The Instigator
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

You slice the Cake, I pick the first piece.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 8392
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

The above is not the actual resolution I am debating, it is a metaphor that sets the terms of this challenge.. My opponent shall write the resolution, any resolution they please. I then choose which position on it I will argue (So I may or may not be the actual "Pro" in this debate). So, I advise you to only accept this debate if A. You are a traditional debate wonk who is willing to argue any position, or B. you are quite sure the resolution is one on which I'll actually disagree with you on (my profile should be complete enough that it won't be hard to tell for most debates). There is a hidden third possibility I would also advise you to take the challenge under, but I won't be telling you what that third possibility is, just to mess with your head :D. Feel free to disregard the stated or implied advice, so long as you comply with the terms of the challenge, if you think you know some other good way to go about it :D
The resolution cannot pertain to the topic of free will. Other than that, go wild.
studentathletechristian8

Con

The resolution of this debate shall be, "The death penalty is morally acceptable."

If my opponent does not wish to debate this subject, I shall advise him to simply make a new resolution for the debate and just start it off from there.

Thanks for the interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

I am Pro on the resolution.

Life, you see, in the context of philosophy, that is, a human life, is supposed to demand a special reverence, of a sort not due to the sort of life biologists talk about. That reverence, however, must only be given to that which is due it, and one must be clear about the quality that deserves such relevance- the quality of a free, reasoning mind, of volitional consciousness. Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

Many people do not respect this reciprocity clause-- they do not respect the rights of others. As such, they have none themselves, the protection of value is not logically related to the protection of their life from interference, since they'll be interfering in others' lives either way. When this happens, the best available solution for the protection of values (that is, the most moral solution) is the elimination of those sorts of people-- the elimination of those who would attack your rights.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I shall present my view of the resolution.

death penalty-a sentence of punishment by execution.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

execution-the act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Therefore, the death penalty is an act of putting to death as punishment.

morally-according to moral rules; virtuously
http://dictionary.reference.com...

acceptable-capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable
http://dictionary.reference.com...

How can ending the life of someone be morally acceptable?
It cannot. It is that simple. Morality is based on ethical, moral, and virtuous conduct. Killing another person is immoral, unethical, and goes against morality. One example is the Ten Commandments. Does thou shall not kill ring a bell? That's what the death penalty does, it kills. The Bible is a fundamental basis of morality for Christians, and as a major religion, it should be respected in that aspect, but this only serves as an example. For other religions, the inherent right to live is being violated by the death penalty, hence it is not morally acceptable.

There have been countless cases where the person killed by the death penalty was in fact innocent. The death penalty is responsible for killing innocent lives and enforces the point that the convicted person of the punishment has not been forgiven for their action. Although the death penalty does not always kill people who are not guilty, there is always the chance where the person on death row may actually be innocent, thus making the death penalty not morally acceptable, for it is not virtuous or ethically correct to possibly end the life of an innocent. And, the utilization of the death penalty enforces the idea that the convicted person has not been forgiven for their action. It is morally unacceptable to disregard the natural rights and respect towards another person.

I thank my opponent for his competence and debate ability.
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
morally-according to moral rules; virtuously
http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Note that this is self-referential and thus begs the question.

"
How can ending the life of someone be morally acceptable?
It cannot. It is that simple. Morality is based on ethical, moral, and virtuous conduct. Killing another person is immoral, unethical, and goes against morality."
Again, you are begging the question. The dictionary here is too-- it's definition is not a definition, it explains nothing.

Morality , in non self-referential terms, refers to the codification of the pursuit of values.

Killing a person who harms one's values is helpful in attaining them, and thus moral unless it costs more value.

"One example is the Ten Commandments. Does thou shall not kill ring a bell? "
The ten commandments saying so does not make anything true.

"That's what the death penalty does, it kills"
Yes, it kills the guilty, to save valuable innocent lives.
"
The Bible is a fundamental basis of morality for Christians,"
Fixing that statement: Christians think it is the basis of morality. This does not make it true. The founder of Christianity died painfully on a cross, and Christians regard this as necessary to their system. Dying painfully on a cross is not a value, indeed, it removes several values.

"nd as a major religion, it should be respected in that aspect"
Ad populum.

"but this only serves as an example. For other religions, the inherent right to live is being violated by the death penalty, hence it is not morally acceptable."
Religion, i.e., listening to mad mystics instead of your mind, is a means of losing value-- it is immoral.

"
There have been countless cases where the person killed by the death penalty was in fact innocent."
And you can demonstrate this? More important, you can demonstrate this is intrinsic and unavoidable? More important yet, you can demonstrate a superior alternative?

"Although the death penalty does not always kill people who are not guilty, there is always the chance where the person on death row may actually be innocent, thus making the death penalty not morally acceptable, for it is not virtuous or ethically correct to possibly end the life of an innocent."
Since taking someone's life away by sending them to prison for the rest of it is equally immoral, it follows from this premise that we should never imprison anyone either, for fear of the possibility of being wrong. This is obviously nonsensical, we will be wrong much more often if we do not attempt to apprehend the guilty, because the guilty will kill with impunity.

"And, the utilization of the death penalty enforces the idea that the convicted person has not been forgiven for their action."
This is a good thing. Mercy and forgiveness to the guilty is treason to the innocent.

"It is morally unacceptable to disregard the natural rights and respect towards another person."
The person who is guilty of violating another's rights, in so doing, loses any claim to their own rights-- they have none left to violate.
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Life, you see, in the context of philosophy, that is, a human life, is supposed to demand a special reverence, of a sort not due to the sort of life biologists talk about."

That's a fun one to read out loud :)
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I presume they do it for a guaranteed opponent, either not caring what position they defend or figuring they can guess which one I'll take.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I don't get why this debate can exist. Why put forward a resolution in which you have no say in your position, when you can start your own debate with the same resolution and the position that you choose?
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
I actually did vote and well this was sad to see seeing as there was clearly potential but your forfieted and clearly cannot win,
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
R_R: you are a good debater!

studentathlete: I believe in the death penalty as well as Justinisthecrazy, so you will have to work hard and we'll see if you can change my opinion :)

But unlike justin, I will vote
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
ya I believe in the death penalty so con is gonna have to try real hard to get passed my bias but chances are I wont vote
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Ragnar_Rahlstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Ragnar_Rahlstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
Ragnar_Rahlstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Ragnar_Rahlstudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70