. (According to the US Supreme Court when its reinstated the Death Penalty)

5) Ok, however the death penalty wasn't specifically made to deter crime. Deterrence of crime is an after effect. It it happens, great. Also, deterrence has yet to be proven or disproved. In contrast to your UK point. Singapore holds the most frequent executions of killers, and they have a 2% crime rate. Also, in Texas, since the DP's reinstatement. Killing has gone down 30%.

6) No the death penalty is driven by people who want to see criminals get what they deserve and to archive justice. Were Kant and Locke ill-informed citizens of their country? This attack about citizens and politicians isn't warranted at all. It's only coming from an assertion from someone who cares more about the life of the criminal then the human worth of the victim.

Drop his contentions.
A_time_and_a_place

Con

I have to be quick and I'm limited by room.
------------------------------

"I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Kant's works, but I'll refute this attack anyway."
----

My familiarity with Kant's work is irrelevant, only replying to that which you quoted is.
------------------------------

To your first response...

As mentioned previously, this is allowing them to define the rules. "giving which they have set up", "the criminals have set the standard of death" and "We are essentially giving them what they want." This last one is particularly unusual thing to say, as they (generally) clearly have no desire to die. And again, as I mentioned previously, they aren't expecting to get caught. As previously, I submit that this point my opponent has put forward is an attempt to pass the responsibility of OUR actions to the criminal. The simple fact is, they only die if we kill them, that makes US responsible however you contort the logic.

This...

"we are showing that killing cannot be done in society."

and...

"I also do not think that it is wrong. I believe the death penalty is right."

Contradict each other. Killing is killing. To protect yourself from an imminent threat, because there is NO OTHER OPTION, is the only time that killing is justifiable.
--------------------------------

"My Response: It doesn't matter if the person was anti-death penalty. The criminal deserves the same worth he gave his victim. Which is no worth. Allowing a criminal to life, while their victim is dead, is a crime in and of itself."
----

So we have now established firmly, that my opponent thinks that the opinion and/or wishes of the victim are not important/relevant.
----------------------------

"Essentially, it is showing that the government values the life of a criminal more then that of the victim. you also like the idea of subjectivity. For this, human worth is objective. Killing without full retribution devalues the human worth of the innocent.
----

It is interesting that you would phrase it like this lol "show that the government values the life of the criminal more than the victim" Why does it not show that the government believes it is more moral, and should NOT preform the same physical act that the criminal has committed? Someone probably loves this person whatever their actions (their mother/father) so in fact by killing them, we are not ending the emotional anguish of victims but creating MORE victims. This goes against the very reason for justice, to protect innocent people.

Unless of course my opponent believes that the relatives of the perpetrator are less human/important/innocent than any other victim?
---------------------------

"My Response: I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Locke's philosophy as well...."

Again, this is not relevant to the debate at hand, and I would put forward that it is a subtle attempt to suggest that my not having read the works of these people undermines my side of the debate, it does not. I'm sure there are works that you have not read, and more so that neither of us have read. Again, this is a debate on the issue presented, AS PRESENTED. This is NOT a debate on the works of Kant and Locke, so ask that you try not to deviate from the subject at hand.
----------------------------

In reply to the rest of your above response (the third).
----

"government has an obligation to it's people to distribute justice" This is why we have prisons among other things.

If you are suggesting that "people do not have the right to live in this country if they do not except this 'social contract'" Should anyone who does NOT believe in the death penalty be deported? Where to? Or should they be executed as well? lol
---------------------------

"Response #4 = The Social Contract is a contract between people and state...

"According to locke" is not an argument of merit, according to some people they have been abducted by aliens and been given an anal probe (worth traveling across the universe for I'm sure). Quoting someone is fine, but it does not give the argument any more gravitas (not when debating someone who sees things like that anyway).

As for "if a person does not leave their country then the submit to the contract" Firstly, people can not choose where they are born, and secondly, where should they go? What about people who disagree with the death penalty ("contract") but have no intention of committing a crime? They should leave also?
---------------------------

Response #5 = No offense, but you seem to be confused with polticial philsophy with political application...
----

lol "No offense" is something said to appear polite as you offend someone. But anyway, how have I confused them? I think both are relevant if that's what you mean. I don't get confused easily you'll find.

"Politicians increasing their own career have nothing to do with this" Are you joking? You think if 99% of people disagreed with the death penalty they'd still enforce it?
---------------------------

Response # 6 = Ok, and what does the victim have left?...
----

We established your opinion on the wishes of the victim and their families already, I'm not sure why NOW you DO think they are important.
------------------------------

Response #6 = Of course there is. We as people agree to living in a particular society...
----

Already covered twice above.
------------------------------

Response #7 = It is not about stooping to their level...
----

According to you it is about affording to the perpetrator that which they have afforded to the victim, irrespective of the wishes/beliefs of the victim's beliefs in life, or those of the family of the condemned. How is this not at least stooping CLOSE to their level? Killers don't care about the wishes/beliefs of others either.

"I never debated consquentialism as a point of mine. I am debating from a deontological perspective."

How is that not relevant to my belief that prison (protecting the innocent) is a moral obligation and executing someone is not? Or does it only matter what you think/debate? lol
-----------------------------

1) It's a long process to limit the number of innocent people killed. And I didn't say we should go for the cheapest option, I said it was more expensive as a logical side issue worth consideration in context with everything else. Is it not relevant?

2) But the Bill surfaced in the first place it could of gone either way. Stealing a car in your opinion doesn't warrent death, murder in my opinion doesn't either. The point was you allow it for one thing, it can escalate. Which was my point

3) The killer is a killer lol This is another blatant example of you suggesting we can be the same. Wow! (that alone should win it for me right there)

4) This one has been covered extensively above.

5) As I said "It's a social issue comprised of many factors". But, it is not proved either way to discourage murder this is true. This would however logically suggest that if there is an effect, it is minimal. Otherwise the proof would be obvious.

6) "No the death penalty is driven by people who want to see criminals GET WHAT THEY DESERVE and to archive justice."
----

Hmm, sounds like revenge to me "Revenge is a personal retribution". Also, psychologically speaking, it is interesting that "justice" came second to "get what they deserve".

"Were Kant and Locke ill-informed citizens of their country?"

Relevance discussed.

"This attack about citizens and politicians isn't warranted at all. It's only coming from an assertion from someone who cares more about the life of the criminal then the human worth of the victim."

Discussed, also I will point out that even criminals are human. This perhaps is the point being missed.

A good point at which to close.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

As mentioned previously, this is allowing them to define the rules. "giving which they have set up", "the criminals have set the standard of death" and "We are essentially giving them what they want." This last one is particularly unusual thing to say, as they (generally) clearly have no desire to die. And again, as I mentioned previously, they aren't expecting to get caught. As previously, I submit that this point my opponent has put forward is an attempt to pass the responsibility of OUR actions to the criminal. The simple fact is, they only die if we kill them, that makes US responsible however you contort the logic.

My Response: He says they have no clear desire to die. This is irrelevant. By killing, they themselves have killed themselves. They have universalized the action of killing. If I steal from someone, I have stolen from myself. My opponent seems to not get Kant's theory. I will explain. My opponents arguments are irrelevant, and thus are dropped against my contention.

Universality:

Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.

If your maxim fails the third step, you have a ‘perfect' duty admitting "of no exception in favor of inclination" to refrain from acting on it. (G 4:421) If your maxim fails the fourth step, you have an ‘imperfect' duty requiring you to pursue a policy that can admit of such exceptions. If your maxim passes all four steps, only then is acting on it morally permissible. Following Hill (1992), we can understand the difference in duties as formal: Perfect duties come in the form ‘One must never (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C', while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C'. So, for instance, Kant held that the maxim of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness did not pass the third step, the contradiction in conception test. Hence, one is forbidden to act on the maxim of committing suicide to avoid unhappiness. By contrast, the maxim of refusing to assist others in pursuit of their projects passes the contradiction in conception test, but fails the contradiction in the will test. Hence, we have a duty to sometimes and to some extent aid and assist others.

Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized moral duties toward ourselves as well as toward others. Hence, together with the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, we recognize four categories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect duties toward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect duties toward others. Kant uses four examples, one of each kind of duty, to demonstrate that every kind of duty can be derived from the CI, and hence to bolster his case that the CI is indeed the fundamental principle of morality. To refrain from suicide is a perfect duty toward oneself; to refrain from making promises you have no intention of keeping is a perfect duty toward others; to develop one's talents is an imperfect duty toward oneself; and to contribute to the happiness of others an imperfect duty toward others. Again, Kant's interpreters differ over exactly how to reconstruct the derivation of these duties. I will briefly sketch one way of doing so for the perfect duty to others to refrain from lying promises and the imperfect duty to ourselves to develop talents.

Kant's example of a perfect duty to others concerns a promise you might consider making but have no intention of keeping in order to get needed money. Naturally, being rational requires not contradicting oneself, but there is no self-contradiction in the maxim "I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want". An immoral action clearly does not involve a self-contradiction in this sense (as would the maxim of finding a married bachelor). Kant's position is that it is irrational to perform an action if that action's maxim contradicts itself once made into a universal law of nature. The maxim of lying whenever it gets what you want generates a contradiction once you try to combine it with the universalized version that all rational agents must, by a law of nature, lie when it gets what they want.

Here is one way of seeing how this might work: If I conceive of a world in which everyone by nature must try to deceive people any time it will get what they want, I am conceiving of a world in which no practice of giving one's word could ever arise. So I am conceiving of a world in which no practice of giving one's word exists. My maxim, however, is to make a deceptive promise in order to get needed money. And it is a necessary means of doing this that a practice of taking the word of others exists, so that someone might take my word and I take advantage of their doing so. Thus, in trying to conceive of my maxim in a world in which no one ever takes anyone's word in such circumstances, I am trying to conceive of this: a world in which no practice of giving one's word exists, but also, at the very same time, a world in which just such a practice does exist, for me to make use of in my maxim. It is a world containing my promise and a world in which there can be no promises. Hence, it is inconceivable that my maxim exists together with itself as a universal law. Since it is inconceivable that these two things should exist together, I am forbidden ever to act on the maxim of lying to get money.

"Contradict each other. Killing is killing. To protect yourself from an imminent threat, because there is NO OTHER OPTION, is the only time that killing is justifiable."

My Response: Killing is wrong, yes. But killing can be warranted, when it is deserved. Also, the death penalty can be sued as a mechanism for incapacitation, which is a safety mechanism. Thus according to you, killing is justified in defense.

I do not have room to copy phrases so I will continue without them

My opponent then says that it doesn't warrant the same action. It does because all rights have been violated. Thus to keep criminal/victim equality then the criminal must receive the death penalty to forfeit all rights.

He then attempts to undermine the social contract by saying should we deport anyone who is against the death penalty. Not at all. They have a choice to live where they feel the government is promoting what they like. If they do not like the contract at hand leave. Also, this is irrelevant. The contract is made. My opponent clearly doesn't understand the SC. Someones belief in the death penalty is irrelevant once again. It's the obligation of the government to uphold justice. and the death penalty is necessary for this.

You can drop all my opponents arguments because they are subjective based and unwarranted.

He then goes on to attack my attacks by saying that there are revenge. Thge Death penalty is not revenge. Revenge is a person want to hurt. The government cant have this because it is a mechanism not a human. It is a mechanism to achieve justice, impartial justice. Hate is not a factor, thus it isn't revenge.

I'm running out of room, I will end here.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
A_time_and_a_place

Con

A_time_and_a_place forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I voted Pro because his points about the violation of the social contract were not refuted well. If you don't understand the points your opponent makes, you can not refute them. All social contract theories are based on the idea that no man is an island unto himself. Meaning that in order to HAVE a society, the individual members of that society must have an agreement on the basics of how to interact with each other. Basically all members of the same society have certain social 'norms,' the failure to follow which is considered, in many cases, a violation of law. Without understanding this, you can not adequately rebut it.
Posted by A_time_and_a_place 8 years ago
A_time_and_a_place
Should the Admin of the site happen to read this, I like the site a lot, but I feel it would aid people in their debates if you enabled the use of quote bubbles and italics. I feel it would make things a lot more clear for both those debating and those viewing.

I loath to use caps to add emphasis to words/sentences/points.
Posted by A_time_and_a_place 8 years ago
A_time_and_a_place
Had to edit down a bit unfortunately, but 8000 characters is the rules of the game.

I'll be away for awhile on business, I'll do my best to respond in the last round, but I can't guarantee it.

I'm satisfied enough though with my arguments that if they are looked at objectively, without bias, then I feel my point has been well made.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ladygirl 8 years ago
ladygirl
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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 
Vote Placed by olivertheexpando 8 years ago
olivertheexpando
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
CiRrOA_time_and_a_placeTied
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