The Instigator
arrivaltime
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
shwayze
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

You can't be for capital punishment or war and say you are pro-life at the same time.

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: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,326 times Debate No: 968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (21)

 

arrivaltime

Pro

As a short introduction...

In profiles here, in candidates, on message boards, etc people seem to get some kind of satisfaction in saying "I'm Pro-life :)". They say it as though they are the better person, yet then often continue to support the death penalty and war, and care very little about gang violence and other crimes like that.

This is a contradiction.

You can't say you are pro life but only care about the life of an unborn child; instead, you should call yourself anti-abortion.
shwayze

Con

I am extremely pro-life and I support the war in Iraq. I am not pro-war at all- I would hope that no one is- but I do think that the war in Iraq was justified. The war has given millions of oppressed people a chance and hope of a future. By ousting Saddam, we have saved the lives of millions. General Sherman during the Civil War said "War is Hell" and it is. It is a terrible thing that no one should have to experience. But when you liberate a country and save thousands of lives, I do not see how that is contradictory to my pro-life belief. Look at Hitler's execution of the six million jews. We entered the war for several reason, but a large part of that was to stop the killing of millions of people. Loss of life is going to happen. That's just the tragic truth of the world. But when our country goes to war to liberate and save thousands of people, I again do not see how that is contradictory to a pro-life belief.
Debate Round No. 1
arrivaltime

Pro

As far as war goes, I am not saying supporting a war is wrong. I don't disagree that sometimes war is necessary and I'm not arguing about the justifications of war.

I am saying that to support a war and also the death penalty yet say you are "extremely prolife" is a contradiction; while you are supporting the 'liberation' of a country, you are still also supporting an event that results in the loss of thousands of lives. What you support is Machiavellian. You may think the loss of the lives are worth if the ends will be good, however you are still supporting the loss of civilian lives as long as it is justified.

Though you didn't address it, I see that you are for capital punishment yet you say you are "extremely prolife"--you don't see the contradiction? You are not extremely pro-life. What you are is anti-abortion. Capital punishment is taking a life away. Whether or not you think it is justified is irrelevent-- you are still taking a life away, which makes you not pro-life.
shwayze

Con

Supporting the death penalty doesn't have anything to do with being pro-life. Some people in the world and in history have committed such atrocious acts against humanity and people that they do not deserve to live. That is called justice. I would be very content seeing Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam all put on death row and executed. Same goes for serial killers and any other criminal who commits/ed disgusting acts against humanity. These "humans" deserve the ultimate punishment which is death. This is simply of a case of justice being served.

Supporting war against does not make me anti-life. Look how much good came out of WWII. We ended the extermination of tens of millions of Jews, Poles, and Slavs. The Civil War ended slavery. I'm not saying that the ends justify the means, but war has generally solved a lot of issues pertinent to the existence of life. Look, people are going to die in war. It's a terrible and tragic thing, but you have to realize that it's going to happen. Let me play devil's advocate for a second and question what you're saying. So if we went to war in Iran, ousted that insane president and his tyrannical regime, DIDNT KILL ONE PERSON, and gave millions of Iranians a hope at a brighter future, you would support war? Thats pretty much what you're saying. I wish that was how it went. I never want innocent lives to be taken but it's the reality of the world we live in. I think supporting the current war in Iraq strengthens and solidifies my pro-life belief.
Debate Round No. 2
arrivaltime

Pro

You are twisting my words around.

Supporting a war does not make you anti-life and I never said it did; that's taking a black and white approach to the issue. I realize, as I said, that war is sometimes necessary. However, if you support a war where there are thousands of casualties and think they are justified for the end result, you are not pro life.

I already addressed "justice" in capital punishment. Whether or not you think capital punishment is justified, it is taking the life of a person and therefore not prolife.

Which is why I am proposing that Prolife be changed to anti-abortion. I am not saying that by supporting either of these you are anti-life, but that pro-life is not the appropriate term.
shwayze

Con

When I say I'm pro-life, it means that I HIGHLY VALUE HUMAN LIFE. It is a beautiful gift. I have personally seen the loss of life in my family. It is very sad and heartbreaking but I've come to understand that that is reality. There is going to be loss of life today, tomorrow, and for the rest of our lives. I don't think you understand that life isn't fair. Once you grasp that concept, you might be able to better understand where I'm coming from.

Referring to capital punishment, you're just completely wrong and misguided. You have to take justice into consideration in any circumstance, which you are not doing.

Referring to war, you said:

"However, if you support a war where there are thousands of casualties and think they are justified for the end result, you are not pro life."

You're making it seem like I support the killing of thousands of innocent lives, which I obviously do not. I support the mission. I don't know how else I can further explain this. Personally, if I knew that 100 people would die in a war, but the result of those 100 people dying was the liberation and freedom of 10,000 people, then I would always support that cause. I don't understand how you can say that's not pro-life. You have to get over the fact that lives will be lost in war. It's horrible, I repeat HORRIBLE, but when millions of people are freed and are given the opportunity to live the lives the way they want in freedom, I consider that the pro-life position. In Iraq, there have been relatively low civilian deaths compared to other wars of the time. These oppressed people have a FUTURE because our soldier's sacrificed their lives for these people. In general I dont believe the ends justify the means, but war is a special case, where the taking of lives is going to happen regardless. I support the war because of the benefits that have and will come from it. These civilians, who had been dehumanized under Saddam and his regime, now live a life that they couldve never lived before if we didn't enter Iraq. I value the fact that these people have a brighter future, AND THAT IS THE PRO LIFE POSITION.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
To be pro life and not want babies aborted is very different than supporting the war. I am Prolife, most of the time against the death penalty although in some case I tend to sway the opposite way which is why I never checked anything off in my profile. I 100% support the war on terrorism. I do not want to have anyone killed , however I am not okay with just watching terrorists kill whomever they want and noone stops it. I do think terrorism has to stop and unfortunately that is going to take a war.Nobody likes war , it is unfortunately a necessity sometimes. That is very different than a women just not wanting to sacrifice 9 months to give their baby life. Although I feel sympathy and will not judge any woman who is raped as I have not been in those shoes before , and I do believe if a doctor thinks it is medically necessary to save a mothers life then she should decide. I can not say that overall it is okay. To have sex and get pregnant and use abortion as a birth control method is sick and should not be legal. If you don't want to be pregnant than use protection or abstain.... otherwise suck it up and pay the consequences. Big difference between the two.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
sorry for typo mid paragraph, meant to go back and type more ;)

The Arch Bishop/The Pope etc: please give me a quote of theirs where they speak about saving lives of inner city children who often end up in gangs, gang wars, etc.

So far I only hear them saying you're going to hell if you don't vote pro-life (meaning anti-abortion, not actually all life).
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
I never implied war was wrong in my debate (possibly in response to comments but that wasn't part of my debate). I sometimes support war but I also don't call myself pro-life. I am arguing semantics and I think a lot of people are just offended that when you take a life, however justified you believe it is, it isn't pro-life. I am just arguing against using pro-life as a term for being against abortion if you are also pro-capital punishment and war. People seem to be assuming I'm passing judgment, I'm not.

I haven't heard on person who claims to be "pro-life" mention the worry for

"How many slaves are in the US now?? ZERO."

Incorrect. If you do any research you'll know there's a lot of slavery in the US, mostly foreigners who are lured into America with promises of employment. Of course I've never heard a pro-life person mention them either.
Posted by HatedvsLoved 9 years ago
HatedvsLoved
I agree with shwayze over all. Both debaters presented good arguments but arrivaltime didn't seem to get the fact that while shwayze was pro-life and a supporter of death penalty/war was not contradictory. How many people died in the Civil War?? 620,000 give or take. Now answer me this. How many slaves are in the US now?? ZERO. Over half a million lives were lost in the Civil War mainly over freedom(slaves or otherwise) and because of those 620,000 deaths, there is no slavery. I feel horrible when innocent lives are lost but I look to the future and I see that sometimes the loss of one innocent life can change the future of many.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
"Once again, this is not an accurate comparison. The purpose of paying property damages is not to punish you, it is fix the damages you have caused. If you harm someone, you pay to make him/her well. However, if you are sentenced to death for the killing of another, it does not bring them back to life."- dirtycommiepig

Are you seriously nitpicking at every example? It was just an example and it is punishment. You are forced to pay for damages of property, and I'm pretty sure thats what we called just punishment.
Posted by dirtycommiepig 9 years ago
dirtycommiepig
"In the case of the death penalty for murderers, it fits the crime. In a just system of law, the punishment for a crime ought to fit the crime committed. If you destroy property, you pay for the damages. If you hurt someone, you pay for the restoration of his health. If you murder someone, you pay with your own life." - Sola Gracia

Once again, this is not an accurate comparison. The purpose of paying property damages is not to punish you, it is fix the damages you have caused. If you harm someone, you pay to make him/her well. However, if you are sentenced to death for the killing of another, it does not bring them back to life.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
you're pretty much stating that war is not just because unequal amount of people die on each side. you're just fundamentally off base with reality. war doesnt work like "tit for tat", and neither does life. Serial killers and child rapists dont deserve to live. It's not like we put them in their pridacament. You reap what you sow. How is it justice if that serial killer in Russia who just got arrested for killed 48 people over the last 6 years doesn't receive the death penalty? It's justice to let him live despite the fact that he murdered and took the lives of 48 innocent people? Letting him live is injustice to the victim's families and to society.
Posted by mv 9 years ago
mv
shwayze, who are you to say someone deserves to die? saying you're extremely pro-life yet deciding that you're big enough to make that decision just sounds like an ill attempt to defend your contradictions. and how is it justice if someone is killed for someone that person killed? it would be justice if the victim miraculously rose from the dead if the killer was killed but that probably won't happen anytime soon. "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind".
Posted by Sola_Gracia 9 years ago
Sola_Gracia
I do not know all the facts of the West Memphis Three so I can only go by what you have said.
But conviction of murder that carries the death penalty MUST never be brought against the accused IF there is reasonable uncertainty. In the example of your West Memphis Three, you list the only evidence as one questionable testimony. In such a case, I would not support a guilty charge if I were on the jury. If I were to go by witness testimony, I would want at least two credible testimonies before I was reasonably assured that the testimony is accurate.
And on a different point, I would forward that life-sentences are punitive not correctional. Therefore, jail time is not necessarily correctional. And though it is true that many jails are run as correctional facilities, many others are run as punitive facilities (such as ones that serve nutritious but terrible food, etc.)
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
As far as Hitler goes, he should have been locked up in a straight jacket rather than put on death row. He was completely insane.

In turn do you think its just that three men (The West Memphis Three) are on death row even though the only evidence they have is a half incorrect confession from a retarded boy who "confessed" only after more than 10 hours of interrogation and to all the wrong facts? And is it just to kill the two other men? Because Arkansas court systems are not allowing DNA testing in their case, yet if there was DNA testing it could possibly prove these men did NOT kill anybody. Have they endured the due process of law? Is it just to kill them if you are uncertain?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 flyingtuna420 9 years ago
flyingtuna420
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 raptor10 9 years ago
raptor10
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 Vlast 9 years ago
Vlast
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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 9 years ago
goldspurs
arrivaltimeshwayzeTied
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