And in your opinion, "critical thinking" is asserting that people who have degrees aren't intelligent because some people who don't have degrees are intelligent? You see, if you'd actually been to university, you'd have been taught that's stupid.

If you'd spent half the time actually thinking, rather than rote mugging up stuff, you'd possibly know what I'm asserting in the first place.

This is why I call people from a university stupid(especially ones who think it's an indicator of intelligence). Seems like you haven't read my whole argument before you replied, but go on.. You stand to prove my argument.

The fact that many of the finest ever in academia weren't the finest in their so called formal education proves how inefficient an idea it is to try to quantify intelligence through degrees. It doesn't take one much to observe that there is little to no actual emphasis on genuine learning and critical thinking in the larger scale. Most people who supposedly have "amazing grades" get through by mugging up texts in most places today.

In a world which holds the opinion of the majority to the highest regard, it's not surprising to see that the education system is designed to make the majority of mediocre intellect succeed.

It's not quite about finding the truth always..

Though I'm not denying the truth in statements of an argument, It need not always be to verify how true a statement is.

Often debates have a common objective, but different ways to achieve it. Such debates depend on which approach is better.

Personally, I just love the reward from using reasoning to debate..

No, but it would be cool if we came up with one. I don’t think Batman could function as Batman under some ideologies, such as those which necessitate oppressive regimes. Which means he arguably could stand for ideologies in which he can function, such as Gotham’s system if people were more individually moral.

I'm not sure if I get what you mean by "under some ideologies which necessitate oppressive regimes".. do you mean batman representing the ideologies or the ideologies imposed on the general public?

In the first case, certainly, he wouldn't be batman under either a far left or far right perspective..

an interesting point to note is: when we move too far right or too far left, we see a decline in moral values in objectives..

and if he actually represented an ideology, albeit custom made, it would certainly have as its feature, a sound sense of morality.. this brings me to another question.. would we have batman if not for a lack in sense of morality among the public?

Does he have to represent a certain ideology?

I think morality is what drives him, not a specific ideology...........................................

If a mom murders her grown 20 year old daughter, is it just a late abortion?

Sure, If the mom has been pregnant for 20 years.

I'm following and not following at the same time.. I'm more of a nuts and bolts kinda guy.. Tell me, are laws against marijuana moral?

hello con,

If you ask me, if it doesn't physically do harm to a person, it should be absolutely legal.

We dedicate quite a bit of brain space to moral reasoning. .

Well, we wouldn't be debating on this topic if we weren't. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the final decision made in a case(like this) where morality among people leads to conflicting opinions.

Even if justice were more quantitative, it would still depend on morality, which is a little less malleable than you seem to think.

I agree, I'm talking about using reasoning when moral dilemmas are faced.

Justice that doesn't depend on morality? Morality is the only basis of what is right. Without morality we cannot provide justice instead it makes what's worse more worser. Also without morality we lose our dignity and respect to ourselves, look at the poor prostitutes who trade themselves for money. They also think it is the best to have sex with foreigners just to give their family something to eat. Same to those executors who kill just to provide safety for the citizen. Tell me , If a person has a benevolent intention but makes a cruel action can it be qualified as good ?

You just seem to support my point.. the question you asked in the end makes it clear why "justice" should be morality free. Morality leads to dilemmas that can't be explained to have a common solution, some people would classify your question to be among good acts, while many would do the opposite. One thing we can all agree upon is logic, hence a quantitative decision is the best fit for the situation.

Fair in what terms? In death? I refuse to allow more deaths to occure. Where's that Moral lesson that you learned when you were a kid? Elders told you to value life of human, if you don't do so. You're judged as immoral. If you kill my mother, you become guilty. If I kill you, will that end your guilt? No, you'll just die, nothing happens, no one learns nor is there any wrong corrected. Your delusion of justice is not fair in terms of peace. It's only fair in terms of death.

What is moral to you need not be for another. Morality depends on what you've been taught as a kid by your parents. More specifically, it depends on the environment you grew up as a kid. The only thing then that would make sense is to have justice which doesn't depend on morality. In which case a quantitative standpoint like that of what I stand for, would be the best solution.

You sound like you just took shrooms and are now trying to be deep and philosophical.

The only thing I sound like is something you can't comprehend.

An absolute waste of data. Nothing worthwhile at all. The trolls have increased in numbers and debates aren't as engaging these days.. looking forward to some neat titles from you, now that you're back...

Look man, you're looking at the issue from an emotional stance. You're putting yourself in the shoes of either the criminal or a victim and then coming to a conclusion of "what you'd probably like/what anyone would probably like." The thing is, it's either fear or compassion driving you to make that statement that if maybe you do end up in a situation like that, what would you like. See beyond emotions.

To answer your question, do I like it? no. Is it fair? yes.

Death penalty for all crimes? hell no.

Death penalty for crimes that have taken lives? yes.

Eh?..............................................................................................................

Nah, just like spanking kids, kids won't learn anything from it , they will only fear their parents but learn no morality. you see, even imprisonment won't teach inmates lesson, they will only fear the policemen but will not change from what they've done.

The ones who committed "specific crimes "(I made it clear of what I'm referring to in the first argument, read it, looks like you haven't) as that I've mentioned wouldn't be alive to fear or commit further crimes. Note we are talking about criminals and not potential criminals here. There is no way to teach morality, it's formed by the social environment around you.

The more you know, the more you question in search of more knowledge. This leads to realizing the bitterest of truths which were otherwise hidden behind a facade of emotional bias and ignorance.

Is emptiness or void or nothingness the answer you are expecting?

No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. ;)

Yes it is! ;)..........................................................................

No it isn't! ;).......................................................................................................

Yes it is! ;)............................................................................

yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'. ;)..................................................

Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position! ;)..............................

The right accepts reality as it is. The left does not.

The left tries to make changes, working towards a utopian reality. The right on the other hand, accepts flaws and shows no enthusiasm towards changing them.

Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. ;)..........................................................................

Why would you rather choose punishment rather than solving the problem? this two are different. You cannot produce any good result on punishment

It's from a perspective of morality, that I'm talking about. Punishment, as death penalty in this case, is a very certain solution to the problem of "specific crimes" as mentioned.

No it isn't! ;).....................................................................................

No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. ;)

Well! it CAN be! ;).....................................................................................

An argument isn't just contradiction. ;).......................................................

AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! ;)......................................

Yes, it is! I came here for a good argument! ;).......................................

no it isn't ;) ,..................................................................................................

No it isn't! It's just contradiction! ;)...............................................................

Yes it is ;)....................................................

Yup you never made any ;).................................

Awww Of course I did ............................................... ;)

Awww... how cute...........................................;)

He can, can’t he? ;) .........................................

agreed that those are two different things altogether. If you “intend” to not help him, taking morality into consideration, you are responsible. The debate doesn’t talk about what happens, it talks about the position of making the decision to help that person.

Are you saying that he doesn't have an imaginary friend and he is thus trying to steal yours? ;)

Nope. I'm saying you finally have someone to talk to other than yourself. ;)

Shhh, listen. I think he is trying to shoe horn his way into our conversation ;)

Nah, he honked at you. ;)

I know we agreed that we did not have to follow the sketch verbatim but there's nothing about Wait... did you hear that? Someone is trying to break in on our conversation. ;) here: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

Doesn't matter ;)

Wait... did you hear that? Someone is trying to break in on our conversation. ;)

I'm sure even you didn't hear that unless you got back to talking to yourself ;)

Now let's get another thing clear: I most definitely didn't disagree, but you did. ;)

I told ya ;)

Oh look, this isn't an argument! ;)

yup, you never made arguments ;)

Oh no you didn't! ;)

Oh yes I did. ;)..............................................

Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you! ;)

Now let's get another thing clear: I most definitely didn't disagree, but you did. ;)

BTW, no it isn't. ;)

Exactly what I said, it isn't. ;)

Ah! Just the five minutes. ;)

So five minutes it is and then you can get back to talking to yourself ;)

Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? ;)

Now that you supposedly know you're not talking to yourself, you decide. ;)

Yes, it is ;)

Ofcourse it isn't ;)......................................................

No it isn't ;)

yup it isn't................................................;)

Get your cat some catfood................................................

That's just crazy talk ;)

Awww ;)..........................................

Why do you copy everything I type and why so many dots ;)

So that you know you're not currently talking to yourself and many dots cause there's much more to say....;)

Alright!!! ;)

That's more like it....................................................

Who else, if not me ;)

Well, there are many, but right now it's you alright ;)

Of course you do ;)..............................................................

I know, right ;)

You sure seem to know ;)........................................

I challenge the person with the most points on this site to a debate.

Come on fellas, the man wants to talk to himself, let him do it in peace.

It looks like an amazing step towards having a generation that's not judgemental.

While I agree that respect at it's bare minimum has to be a right, the kind of respect you're looking for need not be a right.

Just cause you've never seen atheists disputing Muslims, doesn't mean they don't. This has come up probably cause you've been debating on this site in which there are mainly christians and atheists.

Math and science cannot be separated. The more you know science, the more you know that science needs math. To have something like science vs math would make no sense as the existence of the two depend on one another.

ROFLs and LMMAOOs sure won't................................

Sorry but I think #2 will describe the pro death penalties 😏

seems totally irrelevant..

Although there has been quite a debate till today about an "objective" morality of some sort, Science and morality can, in fact coexist.. While science tells you things the way they are, morality in my opinion, is objective in it's most agreeable statements, in other words, if someone would look into "morals" one can find that it all comes down to survival as a species.. we're genetically hardwired to survive, and we can draw comparisons to how groups in the wild behave and find out they too, have a certain innate sense of how to survive as a species. With all that said, while one can reach a point where you have two differing suggestions proposed by science and morality, you're the king and they're your ministers, choose to execute which best suits you.

Sure will! and you too....................................................

I think more debates on science and philosophy could make this place of value to students coming in.

I say P.E is important for the kids who aren't much into keeping themselves healthy, it might seem quite a pressure to them during the P.E hours, but it'll give them some physical exercise which in turn might even end up becoming a healthy habit to few.

1)I think the ones who can think to an extent will realize that their existence depends on the existence of a society and hence we shouldn't generally see massacres.

2)If we do have a murderer, anyone who knows so will try to eliminate the murderer just cause of the fear of being killed(not always though, but sure is a possibility) and if the person chooses to kill the murderer, would end up becoming a murderer and there is a chance this cycle could go on.

3)As of the above point, it's a possibility provided that there aren't ways to contain murderers. Which brings me to the point where people would gather around and find better ways to stay alive by doing things necessary to not let people kill anyone randomly. A suggestion could be making the murderer blind.

4)If seeing someone and killing them is also applied to people seeing through cameras, warfare just got an update.

It all comes down to what percentage of the population cares about the bigger picture of surviving as a species..

I think anyone who isn't depressed and is in a clear state of mind should have the right to choose how and when they will die.

They technically do exist. We've defined them as a moral or legal entitlement, but often rights are violated, not just due to others denying you a right, it's also the case in some places that people don't know what their rights are.

With improvements in genetic engineering, the shortcomings of cloning can be outdone, and once that happens, it'll surely be a very benefiting aspect in medical sciences.

If not for any medical conditions and if not as an act of self defense, Any crime that directly or indirectly kills people should be given the punishment of death penalty imo..

What you call poor execution of law, is simply reality. Imposing a law is not the same as imposing compliance. It never will be. There is a black market even in totalitarian North Korea. There is a law against felons having guns, and drug users having guns, and yet they still have guns. The people most responsible for murder are already banned from having guns. But you think shifting the law to ammo is the key? There is no reason to think that will work any better. You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.

Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".

The argument for banning real ammo is much the same as an argument for banning guns. The primary difference is that you know what a gun is but you can't seem to understand what a less lethal round is.

But hey, since your idea is fucking stupid, I guess society might as well suffer from its problems. Ignoring your idea will be one less problem to suffer from.

Please take the last word. I'm done with you.

If you're saying making laws are useless cause reality is something else, why even have laws in the first place? Now that's fucking stupid. Oh wait, that's not the first shitty implication you've made. You are constantly denying the fact that a different approach to a given problem can possibly be a solution.

Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".

lol murder is illegal already. Oh and wait, that was among the first basic laws to be made, looks like your argument supports my idea for a law to be made.

You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.

If I did have the power to improve implementation, I'd give every ounce to it. But yeah, I can't change ppl's mindsets so until ppl don't think like me, there can't be change.

And anyway, even if we talk about implementation of law being difficult and henceforth don't make a law, we might as well make all crimes legal. lol let's ban murders backfired alright xD.

But hey, cause everything you've said till now has been fuckin stupid, I'm done here.

If this is your comprehension after reading “Ammo is designed to put holes in things”, then I think I see the problem.

Intent leads to why things are made and hence bullets were made to kill which I've been typing for the past 4 arguments or so now. A definition is a semantically perfect description. Oh I do see the problem now.

There’s no such thing as a non-fatal round. When the shooter gets to you’re corner with his very lethal rounds, you can hope to protect yourself with less lethal rounds. More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.

There's no such thing as anything if that's the case. A non-fatal round is one that's not(intended to be) fatal. The last snip from my previous argument still holds good I see.

More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.

do you mind googling the word "effective" cause I've quoted that definition already and it seems my last snip still holds true.

Felons are already banned from having guns. Yet they have them. Most gun deaths are from gang violence. Most gang members are felons and drug users, which are both already banned from having guns. Banning those same people from having certain ammo will not stop them from having said ammo.

1)Re read my previous argument about felons.

2)Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic.

First, that makes cops potential felons. Better take their rounds too. Second, since you cannot stop potential felons (everyone) from having guns, what the fuck makes you think you can stop them from having real ammo for that gun? Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.

Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.

I'm sorry that you don't get stuff at the first go, but that's all I can say about it.

Cops are potential felons too. Never fuckin denied it. The thing is a person with a fucked up head is less likely to become a cop in the first place. Even if one does, There are shit loads of ways that can keep every cop under watch.

Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.

Again, as I said, poor execution is not my business to worry about.

If there can't be changes in a society, it might as well suffer from it's problems.

Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.

Believe me I could've done that 3 arguments ago, but yeah I do support making changes, in this case tediously explaining my perspective, but yeah, you're not into changing anything as far as I see.

Your drink is punch.

My drink's a vodka.

No. Ammo is designed to put holes in things, which happens to be the most effective way of stopping a living threat. A larger round will stop a larger threat (or a small threat more effectively). So if you go on a savannah tour, even though you aren’t hunting, I recommend you go with a guide that has a big gun to stop big threats.

So your argument is, rounds were never made to kill. A gun is meant to kill, not stop threats. The whole purpose of inventing a gun was to use it as a replacement to other primitive weapons like the swords which were made to kill in a war, and hence the replacement(guns) were also made to kill. The fact that it stops threats is an implication from what it does, but the purpose of invention was to kill.

In case of an active shooter, children and office workers are told to run hide fight. In that order. If it comes to that last option, will workers or teachers be better off wielding chairs or...?

bring the man down if inevitable. obviously with the non fatal round.

Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have! That way they are on equal footing with law abiding citizens! It’s the reality of real ammunition that put all those holes in your punch drink.

yeah!

Now I can assume you've agreed to giving rpgs to felons just like you have assumed what my take is.

Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have!

Any civilian can turn into a felon, hence, you can never stop potential felons from having guns. Which is why, we need to have non fatal rounds. Looks like you're the one with holes in your punch drink here.

Rather than addressing my points, your pretending I haven’t made them.

Let's just say that went above your head.

Inn glad you’ve switched to using the term “less lethal rounds” as opposed to “non-lethal rounds”

non fatal is perfect.

All ammunition, including less lethal ammunition, is used to stop the threat.

A 50 caliber is used to kill not stop.

Less lethal rounds can do pretty well, when the conditions are right and they are utilized properly. But pretty well isn’t good enough in a potentially lethal encounter. Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.

nobody's going to war in a self defence situation. someone comes at you with a gun with non fatal rounds and is a psychopath, I'd personally tactically avoid until help and bring the man down if inevitable. Note I'm talking about civilians here, not trained assassins.

Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.

killing someone while you can take down a person alive is far more effective in a self defence situation, sure.

My point about the lethal option is that less lethal rounds are a luxury which is only available because someone else is right there with lethal force protection.

Think about it, that just supports my line of arguments and suggestions.

Do you really think that mischarecterization of my position even looks like it holds water? A handgun is not an RPG. Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.

Well, it held my drink.

Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.

And to cause muscle spasms and take ppl down, not put a potential hole through someone.

At least the aggressor may not be killed. Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death. If it weren’t the case, why stop with civilians? Why not make all cops carry only less lethal rounds? Nevermind, I’ve already answered this.

Cops need lethal rounds and I haven't disagreed to it, but not all civilians are cops and surely haven't been trained as cops.

Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death..

Which is exactly why we need all civilians to have non fatal rounds and not variable lethality of rounds, best solution being non fatal rounds, which doesn't kill anyone unlike giving anyone the potential to kill anyone with ease. That way, even the one attacking can't kill others.

That’s why they call them less lethal rounds. Cops know that less lethal rounds are far less effective.

Effectiveness is a measure of how well something works to what it was made for. The less lethal rounds are not meant to be lethal. they're meant to put down the attacker which they do pretty well.

Cops aren’t going to approach a lethal situation without a lethal force option.

I never said they would approach a lethal situation without a lethal option. I said they use less lethal rounds. What it implies is that less lethal rounds are used when they are to be used. If cops can use them to capture criminals, it sure does pretty well against an attacker where your need of the hour is self defence.

If you don’t have to fight, don’t fight. If you don’t have to shoot, don’t shoot. But if you do have to shoot, then the threat is unavoidable and lethal, so you better not bring bean bags to the shootout.

oh sure, let me bring in a bloody rpg and kill some ppl who aren't even involved. After all, it's self defence isn't it?

Psychopathic shootouts wouldn't do half as much damage to ppl if regular rounds were not allowed for civilian use. ppl would be hurt but not killed.

And to make it clear, I'm strictly talking about self defence situations, not some gang war out on the streets.

They make guns that are specifically non-fatal. They are called paint ball and air soft.

I was talking about guns that are meant for self defense, not playtime guns. Even toy guns are non fatal but that clearly isn't my point.

Even so, less lethal rounds are not as effect at stopping a threat as are regular rounds

you're telling that rounds made for a specific purpose doesn't serve that purpose unless, by stopping a threat you mean killing/ almost killing the threat.

To suggest that they should make ammo that is just as effective but not lethal is fine, but then to suggest a law requiring these currently non-existent rounds is not fine.

Such rounds are used by law enforcement. And they sure as hell work.

If you don’t want the responsibility of possibly killing someone in self defense, then don’t carry a gun, learn to punch well, learn to kick well, or workout for strength. Carry pepper spray.

Or you could find a better solution like hiding and calling cops, but clearly that's not the point of debate here.

Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”.

That is my suggestion, make guns which are specifically for self defense and not fatal. I mean, bit of manipulation of tech could restrict guns from firing fatal ammo.

Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.

when the objective is self defense, you don't have to kill anyone. 2-3 shots should easily put anyone on the floor. I mean, such rounds are made for that very specific purpose, it doesn't make sense to call it less effective.

For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.

It should for the law which is why they should make one such. Cause by giving people fatal guns you literally are giving the person the ability to use it to kill someone and possibly add complications to determining the actual position and state of the event.

Yep you can bet Barack Obama's security force have non fatal rounds LMMFAO

I'm sure they need a fatal one for you.

Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.

Specifying specific roles seems to be a key to clarity in the relationship in 2018 as people of today's generation understand the fact that there shouldn't be gender specific roles in a relationship, this way, they can live up to their expectations from one another and not just assume stuff which would obviously lead to conflicts.

I disagree as there shouldn't be specific gender roles.

Which is exactly why they need to specify what roles they will be playing.

Have you noticed since Trump was elected, we seldom hear of ISIS these days.

This title implies more than what you think it should.

Did the mother ask to produce the baby?

Well, the baby couldn't ask for anything for sure.

People killed them for even lesser than that, oh wait, for nothing.

While innate talent does give people a sort of a headstart, it doesn't mean that others can't catch up to them. With dedication, and the right mindset people can even outdo the "genius" in some.

Trying to figure out what your insane response has to do with fitness.

Quit trying, you lack the brain cells to figure out.

"Give a man a mask and he'll be his true self"

-someone idk

You're shit. I would not have said so if it was not true.

While complexity might not mean intelligence, with intelligence comes the ability to analyze data and process it to different depths and with the increase in depth of processing, comes complexity.