do murderers in general deserve death?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
To murder - to kill an innocent person intentionally
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.