The Instigator
alexsupriyadi
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
AlexThunder
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

all criminals should be killed immediately regardless of their actions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
AlexThunder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,300 times Debate No: 40591
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

alexsupriyadi

Pro

i say it's a must for them to just die as they are of no use to the society and will only be a drag to the society and the prison. instead, of sending them to prison, giving them another chance, which will be wasted for sure, why not just kill all of them.
come on, accept the challenge
AlexThunder

Con

I accept your challenge.

I will let you go first in the next round, please define how you judge a person if he is a criminal or not.
Debate Round No. 1
alexsupriyadi

Pro

anyone can tell whether someone is a criminal or not. those who steal, rape, and have done other heinous crimes deserve to have the title of a criminal. what use will the criminals have on the society anyway. no one can answer that question because they don't have any other use. in my opinion, they should be killed because once they are set free from the prison they're number one objective will be to get revenge. so, instead of keeping them in prisons for a long time, making them suffer to teach them a lesson(which is of no use), wasting all those valuable resources and foods on them, why not just kill them all.
if they just die once caught, everyone's happy. the prison need not waste anymore resources, no one will get harmed, and of course, the criminals need not suffer in prison for years. everyone's happy.
AlexThunder

Con

So, you are saying that a 15 year old boy steals a couple of bananas from a fruit shop because it is starving and hasn't eaten anything for the last 2 days should be sentenced to death? Wow.
Someone who has raped... Hm... Yes, people that go around and rape most of the times have a psychological problem, if not every time. So you are saying that people that had psychological breakdowns, that don't think clearly cause they have a problem, or are just crazy should be killed because they offer nothing to the society? Did you ask the Parents and brothers and sisters of those people that are crazy if they do offer or not? You can't take away a human life because they offer nothing to the society. Dogs don't offer anything to the society. Should we kill them too? Maybe there are some old people that don't offer much to the society, shall we kill them too? There are people that leave in regions alone, producing their own food and have no touch with the society. Kill, kill, kill?

You might say we are talking about criminals, but criminals are human too, and they didn't commit a crime because they just decided to. Most of them have problems. Killing people that have problems reminds me of a myth about Sparta in the ancient times, where they would kill the kids that were born with a problem or were born retarded and so and so forth. Is this the kind of society you want? Hell, kids don't offer a damn thing to the society. Do they work? Do they pay taxes? Do they do something to help their society? No, they can't. "Can't" is the magic word in this argument. These people mostly have mental illnesses and just can't offer anything. I would like to raise this question right now: Imagine yourself in front of a person that killed a woman because he was crazy and maybe, had some crazy fantasies with her and killed her for no reason. You are standing there , in front of that person tied up in a chair and is looking hopelessly at you, holding a gun pointed at his head. Sir, do you pull that trigger? If yes, you are an evil person.
Debate Round No. 2
alexsupriyadi

Pro

About the 15 years old kid that you were talking about. Is that kid an orphan or not. Because if he/she is not an orphan and do have parents, he/she won"t be starving to death. And if he/she is and orphan, then that would be the responsibility of the government to take care of him/her.
About that psychological problem, there is nothing that we can do about that since it"s almost like an incurable disease. Even if it"s cured, we don"t know much longer he"ll go bonkers like before and starts on killing people. Do you know that killing one criminal will be same like saving the lives of hundreds of innocent lives.
and you"re wrong. Dogs do offer something to the society. Don"t you know that some of them are used to track bombs, criminals with their powerful sense of smell. Everyone offers something to the society. Even old people offers something. Don"t you know that old people have a job. Is that not part of the society? And even if they"re retired, they can still hand down their experience, knowledge to the young ones.
And didn"t I tell you that those that have commit heinous crimes and is of no use to the society are criminals. Only those with both are considered as criminals. But you only mentioned the latter part and the statement too is wrong. And kids do offer something to the society. They are the people of tomorrow. The next generation. Without them our kind will face extinction. So, it turns out that kids are the most important part of a society. And you said that they don"t offer a damn thing to the society.
And for that last question. I will pull the trigger on that psycho because if I don"t he will probably kill me and more lives will be harmed. Killing him will save more lives. You are the one that"s evil for not killing him and letting him go out killing the innocents. So, are trying to say that you"d rather have hundreds of people die rather than just one? Because if yes, you are an evil person.
AlexThunder

Con

My bad i didn't add more round, this is fun. But here we go, round 3.

"Because if he/she is not an orphan and do have parents, he/she won"t be starving to death." Oh really? Because there are thousands of families in Greece right now, that can not pay their electricity bills, and their kids pass out in schools due to hunger. You can't make such a generalization like that.

"About that psychological problem, there is nothing that we can do about that since it"s almost like an incurable disease. Even if it"s cured, we don"t know much longer he"ll go bonkers like before and starts on killing people. Do you know that killing one criminal will be same like saving the lives of hundreds of innocent lives." These people can not think clearly. These people can not behave. You can't kill them for doing things they don't even understand they do. It's either the family's job or goverment's job to take care of those people, maybe put them in a bedlam, to keep both them and the rest of us safe. It's not their fault they went out and killed somebody, because these people can't think for themselves. It's us that need to take care of them as a society. We should be protecting them, not killing them.

" Dogs do offer something to the society. Don"t you know that some of them are used to track bombs, criminals with their powerful sense of smell." Some of them... By your logic, since the rest 95% of the dogs don't offer to the society, they shall be killed. Because dogs can perform acts of arson, they can steal or in some extreme cases, kill too. Shall they be slain? I don't find that rational.

"Everyone offers something to the society" No... needless to explain.

"Even old people offers something. Don"t you know that old people have a job. Is that not part of the society? And even if they"re retired, they can still hand down their experience, knowledge to the young ones." Let me tell you. Criminals can also, after they have been released from a jail sentence, get a job and hand down their life experiences. They can be useful to the society, and you just wrote how.

"And didn't I tell you that those that have commit heinous crimes and is of no use to the society are criminals. Only those with both are considered as criminals" I don't really know what you mean. From what i understood, you say that people that have committed heinous crimes and they do not contribute to the society, these are defined as criminals. So if i go and kill a couple of people, rape both women and innocent child, but i have a job that does something to the society, for example a doctor, i am not a criminal? What's your logic here?

"And kids do offer something to the society. They are the people of tomorrow. The next generation. Without them our kind will face extinction. So, it turns out that kids are the most important part of a society. And you said that they don"t offer a damn thing to the society." As of now, yes. They don't offer a damn thing. You mean that the 2 year-old Jason, staying in the house all day playing with cars and other toys contributes to the society? No. Then you say, they are the people of the future. So in the future they will do something for the society. How do you know that criminals, after they have been released from jail, won't contribute to the society? Most of them have jobs, which are likely for them to return to, and start working again. You have to realize that yes, there are people like the guy that went in the cinema and shot all those people in the Batman movie that do deserve to get their butt kicked. But there are criminals that do things like steal, or kill, that they are forced to do because of their lives being so hard and depressing.

"And for that last question. I will pull the trigger on that psycho because if I don"t he will probably kill me and more lives will be harmed. Killing him will save more lives. You are the one that"s evil for not killing him and letting him go out killing the innocents. So, are trying to say that you"d rather have hundreds of people die rather than just one? Because if yes, you are an evil person." You need to understand that people do mistakes. I'm sorry, but who are you to judge if a person deserves to die or not. We, as a society, must give those criminals a second chance for a better life. I will explain to you why you are wrong.

If a person is about to go rob a house and he knows that if he gets caught, he will be killed, chances are that he will do it anyway, as he has nothing to lose from his miserable little life. If i was as miserable as it takes to do crimes, and knew that being caught would mean an end to my miserable life, i would do it anyway.

When you put a person in jail, he gets to think of what he did, he sees his errors, he regrets, and has the chance to improve his personality, his life. After he is released from jail, he gets a seconds chance for a better life. He is starting all over again.
He is given the chance to change, to become a great person and contribute a lot to the society, some times even more than the average you or me can. Don't you think its fair to give people a second chance? Because people are not always what they seem they are, they might be something else on the inside.

Jail sentence means you get the chance for a second, free life.

I hope you had as much fun as i did from this, and i hope i can make you think of this for a second. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Thanks to my opponent for this interesting and exceptionally fun debate!
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
I actually regret selecting 3 rounds only, it was fun, and thank you for this great debate. Surely a pleasure debating with you, and don't worry, this isn't on a personal level. I hope you had some fun too from this, and i just made an argument on the smoking debate, so lets go have fun over there :). Thanks again.
Posted by alexsupriyadi 3 years ago
alexsupriyadi
indeed it was fun and it's been a pleasure arguing with you. i wish we had another round because i have something to say about that kid, old man, psycho, and trigger. and don't say 'i wish i can make you think for a second" because just because i'm for the topic, doesn't mean i'm that kind of person. it was just for fun so don't take it personally and i think both of us had some fun. i'm so looking forward to arguing with you again. especially about the topic that smoking should be banned. my last contender took my words personally and took off.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by HitReaper 3 years ago
HitReaper
alexsupriyadiAlexThunderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: The con makes a rational argument where the pro does not consider every senario and seems to have a closed mind to many things. Just to say this... The pro here kinda scares me that's really ridiculous; to many loopholes. I bet for one you've stolen a pencil at some point in your life should you be shot. Do you realize that humans make mistakes and just because you do something doesn't necessarily mean you cant change. If you throw someone in an environment to think about his issues and come up with what he does wrong and study while hes at he could one day produce something in society. To make such a broad statement as to just kill them is actully quite frightening. I mean stealing and say killing are to major different things. Let's give you an example you took a cookie from the cookie jar without asking your mother and rather then just tell you to sit in a corner she chopped of your hand... Sorry to put my opinion in here but I actually think the pro needs to understand this.
Vote Placed by Skrone 3 years ago
Skrone
alexsupriyadiAlexThunderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Old people argument was the shit. Anyways grammar to Con because Pro kept using 'do' instead of 'does'