151 replies to this topic

[Cyo]

Yes, giving into killers wants and demands totally justifies you're incredible Americentric argument.

Your grammar is so American I got diabetes.

[ElPinapple]

And using the taxes of a criminal's victims to feed said criminal is ethical? How 'bout releasing killers into society, would you say that is ethical? Deontological ethics can even be used to argue for the death penalty, same goes for Kantian ethics, both these moral philosophies argue that intent and duties. Executions are done with the intent that they will curb crime in society, I'd say that's good intent. William David Ross talks about duties to justice and beneficence, does it not benefit society to end the life of a criminal? Is justice not served when a killer is killed? So yeah, ethics works both ways

Justice is overrated.

[Volition]

Yes, giving into killers wants and demands totally justifies you're incredible Americentric argument.

They want to die? Americentric? First of all, I'm not American (I'm Canadian) and I'm probably more anti-American than pro-American (with their oil imperialism). Secondly, I don't see how Kantian and deontological ethics relate to Americentrism at all, so you might wanna expand on your mindless accusations

Justice is overrated.

Really? Don't have a better argument? Letting criminals live is overrated. Saying something is overrated is a pathetic argument. Also, you failed to address my argument regarding ethics.

[ElPinapple]

There is no argument. You missed the point of my original post entirely.

[iChelsea]

so, the tax payers should have to have their money going into providing free food and shelter for dangerous criminals ;\?

Nope. I think prisons should sustain theirselves. What the fuck else are they doing? Make them plant and grow their own food, breed and raise their own livestock, make their own clothes and shit. Of course there will be prisoners that will not want to do it, but what are they going to do about it? They either do the work or die

[Volition]

There is no argument. You missed the point of my original post entirely.

care to enlighten me on the point of your post then?

[Frizzle]

They want to die? Americentric? First of all, I'm not American (I'm Canadian) and I'm probably more anti-American than pro-American (with their oil imperialism). Secondly, I don't see how Kantian and deontological ethics relate to Americentrism at all, so you might wanna expand on your mindless accusations

Being Americentric has nothing to do with being American which just proves your ignorance of the topic. All your points and views are based on the north American way and disregards other cultures, views and procedures.

[Volition]

Being Americentric has nothing to do with being American which just proves your ignorance of the topic. All your points and views are based on the north American way and disregards other cultures, views and procedures.

China has the death penalty, does that make me Sinocentric too? Actually 40ish countries in the world have the death penalty, shall i add the suffix -centrism to all those as well or would you be willing to do that for me? I've been using logic to support my claims, which obviously makes them very ignorant. I've argued that it is better to kill off the source of the crime to prevent further crimes from being committed by the criminal in question, stopping a problem at the source? Totally ignorant. I will admit I've disregarded the view that capital punishment does not deter crime, but there's always contextual considerations. Like one could argue that a rich developed country which doesn't have capital punishment as the same crime rates as a poor undeveloped country which has capital punishment. There's a lot of cultures which have the death penalty, but I'm sure they're all Americentrist and ignorant too. The Roman Catholic Church and Islamic Law both allow capital punishment, although the Roman Catholic Church argues that it has to be used as a deterrent rather than for revenge (no, I'm not trying to use religion to support the death penalty, this point was just a mere observation). Oh jeez I'm using 'Americentrist' views and arguments, therefore they must be bad. If I happen to support something that's effective, and America just happens to support it as well, it makes my views Americentrist right? Also I would appreciate it if you addressed each of my points individually as opposed to just saying the bulk of them disregard other views etc and are ignorant.

[ElPinapple]

care to enlighten me on the point of your post then?

Killing people is wrong. The death penalty is wrong.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter.


I toned down the language for you.

[Volition]

Killing people is wrong. The death penalty is wrong.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter.

I toned down the language for you.

Right and wrong is all bullshit, while writing my Theory of Knowledge paper for IB I found out that right and wrong is for people who wish to have the feeling of moral superiority over another, and only shows just how narcissistic you are.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter? Well maybe you should go ahead and PROVE that point instead just saying it, after all this is a debate thread, not a whateverisayistrue thread.

[chess211]

Killing people is wrong. The death penalty is wrong.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter.

This is a rather, simple, statement. Killing should not be encouraged, and in an ideal world the death penalty would not be needed as there would be no crimes committed that would under any legal system deserve the death penalty. Just because the death penalty is still a law does not mean that it has to be carried out often, many of the states of the United States still have the death penalty on book, still send people to death row but almost never get around to executing people.

A good example would be Israel, the death penalty is on record, and there are many causes that would gain the sentence of death, but only two have been carried out. One was a quick military execution, a person was falsely accused of treason, court marshaled and executed. The second was Adolf Eichmann for his participation in the Holocaust in 1962. So the death penalty is still a punishment that exists, but it realistically not a punishment in practice.

Personally, I disagree with the death penalty being used in most cases, I believe that there are only the rare cases like Eichmann and people with an impact similar to the other high-ranking Nazi leaders that would need the benefit, as rarely does a person achieve the impact where just being alive is enough of a threat, even in prison. After all, Hitler gained a lot of influence after being imprisoned by Weimar Germany, before he finally rose to power.

[ElPinapple]

Right and wrong is all bullshit, while writing my Theory of Knowledge paper for IB I found out that right and wrong is for people who wish to have the feeling of moral superiority over another, and only shows just how narcissistic you are.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter? Well maybe you should go ahead and PROVE that point instead just saying it, after all this is a debate thread, not a whateverisayistrue thread.

Again, there is no argument. We fundamentally disagree on whether or not killing something can ever be ethical.

There is no proof because it's an opinion. I was simply pointing out the argument against the death penalty. Stop trying to impose your views onto me with baby's first philosophy class terminology.

[chess211]

Again, there is no argument. We fundamentally disagree on whether or not killing something can ever be ethical.

There is no proof because it's an opinion. I was simply pointing out the argument against the death penalty. Stop trying to impose your views onto me with baby's first philosophy class terminology.

I agree that bringing up anything from ToK is silly, it is a high school brief introduction into a bit of thinking. I remember taking it years ago, it was interesting, but not relevant compared to what you learn in a philosophy class, or even just doing debate.

ElPinapple, as an opinion there is nothing wrong with your statements, but as a debate it is incomplete. The purpose of a debate, and this is in the debate subforum, is to explore an issue, usually in the interest in convincing the other people to your opinion. Yours is laking in just stating the killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. Does this mean that war is always wrong, killing in selfdefense? All of these also involve killing, but are they just as wrong?

I find the death penalty wrong because it is such a final stance on the issue, there is no possible way to reverse the decision. Rarely do I believe that when a person is actually captured and secured that this is a necessary decision. Life without chance of parole achieves the same level of impact on society, but with the slight possibility of things changing, of creating a limited productive member of society even if it is one forever removed from the mass actions of society.

Voltion, there is not proof in a matter like this. This is not mathematics where something can be proved, even the physical sciences tend to stay away from proving anything, but instead talking about the rational for believe a theory, and prove the mathematical implications of a theory. Proof only works when the entire logical rules are known, and when dealing with moral issues such as the death penalty there is no proof. There are opinions, and arguments on why people believe their opinion, if you have taken ToK this should be clear to you. Everyone sees the world through their own lens, proof only exists when there is an absolute logical chain that can be followed from the base axioms, and that only exists in mathematics.

[Volition]

I find the death penalty wrong because it is such a final stance on the issue, there is no possible way to reverse the decision. Rarely do I believe that when a person is actually captured and secured that this is a necessary decision. Life without chance of parole achieves the same level of impact on society, but with the slight possibility of things changing, of creating a limited productive member of society even if it is one forever removed from the mass actions of society.

Voltion, there is not proof in a matter like this. This is not mathematics where something can be proved, even the physical sciences tend to stay away from proving anything, but instead talking about the rational for believe a theory, and prove the mathematical implications of a theory. Proof only works when the entire logical rules are known, and when dealing with moral issues such as the death penalty there is no proof. There are opinions, and arguments on why people believe their opinion, if you have taken ToK this should be clear to you. Everyone sees the world through their own lens, proof only exists when there is an absolute logical chain that can be followed from the base axioms, and that only exists in mathematics.

Well isn't the finality the point of the death penalty? Deal with it now so you don't have to deal with it later. Life without parole still leaves an economic burden on society, it's taxpayer money going toward feeding and sheltering a criminal. Yeah ToK was kinda stupid, basically saying that what we know to be true may or may not be true etc etc and there are no absolutes, which turns all debates to shit.
On a different note, did you happen to participate in the IB program? Where I am ToK isn't even offered to regular students.

[chess211]

Well isn't the finality the point of the death penalty? Deal with it now so you don't have to deal with it later. Life without parole still leaves an economic burden on society, it's taxpayer money going toward feeding and sheltering a criminal. Yeah ToK was kinda stupid, basically saying that what we know to be true may or may not be true etc etc and there are no absolutes, which turns all debates to shit.
On a different note, did you happen to participate in the IB program? Where I am ToK isn't even offered to regular students.

I did IB, took HL math, chem, English, history, SL in Spanish, music. Currently a rising senior in college.

The finality is the point of the death penalty, but under what conditions does it become necessary? I believe it is only necessary when there is a demonstrable reason for why death is so important, such as my earlier reference to Eichmann and the Nazi party. Death is irreversible, why should it be wielded as a tool when it is unnecessary? There are certain events I feel that deserve the death penalty, like some war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide...but cases like that are rather rare. Handing out death to minor criminals is too much in my opinion, only when the crime is such that a nation is being destroyed by it is it worth the death penalty, at least in my opinion. Using it for anything else is excessive, the financial burden of life without parole is over a longer time, so the average cost per year is less, and when it comes to finishing a budget it is the yearly cost that matters, not cost over twenty years or more. Even with the death penalty, getting to the actual death takes a long time, some last well over a decade on death row sometimes only to be granted clemency at the end, so is it really a solution when it is rarely carried out, at least in the United States?

[Frizzle]

China has the death penalty, does that make me Sinocentric too? Actually 40ish countries in the world have the death penalty, shall i add the suffix -centrism to all those as well or would you be willing to do that for me? I've been using logic to support my claims, which obviously makes them very ignorant. I've argued that it is better to kill off the source of the crime to prevent further crimes from being committed by the criminal in question, stopping a problem at the source? Totally ignorant. I will admit I've disregarded the view that capital punishment does not deter crime, but there's always contextual considerations. Like one could argue that a rich developed country which doesn't have capital punishment as the same crime rates as a poor undeveloped country which has capital punishment. There's a lot of cultures which have the death penalty, but I'm sure they're all Americentrist and ignorant too. The Roman Catholic Church and Islamic Law both allow capital punishment, although the Roman Catholic Church argues that it has to be used as a deterrent rather than for revenge (no, I'm not trying to use religion to support the death penalty, this point was just a mere observation). Oh jeez I'm using 'Americentrist' views and arguments, therefore they must be bad. If I happen to support something that's effective, and America just happens to support it as well, it makes my views Americentrist right? Also I would appreciate it if you addressed each of my points individually as opposed to just saying the bulk of them disregard other views etc and are ignorant.

I challenged you on your lack of outside views and you then used examples. Good for you.

[Volition]

I challenged you on your lack of outside views and you then used examples. Good for you.

I challenged your lack of insight and I get even less insight. If you have a problem with my lack of 'outside views' then why don't you give some outside views? Or are you too busy with personal attacks to actually contribute to a discussion? So yeah every post you've made so far in this thread pretty much says that I'm small minded, which I find now to be quite ironic. I've asked you yet again and again to enlighten me, yet all you do is dance around the subject and tell me I'm wrong.

I did IB, took HL math, chem, English, history, SL in Spanish, music. Currently a rising senior in college.

The finality is the point of the death penalty, but under what conditions does it become necessary? I believe it is only necessary when there is a demonstrable reason for why death is so important, such as my earlier reference to Eichmann and the Nazi party. Death is irreversible, why should it be wielded as a tool when it is unnecessary? There are certain events I feel that deserve the death penalty, like some war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide...but cases like that are rather rare. Handing out death to minor criminals is too much in my opinion, only when the crime is such that a nation is being destroyed by it is it worth the death penalty, at least in my opinion. Using it for anything else is excessive, the financial burden of life without parole is over a longer time, so the average cost per year is less, and when it comes to finishing a budget it is the yearly cost that matters, not cost over twenty years or more. Even with the death penalty, getting to the actual death takes a long time, some last well over a decade on death row sometimes only to be granted clemency at the end, so is it really a solution when it is rarely carried out, at least in the United States?

This brings up the argument of necessity, which the Plank of Carneades would support. I personally find the capital punishment system in the states to be flawed, countries like China or Iran just judge and execute with little hesitation.

Damn, my school doesn't offer much HL courses, so i ended up taking math sl, history and chem hl.

[chess211]

This brings up the argument of necessity, which the Plank of Carneades would support. I personally find the capital punishment system in the states to be flawed, countries like China or Iran just judge and execute with little hesitation.

Damn, my school doesn't offer much HL courses, so i ended up taking math sl, history and chem hl.

Iran and China also have a significant human rights issue, as they execute people who in other places are accepted. Neither are countries that I would want to live in for human rights reasons, even if China seems to be doing well economically. How many people executed in those counties would even be consider as the real dregs of society in Europe, or the United States? The European Union does not allow the death penalty as part of its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Capital punishment is deeply flawed in the United States, but is it better to execute someone who is innocent in the interests of speeding up the process, or keep multiple extra guilty people of life without parole? I prefer the second option.

My school was one of the larger IB programs, I had a bit over 100 students in my graduating class.

[ElPinapple]

I agree that bringing up anything from ToK is silly, it is a high school brief introduction into a bit of thinking. I remember taking it years ago, it was interesting, but not relevant compared to what you learn in a philosophy class, or even just doing debate.

ElPinapple, as an opinion there is nothing wrong with your statements, but as a debate it is incomplete. The purpose of a debate, and this is in the debate subforum, is to explore an issue, usually in the interest in convincing the other people to your opinion. Yours is laking in just stating the killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. Does this mean that war is always wrong, killing in selfdefense? All of these also involve killing, but are they just as wrong?

I find the death penalty wrong because it is such a final stance on the issue, there is no possible way to reverse the decision. Rarely do I believe that when a person is actually captured and secured that this is a necessary decision. Life without chance of parole achieves the same level of impact on society, but with the slight possibility of things changing, of creating a limited productive member of society even if it is one forever removed from the mass actions of society.

Voltion, there is not proof in a matter like this. This is not mathematics where something can be proved, even the physical sciences tend to stay away from proving anything, but instead talking about the rational for believe a theory, and prove the mathematical implications of a theory. Proof only works when the entire logical rules are known, and when dealing with moral issues such as the death penalty there is no proof. There are opinions, and arguments on why people believe their opinion, if you have taken ToK this should be clear to you. Everyone sees the world through their own lens, proof only exists when there is an absolute logical chain that can be followed from the base axioms, and that only exists in mathematics.

I have already boiled down my argument to its most fundamental components. There is no convincing anyone at this point.

I believe killing is wrong. The pragmatic consequences of abolishing the death penalty don't concern me.

[Volition]

Iran and China also have a significant human rights issue, as they execute people who in other places are accepted. Neither are countries that I would want to live in for human rights reasons, even if China seems to be doing well economically. How many people executed in those counties would even be consider as the real dregs of society in Europe, or the United States? The European Union does not allow the death penalty as part of its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Capital punishment is deeply flawed in the United States, but is it better to execute someone who is innocent in the interests of speeding up the process, or keep multiple extra guilty people of life without parole? I prefer the second option.

My school was one of the larger IB programs, I had a bit over 100 students in my graduating class.

There's a lot of situational factors to consider, the EU is a lot more well off than say Iran or China, less crime less need for the death penalty. I would also say that it's less of killing someone to speed up the process and more of killing someone to help prevent crime, to me the execution of an innocent is the fault of the investigators/judges and whatnot and less of the fault of capital punishment.

[ElPinapple]

There's a lot of situational factors to consider, the EU is a lot more well off than say Iran or China, less crime less need for the death penalty. I would also say that it's less of killing someone to speed up the process and more of killing someone to help prevent crime, to me the execution of an innocent is the fault of the investigators/judges and whatnot and less of the fault of capital punishment.

"I support the death penalty because I take a pragmatic approach to humanitarianism, but I pick and choose the consequences to attribute to it on the basis of an intangible, immeasurable factor."

[mjcm]

Killing people is wrong. The death penalty is wrong.
The effect the death penalty has on society doesn't matter.

I toned down the language for you.

There is no absolute right in this world. All must bow down to the greater power of the state for the betterment of the majority. Killing people is wrong if there is no justification behind it. But to kill someone because of a very grave and heinous crime is another story.

[Frizzle]

I challenged your lack of insight and I get even less insight. If you have a problem with my lack of 'outside views' then why don't you give some outside views? Or are you too busy with personal attacks to actually contribute to a discussion? So yeah every post you've made so far in this thread pretty much says that I'm small minded, which I find now to be quite ironic. I've asked you yet again and again to enlighten me, yet all you do is dance around the subject and tell me I'm wrong.

I've answered your questions, you've just obviously my read through them. I have no idea what personal attacks you're talking about, maybe you're just paranoid and insecure.

I challenged your lack of insight and I get even less insight. If you have a problem with my lack of 'outside views' then why don't you give some outside views? Or are you too busy with personal attacks to actually contribute to a discussion? So yeah every post you've made so far in this thread pretty much says that I'm small minded, which I find now to be quite ironic. I've asked you yet again and again to enlighten me, yet all you do is dance around the subject and tell me I'm wrong.

I've answered your questions, you've just obviously not read through them. I have no idea what personal attacks you're talking about, maybe you're just paranoid and insecure.

[ElPinapple]

There is no absolute right in this world. All must bow down to the greater power of the state for the betterment of the majority. Killing people is wrong if there is no justification behind it. But to kill someone because of a very grave and heinous crime is another story.

You literally just said "Nuh uh I disagree" and swapped out words with a thesaurus.

[Frizzle]

I am late to this ball party, but im PRO PRO PRO death penalty, theres no better way to deter crime. I say that once death penalty, other than misdemenor. should get the penalty, any kind of herendous act against another human, rape, etc should be put down. theft etc, afew years. and anything higher should be instantly put down. no one after they see it done would commit the harsh amounts of crime due to fact, if there caught, there dead. to easy.

we spend way to much money feeding prisoners and housing them. can be used to better fix our countries issues. but thats just me. dunno, its arhetorical debate because everyone will say this and that and this is not worthy or is worthy of the death penalty, but look at china, like 10x the population but 10% of our crime if i recall? maybe its changed in last few years. but its something retarded like that.

I'm sure all those suicide bombers are really scared of spending 10 years in a cost prison before getting a sleepy injection.

Is this why America has one of the highest murder rates in the world?