Socrates did not deserve the death penalty

My argument is simple:

-->Socrates was unjustly accused of his crimes which put him to death. These crimes are:

1:Impiety

2:Corrupting the youth

I will provide a brief opening statement, and whoever shall accept this challenge can create their opening statement based on that.

-->The first charge of Impiety was a ridiculous statement because as he stated in the Apology, the very reason he began his travels, cross examining many artisans and politicians was because of the Delphi oracle, who stated that he was the wisest man alive. Since he did not believe this, he began his travels, attempting to discover if he was truly the wisest man alive. This seems to be a very religious act, considering he acknowledged the existence of the gods that the oracle communed with.

-->The second charge of corrupting the youth is an equally ridiculous statement, because when Socrates cross examined a member of the audience, the response was that Socrates alone corrupted the youth, and every other man only benefited the youth. Socrates shut this statement down as well, revealing that none of the men in the jury had any care for the youth, that it was a mere excuse that they could use to kill Socrates.

-->This is as far as i will go for now, i would hope whoever accepts this challenge does their best to contradict me. Good luck to whoever you may be, and may you all vote on the debate itself, but not on your personal views.

Socrates deserved the death penalty. Not for "impiety" and "corrupting the youth", but the truth is (as any historian would know), these were not actually the crimes for which he was executed.

To understand why Socrates was executed, and why he deserved to be executed, we need a more comprehensive view of the decade before his execution. You see, the truth is, Socrates was a danger to Athenian Society, and his teachings almost already once destroyed Athens. Athens was not about to let itself be destroyed bo Socrates twice, thus explaining his trial and execution.

Socrates was a great enemy of Democracy. He strenuously and repeatedly objected to Democracy as a system of government. Which is of course his right.
But what Socrates did was not only object to Democracy, but teach his objection to his students, such as Plato and Critias.

At around 404 BC, Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, all of whom were heavily influenced by Socrates' teachings about the flaws and imperfection of Democracy and overthrew the Democracy in Athens with military force. They limited the civil rights of Athens and purged opposition leaders, forcing hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile.

It took another military coup one year later to rid Athens of this totalitarian military junta of Socrates' students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course ... this was Not enough for Socrates. Even after giving Athens a taste of what a dictatorship was like, Socrates still advocated against Democracy. He still went through Athens, recruiting students, teaching them the horrors of Democracy, and fomenting rebellion and treason.

Did he corrupt the youth of Athens? Yes he did indeed. In light of the danger he posed to Athens and Athenian society, the death penalty was more than justified. He could have chosen to stop his teachings. In fact, during his sentencing, he was expected to offer an alternative to the death penalty. But in his arrogance, he instead suggested that Athens offer him a stipend to continue teaching.

Many Athenians had lost their family members, suffered tremendous hardship, or were thrown into exile because of the teaching of Socrates. And this arrogant man had the nerve to suggest that Athens Pay him to continue his teachings. So now you tell me, was Athens justified in executing him?

1. His teachings was dangerous to Athens, Democracy, and it's people.
2. He refused to stop his teachings.
3. He was offered a choice to either stop his teachings or face execution.

Thanks for responding to this argument moondragon613, and now I'll address each point you've made

1: "His teachings was dangerous to Athens, Democracy, and it's people."

>>>1A: You mentioned earlier in your argument on this point that Socrates encouraged tyrants and tyrannical views, yet I don't recall any tyrants that claim to be enlightened by Socrates. Would you happen to have the names of these tyrants, and also what these leaders did to be considered tyrannical, other than not believing in democracy as a functional form of government? It is true that Socrates was a danger to democracy, and that he pointed out many flaws of this system of government, but I don't believe this is the same as encouraging tyrannical behavior, even if he did encourage monarchical views.

>>>1B: Also, at the time, Athens was switching between several forms of government, and did not remain a democracy for anywhere over ten years at a time. This scenario influenced the situation in two ways. The first way being that it enforced Socrates' view on the stability of democracy, and the second way being that most of the jurors at the trial of Socrates obviously favored democracy, in that they were part of this trial, and knowing that Socrates was dead set against the form of government that they supported, this I am almost sure swayed the vote against him, which can definitely be considered as unjustly putting him to death.

2: "He refused to stop his teachings."

>>>2A: Many people see this as a sheer act of stubbornness on Socrates' part, but if looked at properly, one realizes that in the same situation, we would all make the same decision. Socrates was a stone mason as a career, which made him the little money that he ever had, but at heart, he was a philosopher. That was all he wanted to be and all he would be, a lover of wisdom. So while Socrates was on trial, he was presented with two options. One being that he could live and never do the one thing he wants, the second one being to die. Some of us might fear death to the point of living out a hollow existence until we die anyway, but given the choice, Socrates believed it was not worth it. In fact, he went to state that he was the "gadfly" that kept the democracy awake, by not letting them blindly believe anything, but instead questioning everything to arrive at the truth. Since I noticed that i also responded to your third point with this, I will leave it to you sir. Good luck.

1. The Danger of the Socratic Teachings.

A. "Yet I don't recall any tyrants that claim to be enlightened by Socrates. Would you happen to have the names of these tyrants, and also what these leaders did to be considered tyrannical, other than not believing in democracy as a functional form of government?" ----- My opponent's Question.

My opponent clearly prefers WRITING to READING. I mean ... I understand if this was an oral debate ... but for crying out loud, It's RIGHT THERE!!!! LOOK!!! 4th Paragraph!!!! RIGHT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!
("At around 404 BC, Critias ... They limited the civil rights of Athens and purged opposition leaders, forcing hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile.")

I. The Leader, Critias, was a student of Socrates.
II. The Tyrants forced hundreds to drink hemlock and thousands into exile.

B. "Also, at the time, Athens was switching between several forms of government"

OF COURSE THEY WERE. HAVENT U READ ANYTHING I WROTE????
"At around 404 BC, Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, all of whom were heavily influenced by Socrates' teachings about the flaws and imperfection of Democracy and OVERTHREW the Democracy in Athens with military force. ... It took another military coup one year later to rid Athens of this totalitarian military junta of Socrates' students."

AGAIN IT'S RIGHT THERE!!! Athenian democracy was overthrown by military force because of Socrates' teachings against Democracy and then restored a year later by another military revolution of outraged citizens.

2. "He refused to stop his teachings."
"Many people see this as a sheer act of stubbornness on Socrates' part, but if looked at properly, one realizes that in the same situation, we would all make the same decision."

Let's think about this for a second ....
Let's Imagine if YOUR TEACHINGS were Responsible for the death of hundreds of your countrymen. Let's Imagine if YOUR TEACHINGS were responsible for the birth of a military Junta that oppressed YOUR neighbors and fellow citizens. If YOUR TEACHINGS were responsible for this ... would you continue?

I believe that if Karl Marx knew his teachings would give birth to a monster such as Stalin, he would have had the decency to stop. Or at least apologize. Socrates did neither. He demanded to be paid. In fact .... that was the choice he offered Athens. Either they executed him or they paid him.

Would You pay Osama Bin Laden if you lost a relative in 9/11 or would you execute him ... And do you think his execution is justified?

Again, you're stating that Socrates told these men to overthrow Athens, which he did not do. They merely followed him and interpreted his teachings based on his perspectives, and then reacted on their own volition. Also, you said that Critias led a group of 30 tyrants, but you still haven't provided the names of these tyrants or their connection to Socrates, so I will disregard their actions entirely.

As for your reference to Karl Marx, you stated that if he knew about Stalin, then he would have never supported any form of socialism? I disagree with this completely. It was the form of government that he believed in, period. Perspectives never should account for extremists, because those people are just that: extremists. Irrational, usually violent stubborn believers that their belief is the absolute truth. Karl Marx would not have stopped believing what he did, and he would not apologize for socialism altogether.

Finally, you asked "Would You pay Osama Bin Laden if you lost a relative in 9/11 or would you execute him ... And do you think his execution is justified?"

This is just ridiculous. If Osama Bin Laden killed one of my relatives, I would think he deserved some form of justice, but I am not one to decide who should die, no man has that choice. Also, this is irrelevant to the discussion. A real question that relates to this debate would be this: If you lost a relative in 9/11, would you try your believe that killing Osama Bin Laden's high school teacher is justified? I think most people would say no to this question.

good luck to you sir.