The Instigator
steffon66
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stensson
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

do murderers in general deserve death?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 79627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

steffon66

Con

I would like to argue that murderers in general dont deserve death. my opponent will have to be ready to argue that most murderers deserve to die. they took a life so they should lose theirs. an eye for an eye? cant wait to go over other possibilities with whoever accepts this.

round one: acceptance speech with a short summery of what you will be arguing which should be that murderers generally deserve to die or that this is a sufficient punishment.

round 2-4: arguing explaining our argument and refuting each others arguments

round five: closing arguments and final refutations if necessary.
Stensson

Pro

I accept and will be arguing that murderers deserve to die.

To murder - to kill an innocent person intentionally
Debate Round No. 1
steffon66

Con

first off to say all or most murderers deserve one punishment is quite ridiculous. the law has been fickle throughout history changing morally constantly. for some reason it expects everyone to change right along with it which is not going to happen. muslims arent nearly as hateful as we have been to blacks and the natives in the past. a good number of people who murder think they can justify it like we justify the amount of time we give criminals often for crimes with no victims. but an eye for an eye may well apply but killing the person who killed a family member is letting them off easy when you should lock them up for the rest of their lives or something to make them suffer as much as the family who lost the victim has to suffer. killing them is ending their suffering and is not what they deserve as they caused a lot of pain that will always be there. the punishment should fit the crime but you cant kill innocent people to get him back not to mention he wasnt fair to you when you were innocent so you dont have to be fair to him when you punish him when he was guilty chances are. there are many moral theories so intent is going to matter as much as the results (which hurt multiple people) if not more because the intent was to kill regardless of innocent peoples love for the victim or was to prevent gratuitous pain suffering and misery the guy would have caused to others or because you wont accept their gods and all will warrant a different punishment. did they intend on hurting family members or was the murder premeditated and in most cases they knew family members would be hurt or did it regardless making them deserving of suffering and not a peaceful death but wait. most of us dont know right from wrong as we all contradict each other on "important issues such as abortion. i would not have sex without abortion being possible as i dont think bringing life into the world is fair or good. we just live for pleasure without a purpose that anyone can name in which case there isnt one or we do not have free will as if we have free will and dont know our purpose its impossible to fulfill your purpose in at least almost every case because you have no clue what it is and there are thousands of things you can do with millions if not trillions of combinations of things some being right and most being wrong if objective morality exists. while every wrong thing you can do to someone is done by people thinking they are in the right its safe to say they dont deserve punishment unless they have control over their lazy thinking and decision to blindly follow instead of question everything like an adult suspending judgement until we have sufficient evidence which is a different amount of evidence for everyone but little to no evidence in my opinion as there is no evidence of gods perfectness and nothing proving that jesus was a miracle worker who was the son of god. god by the way who sent himself to be sacrificed to himself to save us from himself. and some simple moral basics that we almost all know like dont punish innocent people for the crimes of the wicked are all throughout the bible god punishes children for their ancestors sins. we all suffer in life and dont get to live forever on earth in perfect conditions like we were supposed to because of our ancestors decision to eat some magical fruit. they didnt really suffer and we suffer greatly some of us. because of their decisions. we could have all been treated like the innocent people we sart out to be but instead we get good things and bad things which almost none of is deserved making life extremely unfair which a morality shouldnt be. so if god doesnt know objective morality is it still possible to know objective morality and the answer is of course as the religious god is designed to keep you irrational about morality which it failing more and more at as time goes on.
Stensson

Pro

Before anything, I'd like to say that I failed to comprehend the argument you wrote due do the way you wrote it. Most importantly because of paragraphing and the sentences. Right now you have like ten 50 word sentences that include the same word 5 times. For example "evidence which is a different amount of evidence for everyone but little to no evidence in my opinion as there is no evidence". All in all for me your whole wall of text is pretty much nonexistant. I'm not gonna commit an hour just to understand that sequence of letters you claim to be your opening statement. I'm not trying to be mean, just saying that I'm unable to react to this.

Opening statements:
I think murderers deserve death. The reason for that is the simple principle of eye for an eye. I don't encourage vigilantism but that's also another topic. It's completely normal for a person to want revenge on someone who has unfairly harmed them. Even animals feel vengeful:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
It would be silly to deny our instinct that we feel rage when we feel under attack. Acting on it is a different matter, however.

In short I think that it's completely morally justifiable to want revenge on a murderer. Taking the matter into your own hands by actually killing the murderer is a different topic and I won't touch that accordingly.

Rebuttals:
The headline of your debate is "do murderers in general deserve death" not "should murderers be killed". I think death penalty legality does not fall under this topic (you mentioned law and punishment in your first sentences), instead it's about whether it's morally right to think that a murderer deserves death.

I would love to now read your opening statements after you've put in some time to make your argument more understandable.
Debate Round No. 2
steffon66

Con

so you think all murderers deserve death because someone told you eye for an eye. but explain why if you take someones eye all you deserve is to lose one eye too. they have treated you unfairly when you have treated them fairly by not hurting them. so i would think the person who treated you unfairly doesnt deserve to be treated fairly and just have done to them what they did to you. for one their death is almost never going to be as big of a loss as the death of the person they killed as they were willing to risk everything in it to kill which means they dont have much to live for. what are the chances that the murderer is losing as much as the victim has when you killed them? slim to none. they are never losing exactly what they took from you because we all have different reasons and obligations etc. for living. also your never going to make them lose what the victims family loss so to make things more fair you would have to make them suffer as much as the victims family and enough to cover the loss of the person who they killed. and who would care if you hurt them more than they hurt you when they originally hurt you a lot more than you had hurt them as you were innocent and they killed you. so eye for an eye could be interpreted as treated them unfairly as they treated you unfairly. your trying to say that treating someone unfairly deserves fair treatment or even better. (as you would do to them exactly what they did to you which is impossible by the way as ive explained.

also you say its completely normal to want revenge and even go so far as to say "it would be silly deny our instinct of rage" but then say "taking matters into your own hands" is another matter which is contradictory as often the only options are to either take matters into your own hands or let them walk (get away with the murder). revenge is revenge whether someone else does it or you do it and for you to do it yourself would be more fair to you as your the only one who knows what you lost when the criminal killed your lover or son or what have you. why let other people decide what they deserve for a specific crime they cant possibly understand as they cant be you to see how the crime effected you? so far you havent said anything i can a agree with i dont think as i disagree with your interpretation of eye for an eye as i have explained.

i agree with the next thing you said actually which is that death penalty legality does fall under the category. i will keep legality out of my argument.
Stensson

Pro

The reason why I think the eye for an eye principle is correct is because there is no other way to comprehend this. A human life is invaluable and obviously the pain to lose a loved one can't be measured in the size of revenge. Nothing can bring him/her back and because this matter is so complicated I think that when taking emotions out of this it's pretty simple. If you kill someone's loved one, you deserve your loved one to be killed too. I'm saying that this principle is valid but in reality we're not going to kill murderers' innocent family murderers just go get back to them. The reason of that I'm going to explain in the next paragraph.

The reason why I said that taking matters into your own hands is another topic is because that would already be acting on the revenge you feel. How does it contradict itself exactly? It's one thing to feel angry but another thing to act on it. How often do you feel angry at someone? I imagine it's pretty often but you're smarter than that and you don't just go punching them like a barbar.

You said "Revenge is revenge whether someone else does it or you do it." What do you mean by someone else does it? In the current law system murderers go to prison. Do you think our law enforcers put him to prison because of revenge? No, they do it because the murderer has disobeyed the law, it's a punishment for what they have done but it is not revenge.
Debate Round No. 3
steffon66

Con

rebuttals:
you said: "If you kill someone's loved one, you deserve your loved one to be killed too."
so you just admitted that when you kill someone you DESERVE more (i say again MORE) than your personal death. if you killed their family member and then killed them right away they wouldn't suffer the loss of a family member which is what they deserve. so actually killing them isn't a fair penalty at all as it ends their suffering while they caused yours and the person they killed isn't the one who experienced the biggest lost is he? so even IF they deserve death (which they don't if their death isn't as big of a loss as that of the persons death that they killed) then they deserve to die after they have suffered from a life of suffering like the victims family suffered which they will after you make them live in a state that is congruent with the combined state of those suffering from the loss.. that is what i disagreed with in your interpretation of "an eye for an eye" killing them ends their suffering while they caused many or few much more suffering than you would be causing them. that isn't right. you must keep them alive in a somewhat miserable state to punish them in an equivalent way. so already i have won the debate as you admit this.

but then you go on to say but we CANT kill their family member who is innocent which i agree with but what does it have to do with the topic? what we can and cannot do is not the topic as you pointed out earlier that anything that doesn't pertain to what they deserve is irrelevant and shouldnt be mentioned and i agreed. now your trying to turn this into a side show to distract the people of the fact that i have won the debate even your opinion and hope i lose because of grammar which im not going to let happen.

we have established that they deserve to live and suffer now we are moving on to the "eye for an eye" claim even though i won the debate. and eye for an eye is flawed logic as it only punishes the results and does not punish the intent. a killer has the intent of either hurting the victim, hurting the whole family, causing physical pain to the victim and many other things that are going to change what he deserves that your completely ignoring. by this logic (killing a victims family member which is what they deserve is not possible so kill them) drug dealers deserve their kids and parents and neighborhood people to be dealt drugs but its wrong to do so kill them unless they already did it in which case they got what they deserve so let them go! lol funny how that logic plays out in other things isnt it? kinda silly. let me know if you would like me to refute the rest of your argument. admit that you lost and forfeit or explain how you have not lost after you accidentally remake my claim as your own.
Stensson

Pro

Yes, I mentioned that they deserve more than death because of the eye for an eye principle. That is also the reason I brought up the matter of acting on your feelings . If a murderer killed my mother for isntance, then I would think that the murderer deserves his mother to be killed as well. However, I would still not want that because I don't think that his mother deserves to die. Eye for an eye principle is valid but it does not mean that I would want to an innocent person to die just in spite of a murderer. If I did it would make me nothing better than the murderer himself. That is the point I've been trying to make you understand this whole time. Death is the biggest punishment you would want on someone WITHOUT harming other innocent people. So in other words EYE FOR AN EYE PRINCIPLE ONLY APPLIES TO THE MURDERER HIMSELF. The murderer deserves a loved one to be killed but the loved one doesn't deserve to be killed hence death is the second option. And as far as I know this debate is about the murderer, not the collateral damage it may cause.
All of that in short - Murderers deserve exactly what they did to others, however, as we are humans with consciousness we would only want revenge to the point where it only applies to the murderer and murderer only. That point is death, ergo murderers deserve death.

The main thing you've yet to understand is that a murderer and a "regular" person are not the same. Even though the murderer causes more harm to the regular person, the latter one would only want less back on the murderer because he is a morally superior person (we're talking about innocent people getting harmed). That doesn't mean that the murderer should always receive less back just because we know better.

I've come to the conclusion that there's 2 types of revenge. The nature's way of keeping moral justice - eye for an eye. And the human's way of keeping moral justice - anything that comes as close to the initial injustice as long as it doesn't harm innocent ones (death). I am a human and thus I figured I'd explain my point of view in this debate. I think that a murderer deserves everything back at them but being an empathetic person I figure that death suits better.
Debate Round No. 4
steffon66

Con

my opponents opinion is that the murderer DESERVES more than death but SHOULDN'T be given anything but death itself. that is not fair therefor it is not just therefor it is not a sufficient punishment and is much more lenient than the pain suffering and possible misery the murderer caused and that he or she intended to cause or prevent both of which make them undeserving of being killed but deserving of some kind of suffering or reward which requires living. a sufficient punishment for death as is the topic would be for them to live and suffer and lose their family by going away to a place where they have no rights. the topic was is death a sufficient punishment for murderers in general or is it what they deserve which are the same thing. sufficient is just which would be fair. killing them wouldn't be fair as the criminal wouldn't suffer while he caused a lot of suffering. you think a sufficient punishment is not suffering while almost all of what they did was cause suffering? that's ridiculous as its about as unfair as it possibly can be meaning its unjust.

sufficient punishment is one that is just which is one that is fair. and a fair punishment would be one where they suffer as much as the victims family or more because if they don't suffer more than the family or at all then they were given a huge advantage by the law which would be unfair unjust and an insufficient punishment. that is neither a sufficient punishment nor what they deserve by your standards so it isnt fair as less than they deserve isnt fair. death simply cannot be the worst thing to do to someone as you can do any bad things AND KILL THEM LATER. and that was your premise. death is the worst thing they can do to you. that is a subjective opinion that is without premise as you provided not one premise for it and it demonstrably false. how is ending their suffering pain and misery by making the brain and nerves no longer work the worst thing you can do to them? you can make them suffer then do that and cause more suffering making it worse. if its the afterlife well they are going to get that anyways and and that might not happen and its not what your doing. not the worst thing YOU can do to them at all no matter how you look at it so explain your premises and the premises for premises all of which are lacking so far. i would much rather die than go to prison or be hurt myself which is what you said they deserve which makes it what is fair which is what makes it just and sufficient. explain how death which causes thousands of times less suffering than what they intended to cause and what they caused you fair? if it isnt fair it isnt just if it isnt just it isnt sufficient justice which is what a punishment is. not to mention some people think killing what we call innocent Americans is morally good, fair (just), commendable, and makes them worthy of reward and not suffering. and their opinions are no more without premise than ours are and there are thousands of opposing moralities where one can be true. so why do they deserve death for doing exactly what you do (trying and failing to be good and fair). a person used to be killed for cheating at cards legally and it wasnt murder. today i cant kill the man who bashed in my face.,

you said they deserve to lose their family member or members which wouldnt be bad at all for them if they died. so you said they deserve to suffer for the family's loss which means they must be kept alive. this alone makes death a punishment that is far from what a fair punishment would be as its not what they deserve. that also gives them them an advantage in the way that they could kill my brother or someone and the law would take them protect them and kill them painlessly after feeding them a nice meal and tell me justice is served when they cause my family pain suffering and misery and they get none in return. are you saying that IS justice when it isnt fair? dont pee in my oatmeal and tell me that its butter sir.
Stensson

Pro

Holy god it's like I'm talking to a wall. I don't know what urged you to write such nonsense of my statement, is it because you didn't read my text or you just didn't grasp the matter. But fine, I'll go over it once again. My point is that murderer deserves everything back at him, more than death or not, but the revenge shouldn't involve INNOCENT PEOPLE. Of course it's not fair, do you honestly think it's fair to kill a murderer's loved one for his actions? Could you please give me an example where murder is in any way fair? I'd love to hear it in the comment section.

As I already mentioned in the previous round there's 2 type of revenge. The natural way of preserving balance and the way us humans think of it. So as you still didn't understand it once more. Eye for an eye is very simple yet valid phisophy. Things get more difficult when we can't practice said philosophy in our own lives. The crime and consequence of a murderer is death. Thus they deserve death. AND EVEN THOUGH they caused some collateral damage such as harmed family members and what not, it doesn't give you the right to just get back with the murderer by harming his family members as well. And for the 10th time death is the best option as a punishment murderers deserve for their actions.

Almost your whole second paragraph was about fairness and it's interesting to see how you would solve a murder in a fair way in which everyone is happy. Well good luck with that.

Honestly I'm speechless that you think that murderers have an "advantage" because they can kill your brother and then be executed themselves. If we lived in a world where people kill other people solely because they could take advantage of receiving a lesser punishment, well yeah that would be pretty sick.

And your third paragraph again on justice. The world isn't so black and white that you can find a just solution to everything. That is why you have to find what is the closest to justice which in this case is death in my opinion.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Deserve does not exist. You get.
Posted by tlockr 2 years ago
tlockr
I'll eventually vote on this debate.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
my opponent has forfeited on accident in the third round and i have pointed it out in the fourth round. if he does not forfeit now formally he should be given no points for grammar or anything for the same reason a fighter who has knocked another fighter out cant lose because of the score cards.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
i gotta get some sleep and try again tomorrow. and ill stick to the killings of men who had bad intentions.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
murderers *
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
adult murderer age 25-40
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
i disagree. when i say murder i mean as our law defines murder not how some christian folks define murder which actually prevents pain suffering and misery (abortion) while the alternative would be to have the kid inevitably causing pain suffering and misery to someone unless the child doesnt have kids. i define murder as the killing of innocent people after birth who did nothing to you or what have you
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
You should probably define the term murderer. Without defining it, you leave the topic open to people who call abortion murder or any other variant that is not what you may have meant. You should probably also specify the age of the murderer since there are good arguments that juveniles should not receive the same penalty as adults.
No votes have been placed for this debate.