Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Any Takers?

dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:51:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I feel like I've been debating bozos- I need to have a reality check and get my respective @$$ kicked by a respected member. I have a three topics I could debate-

"That rehabilitation should be favored over retribution* (Pro)
"That the electoral college should be abolished (Pro)
"That current CIA torture should be replaced" (Pro)

*In cases of drug users/abusers
"Either abolished or replaced with better method of torture.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:53:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 7:51:39 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I feel like I've been debating bozos- I need to have a reality check and get my respective @$$ kicked by a respected member. I have a three topics I could debate-

"That rehabilitation should be favored over retribution* (Pro)

If I had all my old debate files for this topic I'd take it with you xD But sadly I don't.
"That the electoral college should be abolished (Pro)
"That current CIA torture should be replaced" (Pro)

*In cases of drug users/abusers
"Either abolished or replaced with better method of torture.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 8:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 7:51:39 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I feel like I've been debating bozos- I need to have a reality check and get my respective @$$ kicked by a respected member. I have a three topics I could debate-

"That rehabilitation should be favored over retribution* (Pro)
"That the electoral college should be abolished (Pro)
"That current CIA torture should be replaced" (Pro)

*In cases of drug users/abusers
"Either abolished or replaced with better method of torture.

I would do the electoral college one.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:08:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 7:51:39 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I feel like I've been debating bozos- I need to have a reality check and get my respective @$$ kicked by a respected member. I have a three topics I could debate-

"That rehabilitation should be favored over retribution* (Pro)
"That the electoral college should be abolished (Pro)
"That current CIA torture should be replaced" (Pro)

*In cases of drug users/abusers
"Either abolished or replaced with better method of torture.

Would that imply that you are CON for non-drug users/abusers?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:10:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:08:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/15/2014 7:51:39 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I feel like I've been debating bozos- I need to have a reality check and get my respective @$$ kicked by a respected member. I have a three topics I could debate-

"That rehabilitation should be favored over retribution* (Pro)
"That the electoral college should be abolished (Pro)
"That current CIA torture should be replaced" (Pro)

*In cases of drug users/abusers
"Either abolished or replaced with better method of torture.

Would that imply that you are CON for non-drug users/abusers?

Undecided.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

The limitation to only drug abusers makes the opposing position unwinnable imo. Drug use is a crime that only hurts the individual. It's one of the paternalistic crimes that clearly only harms the person who is arrested. The retributive justification for criminal punishment doesn't even make sense for drug abusers. The only logic penological theory for why drug use should be illegal is rehabilitation and possibly incapacitation. The Con position imo is not only unwinnable, but has absolutely nothing to even say. The idea that drug users should be punished because drug use is an inherently evil offense doesn't make sense. I'd be surprised if you found a legitimate opponent on this one. You'd have to change it from retribution to incapacitation to even make the topic coherent imo.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

Like, literally, retribution means that punishment should be predicated on getting "justice" for the victim. Drug use is a victimless crime.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:37:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:34:41 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

The limitation to only drug abusers makes the opposing position unwinnable imo. Drug use is a crime that only hurts the individual. It's one of the paternalistic crimes that clearly only harms the person who is arrested. The retributive justification for criminal punishment doesn't even make sense for drug abusers. The only logic penological theory for why drug use should be illegal is rehabilitation and possibly incapacitation. The Con position imo is not only unwinnable, but has absolutely nothing to even say. The idea that drug users should be punished because drug use is an inherently evil offense doesn't make sense. I'd be surprised if you found a legitimate opponent on this one. You'd have to change it from retribution to incapacitation to even make the topic coherent imo.

I've noticed two things from this text

1) I should probably change it to incapacitation (as that is technically what I mean)
2) You use "imo" a lot
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:36:13 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

Like, literally, retribution means that punishment should be predicated on getting "justice" for the victim. Drug use is a victimless crime.

I knew what he meant. It annoys me when people don't debate the intended meaning.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 4:00:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:37:28 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:34:41 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

The limitation to only drug abusers makes the opposing position unwinnable imo. Drug use is a crime that only hurts the individual. It's one of the paternalistic crimes that clearly only harms the person who is arrested. The retributive justification for criminal punishment doesn't even make sense for drug abusers. The only logic penological theory for why drug use should be illegal is rehabilitation and possibly incapacitation. The Con position imo is not only unwinnable, but has absolutely nothing to even say. The idea that drug users should be punished because drug use is an inherently evil offense doesn't make sense. I'd be surprised if you found a legitimate opponent on this one. You'd have to change it from retribution to incapacitation to even make the topic coherent imo.

I've noticed two things from this text

1) I should probably change it to incapacitation (as that is technically what I mean)
2) You use "imo" a lot

What do you mean by incapacitate? Do you mean incarcerate?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 4:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:37:28 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:34:41 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:25:14 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

also bump

The limitation to only drug abusers makes the opposing position unwinnable imo. Drug use is a crime that only hurts the individual. It's one of the paternalistic crimes that clearly only harms the person who is arrested. The retributive justification for criminal punishment doesn't even make sense for drug abusers. The only logic penological theory for why drug use should be illegal is rehabilitation and possibly incapacitation. The Con position imo is not only unwinnable, but has absolutely nothing to even say. The idea that drug users should be punished because drug use is an inherently evil offense doesn't make sense. I'd be surprised if you found a legitimate opponent on this one. You'd have to change it from retribution to incapacitation to even make the topic coherent imo.

I've noticed two things from this text

1) I should probably change it to incapacitation (as that is technically what I mean)
2) You use "imo" a lot

Can you change it to something like drug addicts shouldn't be punished for their crimes, they should be rehabilitated so it doesn't limit me to arguing in favor of a single form of punishment (incapacitation).
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:25:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?

Define deterrence. I can argue as far as that drug abusers should be removed from the general public and put in jail/place like jail
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:25:23 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?

Define deterrence. I can argue as far as that drug abusers should be removed from the general public and put in jail/place like jail

I want to be able to argue for corporal punishment as opposed to rehab.

Rehab verse corporal punishment.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:36:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:30:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:25:23 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?

Define deterrence. I can argue as far as that drug abusers should be removed from the general public and put in jail/place like jail

I want to be able to argue for corporal punishment as opposed to rehab.

Rehab verse corporal punishment.

cor"po"ral pun"ish"ment
noun
physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
punishment under law that includes imprisonment and death.

That?
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:37:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:36:00 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:30:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:25:23 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?

Define deterrence. I can argue as far as that drug abusers should be removed from the general public and put in jail/place like jail

I want to be able to argue for corporal punishment as opposed to rehab.

Rehab verse corporal punishment.

cor"po"ral pun"ish"ment
noun
physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
punishment under law that includes imprisonment and death.

That?

Yes
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 9:37:12 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:36:00 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:30:51 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 9:25:23 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:11:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:08:28 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/16/2014 4:01:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
I just realized you meant the legal definition of incapacitate.

Yup. There are four goals of the criminal justice system: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution.

I want to be able to argue for deterrence in the debate. Do you think he'd allow for it?

Define deterrence. I can argue as far as that drug abusers should be removed from the general public and put in jail/place like jail

I want to be able to argue for corporal punishment as opposed to rehab.

Rehab verse corporal punishment.

cor"po"ral pun"ish"ment
noun
physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
punishment under law that includes imprisonment and death.

That?

Yes

I could probably debate that... let me do some research
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite