#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
I Support it
Side Score: 91
|
I oppose it
Side Score: 105
|
|
2
points
Please, define for me: peers. If you are a murderer, then can it be said that a non-murderer is your peer? If you are black, then can it be said that a non-black is your peer? If you are a man, then can it be said that a woman is your peer? If you are well-educated, then are illiterate people your peers? Simply choosing 12 people relatively at random to pass judgement on somebody accused of having committed a crime against their peers does not make them peers to the person who stands accused. Furthermore: how reliable can a court of law be given the absolutely massive (and largely unknowable) list of wrongfully convicted people simply in the USA alone? The jury system - along with the court system and the prison system - is deeply flawed: to demand a life in exchange for an interpretation of guilt is evil - I want to say inhumane - but all too human. Side: I oppose it
2
points
For most categories of murder I fully support the death penalty. By imposing the death penalty the state would be ridding society of such vile creatures as rapists, including child molesters, who subsequently murder their victims, terrorists who have caused death, assassins of police officers/security forces, armed robbers who use their weapons during the course of their crime, those who coldly and clinically carry out pre-meditated murders and other classifications. Eradicating such filth from the face of the earth reduces the evil which stalks our towns and cities. When released murderers re-offend, (as they often do), those responsible for their release keep their sick heads below the ''parapet walls'' until the controversy has subsided. Those of he bleeding hearts club who oppose the death penalty across the board, would I'm sure reconsider their reasoning if one of their own family, say their 5 year old daughter, was sexually assaulted then subsequently brutally murdered. The fools who actively resist the death penalty regardless of the circumstances are, in my opinion, complicit in many deadly crimes. Side: I Support it
What I would personally do or want to do to someone who harmed someone I cared about is not necessarily what I would want the government to do. And I"m not a "bleeding heart". I'm a pragmatist. The death penalty is not demonstrated to be an effective deterrent, which makes sense given that most crimes are crimes of passion, crimes of compulsion, and/or premeditated. The only benefit, then, is retribution and retributivist systems are demonstrably less effective at creating healthier societies than rehabilitative counterparts (the reason recidivism is so high is because you are referencing the output of a retributivist system). The less authority we give the government as possible, the happier I am since power tends to consolidate over time which endangers the constituency. Side: I oppose it
1
point
The inference of your response seems to imply that you would most likely favour the death sentence for anyone who murdered one of your family/loved ones, ''GOD FORBID''. Well, it would also be the wish of most of the grieving kith and kin of murder victims that the perpetrators of such foul crimes roasted in hell, but before that they deserve to see the filth squirm as they are given the lethal injection. My firmly held view is that the death penalty would have a certain deterrent affect, but that would be a fringe benefit as the main purpose of the death sentence would be as sweet revenge to be savoured. For instance, when terrorists in Northern Ireland murder members of the security forces and slaughter men women and children they know if they get caught, charged and proven guilty in a court of law the most they will face is a 7 years custodial term and will probably be out in half that time. Indeed, not only were some of them released after two years, they actually form part of the devolved ''Power sharing Executive'' in Belfast. You present a reasoned counter argument but, I consider it to be wholly misguided and utterly counterproductive. After the convicted filth have received the death sentence, let the shit bubble and froth in them for about a fortnight and give them graphic illustrations of how they're going to die, then, and only then introduce them to ''Madam Syringe''. Side: I Support it
That would be a false and wholly unfounded inference, since my statement was explicitly the opposite. I may very well want to kill the person who harmed my loved one, but that does not mean I want to live in a society that executes people. As I already mentioned, there is neither evidence nor reason to suspect the death penalty would deter future homicides. So, hold your unfounded view as firmly as you like... it is still unfounded. Identifying extreme cases of leniency as an intuitive basis for your support of the death penalty is disingenuous, given that there is also an alternative of incarceration for life without possibility of patrol. Nor have you addressed my concerns regarding the possible abuses by states granted the authority to execute their citizenry, which absent any especial benefit to execution seems indefensible. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Well, so be it, I misinterpreted your meaning. However, as your opinion is insignificant that is a side issue. The fact remains that those who take a life(s) under certain circumstances must have their own life taken away. As they said in the old wild west, men aren't hanged for stealing horses, they're hanged so they won't steal horses. The deterrent value of execution for certain crimes and principles of yesteryear is as true today as it was then. Only certain types of people steal horses, automobiles and so forth, so, by ridding the world of some of their type it will become an altogether safer and better place. To quote the French philosopher, Alphonse Karr, '' the more things change, the more they stay the same. We think we have become more civilized and sophisticated over the years eh, eh, no we haven't. Take a look at the state of the world including the United States. A back shooting terrorist/domestic murderer/gangster may think twice before pulling the trigger if the spectre of ''Madam ''syringe'' looms large in their diseased mind. The enraged spouse/partner may just be calmed by the vivid image of receiving the ''vitamin Death'' injection. For those who disregard this sentence then it's ''good night Dick''. Side: I Support it
My personal desire is not relevant to what I think the national practice should be; I only mentioned it because you brought it up. My opinion is another matter entirely, of course. The "fact" does not remain that taking a life means forfeiting ones own life; this remains an unfounded assertion on your part. Deterrence may have been a motive behind the death penalty, but we now know that there is no evidence to support the deterrence theory (as I have pointed out now repeatedly). And take a look at the world? Okay. Numerous nations have abolished the death penalty and have lower rates of violent crime than those which retain it, which is a third point against your assumption of deterrence. Do you actually have any substantive rebuttal of the three standing objections to your deterrence claim, or do you intend to just keep asserting the "truth" of your views with no basis whatsoever? Side: I oppose it
2
points
Winkle has a habit of ignoring provided evidence and refusing to provide any of his own. Provide enough evidence and he will insult you then storm off, only to insult you even more to other people on other debates. It's a process he has done on multiple of his accounts (such as Antrim). Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
The Web is crammed full of support for capital punishment as an effective deterrent against murder, and then on the other side of the coin, just as many opposing the death penalty for any reason. Proponents show statistics which clearly illustrate that the death penalty reduces the instances of murderous crimes, whilst those against retribution and capital punishment produce their own statistics along with their equally convincing counter arguments. The authors from both sides are academics qualified in sociology and other relevant human behavioral sciences. My opinion is based on the study and reasoning of the two opposing arguments along with my personal experiences in Northern Ireland where I observed first hand the dismembered bodies of men, woman and children,( including a smoldering child's doll) scattered over Corn market, Belfast and Oxford Street, Belfast,-Bloody Friday, check it out. These are only two of the many atrocities carried out by psychopaths who were caught and jailed, released and then re-offended by committing identical crimes. If they had had their miserable lives snuffed out after the first act of carnage many 100s of decent folk would be alive today. In my opinion your intransigence is no more than a mule like stubbornness which renders you incapable of objectively viewing this, or any other issue dispassionately and without prejudge. So, you get your free ride and remain in your corner of ignorant self-righteousness while the world's maniacs slaughter innocent civilians and those who have dedicated their lives to trying to stem the steady march of world anarchy, or hadn't you noticed? That was a rhetorical question as I can easily predict your answer, so please try to refrain from answering as I have tired of you and your juvenile approach to this issue. Side: I Support it
1
point
I am for it only in cases where the verdict is without a doubt 100% accurate. Many cases have been overturned by DNA evidence in the past. The death penalty should only be allowed in cases where certain evidence like DNA, video, or some other kind of very accurate evidence is given. Side: I Support it
There is rarely (if ever) such a thing as 100% certainty. DNA testing under controlled conditions is only 99% accurate, and in crime scenes the material is likely to be incomplete, contaminated, etc. Correlating a person with a crime scene through DNA also cannot prove causality since it only places the suspect on the scene and the rest is inferred. For those few murders where there is video evidence the video is generally poor quality and fails to capture all events leading up to the act which could mitigate the nature of the crime; I am unaware of a single case where there was clear video evidence that captured all relevant events leading up to a crime, and the odds seem so against that probability as to render a 100% certainty standard practically a ban on the practice. So, no such thing as without a doubt 100% accuracy. If you support the death penalty, that necessarily entails allowing for the possibility that someone innocent could be executed. That doesn't mean we have to oppose it, of course, since we could decide the probability makes it justifiable... but by your stance we would really be compelled to abolish it. Side: I oppose it
If there is undeniable evidence that someone has performed rape, murder, or cannibalism, I believe that the death penalty should be applied. Although this may seem harsh, it is my belief that this will keep society more civil, given that one will be killed for their crimes, instead of sitting in a prison cell receiving free medicine, food, and even earning degrees. Once a human being has broken the law in any of the aforementioned manners, they are "too far gone", not to mention the money saved by not having prisons filled with dangerous and possibly mentally unstable criminals. That way, more money can be allocated to more deserving programs, such as better rehabilitation programs for drug users and better government healthcare programs for those who need it. Side: I Support it
1
point
What is wrong with cannibalism? It has been an accepted practice all over the world. If you and everybody in your city are starving to death - all the rats, pets, & birds long since consumed - and all the succor to be found is in the form of recently-deceased humans, are you not morally obligated to consume those humans? So many people have needlessly starved to death because their society says that eating the meat of their fellows is evil: I say it is evil to let people die simply to perpetuate a flawed system of morality and mistaken belief in the sanctity of the human! Side: I oppose it
1
point
There are only so many people with the evil and inhumanity to kill others. When we put these people to death, it GUARANTEES they will never kill again. If they had life in prison without parole, they can still kill other inmates or kill guards. That's the reason for the death penalty. IT'S CALLED PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE IT. We are living in a time of unbeleivable misplaced compassion. Those on the Left care more for the right's of Terrorists, murderers, criminals, the mother's right to end the life of unborn Baby's verses the Baby's right to life, etc. etc. As the Left keeps separating any mention of our Christian heritage from public along with the common sense values derived from that heritage, the inhumanity of people keeps hitting new lows. The compassion for future victims of killers takes a back seat to the killer's rights. How sick this progressive movement. Side: I Support it
2
points
Except you are giving the government authority to use a flawed system to execute people, despite clear, irrefutable evidence that we have executed both innocent people, and people who's guilt falls well out of the relevant "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. How can you be a "small government" "pro-life" individual if you are signing off on a big government system that kills innocent people? Seems, what's the word.....it starts with an h, you misuse it a lot.....oh, right, hypocritical. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Because there will always be some scumbags who do not value lives of other human beings at all and they won't mind killing someone just for the sake of few petty things. Some of them are just fanatic and they kill in the name of religion and their beliefs. These guys are worse than animals and we don't think twice before killing an animal, do we? I support death penalty because in my opinion it is the only thing that can act as an effective deterrent for some low lives who are just looking for killing some one for the most trivial reasons. Side: I Support it
There is no evidence that the death penalty is actually an effective deterrent. Which make sense, given that most murders are either (a) crimes of passion where the threat of punishment isn't considered or (b) premeditated where the perp thinks they won't be caught and aren't worried about the threat of punishment. Side: I oppose it
|
6
points
There are two key reasons why I don't support the death penalty. Most importantly... it doesn't work. There isn't much evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. As such, it's just adding to the levels of death for the sake of vengeance, which shouldn't be the goal. And secondly, I am appalled by the idea of giving the death penalty to someone who may be innocent. There are countless cases of people on death row who were found to be innocent, sometimes before their intended execution, and sometimes after they have already been given the death penalty. Our criminal justice system has far too many flaws for us to be killing people who might be guilty. Side: I oppose it
In addition there is the fact that the death penalty offers some form of gratification to some criminals who already have the desire to die (e.g. martyrdom). Reducing their life to simple survival behind bars seems far more fitting - provided the incarceration facility does not resemble any previous comforts they may have enjoyed. Side: I oppose it
SIZE OF DEATH ROW BY YEAR - (1968 - present) 1968 517 1982 1,050 1996 3,219 2010 3,158 1969 575 1983 1,209 1997 3,335 2011 3,082 1970 631 1984 1,405 1998 3,452 2012 3,033 1971 642 1985 1,591 1999 3,527 2013 2,979 1972 334 1986 1,781 2000 3,593 2014 3,054 1973 134 1987 1,984 2001 3,581 2015 2,984 1974 244 1988 2,124 2002 3,557 1975 488 1989 2,250 2003 3,374 1976 420 1990 2,356 2004 3,315 1977 423 1991 2,482 2005 3,254 1978 482 1992 2,575 2006 3,228 1979 539 1993 2,716 2007 3,215 1980 691 1994 2,890 2008 3,207 1981 856 1995 3,054 2009 3,173 So can you show the "countless cases of people on death row who were found to be innocent" by the numbers provided above ? Side: I Support it
156 people have been released from death row. We don't know how many of those put to death were also innocent because, of course, police don't continue to investigate after the defendant is executed. Saying that though, 156 people nearly killed by the government is absurd. I guess USAians find it amazing that every single country in Europe has abolished the death penalty. To us its is shocking when we read about how USAians allow the government to take peoples lives. It is intolerable to us. Side: I oppose it
I agree with you that the number isn't countless. The real question is how many innocent deaths is justifiable? 1, 10, 100? How many innocent deaths would it take to make capital punishment unjustifiable? Whatever that number is to you then why not one more or one less? Side: I oppose it
1
point
The number of wrongfully executed will rise as the total number of people executed rises. People whose lives are cut short, their good name stained, their families left broken all for something they didn't do in the name of "justice". The death penalty is a blood sport that satiates our societal need for vengeance, but vengeance and justice are two different things. First of all its paradoxical that you can teach a country not to kill by killing someone. Second of all the death penalty doesn't discourage murder as a murderer already places no value in human life, including their own. Third, the money spent on housing/food/lawyers/appeals would be much better spent if allocated toward actually REHABILITATING people in prison instead of turning them into caged animals who need to become criminals in order to survive incarceration. Side: I oppose it
2
points
The only people who can not be rehabilitated are the truly sick and deranged, who deserve pity, not execution. Rehabilitation is cheaper and more effective than prison. It's not as cheap and easy as killing people for certain crimes, true, but that particular choice literally requires us to end a human life because it's easier, which is shitty of us to do. Side: I oppose it
Generally agreed. Although I'm not convinced execution is actually cheaper. The appeals process is very expensive for the state, and once you add in the years incarcerated on death row to the full cost I suspect that the difference would actually be marginal. Admittedly, I don't have the stats to back that but I certainly haven't seen them for the converse and intuitively it doesn't make much sense that execution would be the cheaper option. IMO. Side: I oppose it
1
point
2
points
Psychopath (noun): a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour. You'll note that nowhere in that definition does it say "people who have no emotions". That's because such people don't exist. Emotions are how brains work. People might have different emotions, or they might seem strangely sedate in their emotions, but if their brain does anything at all then they are experiencing emotions. Also, psychopaths don't always end up in prison. Often, they end up being your boss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathyintheworkplace#citeref-11 Go ahead and post your source for that "up to half" statistic. While you do that, here's some info on rehabilitation vs prison sentences! This ones a full report detailing how they reached the $111, 458 saving per prisoner figure. That one is specifically about the advantages of rehabilitating heavy drug users as opposed to cycling them in and out of the prison system! http://rehab-international.org/blog/ That one goes through more of the cost savings of rehab as opposed to prison! Check out those sources, Blizzardbird! Would you just look at those sources! Sittin' there, lookin' all pretty and supportive. How 'bout you go right ahead and post some yourself champ, I'm on the edge of my fucking seat with anticipation. Side: I oppose it
1
point
You have severely missed the point that I had actually made. Yes, of course there are plenty of psychopaths that have never been to prison nor have ever been engaged in crimininality, but their are also many psychopaths who have ended up in prison too and are engaged in criminality. Many severe and serious crimes are committed by the criminally engaged psychopaths, it would usually take an extremely cunning predator with no empathy to be an accomplished thief, rapist, murderer or con artist, or perhaps even a slanderer. Look up the statistics for a third of the prison population being psychopathic. "One third of those in prison with ASPD also meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy." It may not have quite been half of the prison population, but at least it was a third. We were not talking about drug users either. We were talking about psychopaths. We don't execute people just because they are heavy drug users. Proving that rehabilitating drug users has proved more cost effective is irrelevant because we are talking about psychopaths, who are the people who I argue are in need of execution. Side: I Support it
1
point
Round of applause everyone, BlizzardBird posted a source! Sure, they sorely misunderstood that source, but still! Well done! Here's a quote from that site you linked "Most violent crimes are committed by people with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). Half the UK prison population meet the diagnostic criteria for this disorder. " That, coupled with your quote, means that one third of one half of the prison population can be considered psychopathic. That comes out to around 15%. Quite a far cry from your 50% "fact" earlier, eh bud? But regardless of how wrong your facts are, here's the thing: Those few people who are incompatible with society, the ones we can not rehabilitate, do not deserve to be killed for their mental condition. Regarding your other link, you've shown psycopaths do not feel empathy under certain conditions most people do. Empathy isn't the entore emotional spectrum. Side: I oppose it
1
point
It is my choice whether or not I want to post a source. There is nothing telling me that I ought to post a source, so don't tell whether I need to post a source. There are no rules on this site that tells me that I have to post a source. Got it? A psychopath does not feel any empathy whatsoever. Under what circumstances does a psychopath feel any empathy? Side: I Support it
1
point
It is my choice whether or not I want to post a source. Losting without sources for your "facts" is cheap. You don't NEED to post sources, but you will if you want people to take you seriously. under what circumstances does a psychopath feel any empathy? "When highly psychopathic inmates imagined themselves in these painful situations, they showed higher-than-normal activity in certain brain regions involved in empathy for pain. " Side: I oppose it
1
point
""When highly psychopathic inmates imagined themselves in these painful situations, they showed higher-than-normal activity in certain brain regions involved in empathy for pain. " In other words they only empathise with themselves. And no, I don't have to post sources. It is possible to win a debate with just words. Side: I Support it
1
point
In other words they only empathise with themselves That's still empathy, mate. An emotion. You said they don't feel emotions at all, but have also linked to sources that prove they do. Regardless, you're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state. And no, I don't have to post sources. It is possible to win a debate with just words. Not if your argument relies on statistics you're pulling out of nowhere. Regardless, you're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state. Psychopaths have been demonstrated to have no shock response, as well. You're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state. Side: I oppose it
1
point
That's still empathy, mate. An emotion. You said they don't feel emotions at all, but have also linked to sources that prove they do. Regardless, you're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state. It's not empathy because empathy is related to other people, It just means they have feel a vague sense of displeasure. They also fear absolutely no fear, either. Not if your argument relies on statistics you're pulling out of nowhere. Regardless, you're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state So now you're saying that in order to satisfy you I should post meaningless statistics? Statistics always contradict each other. Statistics are not solid facts, unlike what you might think (you'll understand one day, boy). I don't have to satisfy you at all. If you have this opinion then just keep it to yourself, I don't need to know this. I'm not here to satisfy you through statistics, I'm just here to prove my point. So don't wait on the edge of your seat in anticipation because it's not my job to satisfy you. And Statistics mean nothing, either. So, no. You're not saying anything that justifies executing criminals due to their mental state Don't you get it, psychopaths are at an even low state than animals. They feel no fear, no empathy for others, etc. They don't feel any joy at looking at beautiful paintings or watching the sunset. They sense no happiness at holding a newborn baby for the first time. They are so devoid it's unfathomable. Psychopaths lie compulsively because they have zero connection to the truth, they just don't care about what is factual or true, they just don't have the emotions regarded to regard the truth. If you look into the eyes of some horrid murderer or bully you can see the void within them right there. Side: I Support it
1
point
It's not empathy because empathy is related to other people It's literally referred to as empathy. It's an emotion. They're experiencing it. Even if you wanna describe it as a "vague sense of displeasure", that's still an emotion. So now you're saying that in order to satisfy you I should post meaningless statistics? Nope, I'm saying if you pull a random figure out of your ass (like, say, "50% of prison inmates are psychopaths!"), you're gonna have to back it up. Statistics are not solid facts, unlike what you might think Wrong. The conclusions people reach from statistics aren't solid facts, but the statistics themselves are factual. I don't have to satisfy you at all [...] because it's not my job to satisfy you. Then stop replying. Don't you get it, psychopaths are at an even low state than animals. No, I don't get it, because you haven't said anything whatsoever that could support that idea. Psychopathic people feel emotions, and you readily admitted that they don't all fall into criminal lifestyles, so why the hell do you think we should execute any of them that do commit a crime? Side: I oppose it
1
point
It's literally referred to as empathy. It's an emotion. They're experiencing it. Even if you wanna describe it as a "vague sense of displeasure", that's still an emotion. Psychopaths only feel displeasure when they imagine themselves in those situations, not when they imagine others in those situations, which means they only care for themselves, not others. Get it? That's hardly empathy. I don't care whether the article calls it empathy, it's somewhat misworded on their part. Nope, I'm saying if you pull a random figure out of your ass (like, say, "50% of prison inmates are psychopaths!"), you're gonna have to back it up. I said 50% because I remembered it as 50% last time I had checked, buck up. I shouldn't be forced to post statistics, because statistics themselves can sometimes be wrong as well. There are loads of statistics that all say entirely different things, one source may provide statistics that imply one thing, while another source may imply something completely different. I don't have to provide statistics in order to prove my point. You a statistician? Statistics are not solid facts, unlike what you might think Wrong, already explained this. Then stop replying. If you are unable to be satisfied by my comments, then you should stop responding, not me. I respond for reasons other than to satisfy you and make you happy. My purpose is merely to provide what I see as evidence or to ask questions to find out what your perspective is, conversing is about asking questions, so there is nothing wrong with the questions that I ask. No, I don't get it, because you haven't said anything whatsoever that could support that idea. Psychopathic people feel emotions, and you readily admitted that they don't all fall into criminal lifestyles, so why the hell do you think we should execute any of them that do commit a crime? Take your time, there is no need to rush, I will eventually explain my perspective. It's not timed, it's a debate site open to everyone at any time. The psychopaths that don't commit crimes are useful to society in some aspects on occasions, but the psychopaths that commit rape and murder aren't useful whatsoever. Side: I Support it
1
point
Psychopaths only feel displeasure when they imagine themselves in those situations Okay, sure, let's just roll with that. Does that really justify executing them? Why not try for rehabiliating them by treating their psychopathic traits? i shouldn't be forced to post statistics You're not being forced to use statistics to support your arguments, but if you choose to include them then you need to pove their validity. True that dufferent sources may have conducted different surveys or experiments that have lead to different statistical results, but that just means we need to analyze them and find what the differentiating (is that a word? Eh you know what I mean) factor was. Or at least, we'd need to do that if you decided, of your own vocation, to include some statistics in your argument. Wrong, already explained this Statistics are just data. The conclusions we reach might be wrong, and the data may not be indicative of the entire population, but that doesn't change the fact that (assuming the research wasn't an outright fabrication) the data itself is factual. but the psychopaths that commit rape and murder aren't useful whatsoever Rehabilitation and treatment are better choices than executing someone Side: I oppose it
1
point
Okay, sure, let's just roll with that. Does that really justify executing them? Why not try for rehabiliating them by treating their psychopathic traits? Psychopaths don't change. You're not being forced to use statistics to support your arguments, but if you choose to include them then you need to pove their validity. I already have provided a few statistics, I don't need to provide any more statistics. I don't need to provide sources to prove that statistics are valid. Statistics are just data. The conclusions we reach might be wrong, and the data may not be indicative of the entire population, but that doesn't change the fact that (assuming the research wasn't an outright fabrication) the data itself is factual. Statistics may just data within themselves, but they aren't reliable as evidence. Rehabilitation and treatment are better choices than executing someone A psychopath can't change. Side: I Support it
1
point
Psychopaths don't change. Moot point; killing them is out of the question. Admit them to a psychiatric ward and keep them there if you must, try treating them and hopefully they'll make enough progress to function in society, but don't just kill them because it's easier than dealing with the problem. I already have provided a few statistics, I don't need to provide any more statistics. I'm not saying you need to provide more, I'm saying that if you want the statistics you used to be considered valid you need to give a reputable source on them. Which you haven't done. I don't need to provide sources to prove that statistics are valid. Yes you do? Otherwise we could just make any random statistic up, I could say "99% of psychopaths use their emotional detachment to work as doctors and caregivers without the need for regular psychological support". Statistics may just data within themselves, but they aren't reliable as evidence. They do not prove a point, but they support a point. A psychopath can't change. Moot point; killing them is out of the question. Admit them to a psychiatric ward and keep them there if you must, try treating them and hopefully they'll make enough progress to function in society, but don't just kill them because it's easier than dealing with the problem. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Moot point; killing them is out of the question. Admit them to a psychiatric ward and keep them there if you must, try treating them and hopefully they'll make enough progress to function in society, but don't just kill them because it's easier than dealing with the problem. Psychopaths fool their therapists. Psychopaths only pretend to change and prison wardens end up getting fooled and so to judges end up getting fooled and end up releasing the psychopath based on the assumption that psychopaths can change. Of course psychopaths can be studied psychologically before their execution date sets in, but when that happens they must be proceeded to be killed off. But just because you can study psychopaths doesn't mean you should give them therapy. Psychopaths don't really need therapy, nor do they really want therapy. All psychopaths ever want really is just an opportunity to manipulate, in the form of being given a therapist to con. I'm not saying you need to provide more, I'm saying that if you want the statistics you used to be considered valid you need to give a reputable source on them. Which you haven't done. My method of debating is through using words to prove statistics. And more sources would just mean more statistics! We need no more statistics! Sources are just statistics usually. I may use statistical sources later on when I see fit, but not now! Yes you do? Otherwise we could just make any random statistic up, I could say "99% of psychopaths use their emotional detachment to work as doctors and caregivers without the need for regular psychological support". Debating is all about using the invention of words to provide evidence. You can prove that "99%" with your words. They do not prove a point, but they support a point. Anything that supports a point is the road to proving a point. Statistics don't always support a point. Side: I Support it
1
point
[all that shit about being allowed to study them before executing them] Okay look you're missing a fundamental point here: even if you're right about psychopaths, that still doesn't justify executing them. Permanent admission to a psych ward, kept under observation, is the far more humane way to deal with the issue. I may use statistical sources later on when I see fit, but now now! I am not forcing you to cite sources or statistics, merely informing you that IF you use a statistic in future arguments THEN you will need to PROVE the validity of that figure. Debating is all about using the invention of words to provide evidence. You can prove that "99%" with your words No, you can't. That's not how proof or words work. Anything that supports a point is the road to proving a point. Statistics don't always support a point How can you not be getting this, I'm honestly baffled. Like, do you you understand what statistics actually fucking are? Side: I oppose it
1
point
Okay look you're missing a fundamental point here: even if you're right about psychopaths, that still doesn't justify executing them. Permanent admission to a psych ward, kept under observation, is the far more humane way to deal with the issue Humane applies to humans. Psychopaths aren't humans. I am not forcing you to cite sources or statistics, merely informing you that IF you use a statistic in future arguments THEN you will need to PROVE the validity of that figure. Repetition is forcing. You are trying to force me. You may not be aware of it, but you are. To prove the validity of something you are implying that I must source something. No, you can't. That's not how proof or words work. Oh, how I love words. How can you not be getting this, I'm honestly baffled. Like, do you you understand what statistics actually fucking are? Of course I do. Calm down. Side: I Support it
1
point
Humane applies to humans. Psychopaths aren't humans. Yes they are, or the psychopaths you admitted were in management roles in businesses wouldn't be able to hold those positions. To prove the validity of something you are implying that I must source something. To prove the validity of a statistic, sure! You can't just pull numbers out of nowhere and expect them to be taken seriously, Blizzardbird. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Yes they are, or the psychopaths you admitted were in management roles in businesses wouldn't be able to hold those positions. Psychopaths that run businesses have no emotions, they just engage in any occupation that serves their ego. They may be able to keep their job as a CEO, business manager, law etc, but they are merely fulfilling their own ego. To prove the validity of a statistic, sure! You can't just pull numbers out of nowhere and expect them to be taken seriously, Blizzardbird You just don't seem to grasp authority. Side: I Support it
1
point
they just engage in any occupation that serves their ego Lots of people do that. Being self-serving doesn't warrant execution. You just don't seem to grasp authority Are you seriously saying that you don't need to validate your statistics because you have authority? Really? Side: I oppose it
1
point
Lots of people do that. Being self-serving doesn't warrant execution. We aren't talking about people in business, anyway. We are talking about executing those who murder. Those psychopaths in business may be serving their own ego, but they are still useful assets to the industry of innovation. Psychopaths aren't just self serving. They are black hollow shells. The black hollow shells that have important jobs are useful to society, but the black hole shells that murder people have no value or necessity to exist at al. Psychopaths are black hollow shells full of nothing but an empty ego. Psychopaths egos eat everything in their path. Are you seriously saying that you don't need to validate your statistics because you have authority? Really? Authority is established through ones words. Use words. Side: I Support it
1
point
But there are alternatives to executing them, Blizzardbird. Even if we suppose that they can't be rehabilitated, they can still be permanently admitted to psychiatric wards. (for what it's worth, your opinion on psychopaths is seriously misguided, but I'm not going to get into a debate about the nature of mental health problems with you) Authority is established through ones words. Use words. I'm not discussing this topic with you any further, it's clear you'll simply toss some semi-random words together into a vague argument and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. Side: I oppose it
1
point
But there are alternatives to executing them, Blizzardbird. Even if we suppose that they can't be rehabilitated, they can still be permanently admitted to psychiatric wards. (for what it's worth, your opinion on psychopaths is seriously misguided, but I'm not going to get into a debate about the nature of mental health problems with you) Permanently admitting psychopaths to psychiatric wards is just going to be a waste money. Psychopaths don't even deserve to receive any benefits. I have seen evil first hand, I know what it looks like. There are people out there who seek to kill, steal and destroy. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
Permanently admitting psychopaths to psychiatric wards is just going to be a waste money. So you want to execute them to save money. Nice. Really showing some of that Christian love there man. I have seen evil first hand, I know what it looks like. I'm sure you have buddy. Side: I oppose it
1
point
So you want to execute them to save money. Nice. Really showing some of that Christian love there man. If you kill any human being of any value, you are not saving money. A person of value is worth the money. A person of no value is not worth the money. Evil people who murder are not worth spending the money on. What do you believe makes a person of any value? Side: I Support it
1
point
"Regarding your other link, you've shown psycopaths do not feel empathy under certain conditions most people do. Empathy isn't the entore emotional spectrum." Re-read the article. It says here "When highly psychopathic inmates imagined themselves in these painful situations, they showed higher-than-normal activity in certain brain regions involved in empathy for pain. But these regions failed to become active when they imagined others in pain. Moreover, when imagining other people in pain, highly psychopathic inmates showed increased activity in a brain area known to be involved in pleasure, according to the study, which was published Sept. 24 in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience." http://www.webmd. Looks like you haven't read the article properly. Side: I Support it
1
point
"There are people who have no emotions and they are called psychopaths" ~Blizzardbird When I said that you've shown they don't feel empathy the same way non-psychopathic people do, I intended to illustrate that they do still feel empathy, and other emotions, in other circumstances. This was a rebuttal to your point that psychopaths never feel emotions. Nothing you are saying justifies executing people with sever psychopathic tendencies who have committed crimes. Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
Also, MRI brain scans have proven that psychopaths feel no emotions. http://www.webmd. Side: I Support it
1
point
Psychopaths don't change, they just pretend to. Psychopaths mimic emotions and just spend their whole lives deceiving people. They con the people who have imprisoned them and then get a release pretending to have truly changed and then get put back in jail again after committing yet another crime. Side: I Support it
1
point
Fortunately the majority of the world doesn't agree with you. You are not the final arbiter of worthiness nor of what is evil. But just for the sake of understanding is it your contention that humans are capable of being worthless and that if worthless then deserving of death? Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
1
point
Psychopathy does not equal evil, much less innately evil. If all psychopaths were serial killers, they'd cease to be a novelty. All psychopaths are evil. All evil people are psychopaths. But not all evil people are serial killers Not all evil people are completely destructive, but all serial killers are. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
Mate, are you from the USA? through the NSA your government put blimps into the air to intercept your telephone calls, under project MKULTRA your government experimented on its own citizens, as part of the Manhattan project you were injected with plutonium, added poison to alcohol during prohibition that killed 10,000 people. Of course this is only what they have done to their own citizens. This is why you sound like a bit of an idiot to say that the government has our best interest at heart. Side: I oppose it
0
points
The NASA has every right to intercept our phone calls. There is no evidence to suggest that MKULTRA really caused any harm. MKULTRA was very useful for research purposes and allowed the government gain the control it needed over society. Society needs controlling. There is little evidence that people were injected with plutonium, nor that the plutonium given was actually a cause of any harm There is little evidence that alcohol was actually added with "poison", or that people were actually damaged by this so called "poison". ---- Any evidence that this "poison called over 10,000 people? This is why you sound like a bit of an idiot to say that the government has our best interest at heart. Reiterating ideas without including ones own spin on things is the epitome of stupidity. Do you have any reason to believe the conspiracy theories you do? You haven't provided me with any reasoning for them. What is your reasoning that allows you to believe all these conspiracies? Do you have any? Side: I Support it
1
point
0
points
Then you're an idiot and I am not going to waste my time with you. The USA government has admitted to some of those. Incorrect, the government has not admitted to any of them. The Media, etc only tries to twist the governments words and make it look like they are saying things that they aren't saying. You're the idiot. Side: I Support it
2
points
They actually have, by their own words and through freedom of information act requests. Not going to bother sending you links, since you have already demonstrated that evidence holds zero importance or legitimacy to you if it contradicts preconceptions. Please let me know if that has changed and I'll give you some proof. Side: I oppose it
0
points
They actually have, by their own words and through freedom of information act requests. Not going to bother sending you links, since you have already demonstrated that evidence holds zero importance or legitimacy to you if it contradicts preconceptions. Please let me know if that has changed and I'll give you some proof. You've failed already. Side: I Support it
2
points
1
point
1
point
You have only just started communicating with me. What right do you have to make an assertion about a poster that you don't actually know of yet. If we are sitting down having a debate, it isn't my place to look up facts to help prove your own assertion. If you are making a position yourself, it is up to you to find facts to back up your own assertion. It is my place to find facts that back up my own claims, but it isn't my place to find facts that back up your claims. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
Normally I agree, but you haven't adhere to these guidelines yourself in past conversations, so by what authority do you hold him to them? I always adhere to the guidelines. I show the most noblest of faces when talking to my friends on createdebate. You are still my friend. I show the upmost pride in myself. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
Saying that the government have never admitted it is like denying that oxygen is in the air. I didn't realise you were so stupid when I started the convo. I made a mistake. Of course oxygen is in the air. Proof that the government has said that they have admitted to these crimes though. I'm not sure that the government has admitted that oxygen is in the air, either. I'm not interested in that though. I'm not interested in stupidity. What I actually am interested is evidence that the government has admitted to any of these things. Leave stupidity to Dr Hydroxide Pinkhead. Side: I Support it
1
point
Let's stick with just MKULTRA for a start and work from there. Now, go here, and ignore the actual article itself if you wish, and head straight to the citations. In it many freedom of information act requested documents are linked that demonstrate it happened. If you recognize that we can move onto another one. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Let's stick with just MKULTRA for a start and work from there. Now, go here, and ignore the actual article itself if you wish, and head straight to the citations. In it many freedom of information act requested documents are linked that demonstrate it happened. If you recognize that we can move onto another one. MKULTRA was intended to be used against prisoners of war and against certain targets. The weapon of mental control regarding these weapons was done to be put to a just purpose. They tested their experiments for these mind control weapons on mental patients, in other words, on people who had low I'Qs, or people who were evil murderers who ended up in mental wards. Nothing wrong with nasty mental experiments on people with low IQs or weird mentally ill murderous locked away guilty of murder! It's an innocent action and expressed through healthy means! Side: I Support it
1
point
The NASA has every right to intercept our phone calls. NASA is the national space agency. They have neither the mandate nor the purpose of intercepting phone calls. The NSA on the other hand... And no. Nobody has any right to listen to what I say to somebody privately, either over the telephone or over the internet or in person. That doesn't mean they don't: simply that it is wrong, no matter what way you look at it. There is no evidence to suggest that MKULTRA really caused any harm. The accounts I've read by people who were tested upon would strongly, vehemently disagree with you there. Try this video of testimony by a psychiatrist. Or this. allowed the government gain the control it needed over society. The government needs control like I need a Gutenberg Bible. It might be fun to have, but having it will only damage it. Society needs controlling. The government needs to be controlled so as to prevent such blatant abuses. There is little evidence that people were injected with plutonium There is plenty nor that the plutonium given was actually a cause of any harm "Plutonium was recognized as potentially dangerous even when the total amount of Pu in existence was only a few milligrams. " - Here There is little evidence that alcohol was actually added with "poison", or that people were actually damaged by this so called "poison". Time disagrees with you, no surprise there. Reiterating ideas without including ones own spin on things is the epitome of stupidity. You, my dear idiot, are the epitome of stupidity. Why do I get the feeling that an American politician could shoot every member of your family to death and you'd still vote for them? After all, they must've had a great reason. Do you have any reason to believe the conspiracy theories you do? I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. I believe in the facts. You haven't provided me with any reasoning for them. Thus I have taken it upon myself to do so. Side: I oppose it
1
point
And no. Nobody has any right to listen to what I say to somebody privately, either over the telephone or over the internet or in person. That doesn't mean they don't: simply that it is wrong, no matter what way you look at it. The right to complete privacy is a complete illusion. Nudity is not sinful. The only reason privacy is necessary is if certain knowledge or information falls into the wrong hands at the wrong times. The wrong information being in the wrong hands can cause damage. However, when in the hands of the NSA, CIA, MI5, MI6, GCHQ it use put to good use. The secret service and the prime minister/president having access to our emails, phone calls etc, enables them to track down terrorism and criminal activity as well as control it and prevent it. The accounts I've read by people who were tested upon would strongly, vehemently disagree with you there. Try this video of testimony by a psychiatrist. Or this. They tested their experiments for these mind control weapons on mental patients, in other words, on people who had low I'Qs, or people who were evil murderers who ended up in mental wards. Nothing wrong with nasty mental experiments on people with low IQs or weird mentally ill murderous locked away guilty of murder! It's an innocent action and expressed through healthy means! The government needs control like I need a Gutenberg Bible. It might be fun to have, but having it will only damage it. Governmental control is not about fun, it is about structure and organization and planning. The government needs to be controlled so as to prevent such blatant abuses. Both the government and society needs to have good control. There is plenty The people they tested it on deserved it. Also, those tests were just very exaggerated cases with injurious results. Experiments on the public probably never happened and if they did, they were probably conducted in tiny harmless doses, nothing like what had happened to the pitiless prisoners Anyway, the few people that were tested with plutonium was necessary in comparison to the vital research that could be garnered from it. From this mind controlling research, millions of lives could be saved, so the experiments were worth it. "Plutonium was recognized as potentially dangerous even when the total amount of Pu in existence was only a few milligrams. " - Here The site that you had just provided says nothing to do with plutonium being harmful in a few milligrams. Where is the evidence for this. And which people were tested with over a few milligrams? Were even the worthless prisoners test with over a few milligrams? A few is not a specific number statistically, although it actually means 3. Statistics don't omit the word "few", therefore the word "few" as opposed to "3" exposes this claim and being baseless and possibly fraudulent. Time disagrees with you, no surprise there. The government adding poison to alcohol was to help tackle stupidity. Stupidity causes people to excessive drink usually. Drink does not cause stupidity in most cases. The government was merely trying to fight stupidity by preventing idiots from making the bad decision to excessive drinking. Stupidity is something that is hard to tackle and the government were only doing what they could do to tackle idiocy. At one point it was deemed plausible to tackle stupidity be sheer force and it still is sometimes. I don't blame the government. You, my dear idiot, are the epitome of stupidity. Why do I get the feeling that an American politician could shoot every member of your family to death and you'd still vote for them? After all, they must've had a great reason. You get that feeling from your thought process of idiocy. Your idiocy causes you not to understand the motivations of the swift striking tenacious bulldog of a government that we have. I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. I believe in the facts. Your desire for this will get you far. Be my student. Thus I have taken it upon myself to do so I am glad for your desire to give a good response, the tact of it perhaps not. Side: I Support it
1
point
The right to complete privacy is a complete illusion. In today's world, that is only too true. Nudity is not sinful. Never would have said it is. The only reason privacy is necessary is if certain knowledge or information falls into the wrong hands at the wrong times. I take it you wouldn't mind being fucked up the ass with your entire family watching? However, when in the hands of the NSA, CIA, MI5, MI6, GCHQ it use put to good use Hardly. The secret service and the prime minister/president having access to our emails, phone calls etc, enables them to track down terrorism and criminal activity as well as control it and prevent it. It really doesn't do much good. Even with all these ridiculous programs, the majority of would-be Islamist terrorists are still turned in by their co-religionists, rather than apprehended by intelligence derived from all these invasions of privacy. They tested their experiments for these mind control weapons on mental patients That somehow justifies it? Wow. in other words, on people who had low I'Qs Such people should be protected, not experimented upon. I would add a caveat that such may not always be the case. In a purely eugenic-driven society, I would not object. However, by the nature of the current socio-political climate, this is inexcusable, and I would tend to agree. weird mentally ill murderous locked away guilty of murder! Was "to be tested upon, poked, prodded, and injected with chemicals" part of their sentence handed down lawfully by a judge presiding over a jury of the accused's peers? Yeah, I didn't think so. It's an innocent action and expressed through healthy means! Could you be any more ignorant? Innocence is the most subjective of all the terms thrown about in today's society. Governmental control is not about fun, it is about structure and organization and planning. No. Government control is about control. Plain and simple. It is a deep-seated element of the human character to desire power. No matter what spin you put on it, this remains the same. Both the government and society needs to have good control. I agree that chaos should not be allowed to reign supreme. However, we are getting to the point where totalitarian control may someday reign supreme, and that is no better. The Middle-Ground is a precarious position, difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. America may have been there at one point, but it definitely is not there anymore. The people they tested it on deserved it. Nobody deserves it. Also, those tests were just very exaggerated cases with injurious results. While I would tend to agree that only the more severe cases get reported by our sensationalist news media, there is still the very real possibility that many similar cases remain hidden from the eyes of the public. Every now and then new information comes to light, shedding its rays upon evil deeds committed by the American government: who knows how much worse will appear next year. But, that is, at the moment, unknowable and thus moot. Still, we've plenty to work with. How about the Holmesburg Prison experiments, shall we? A doctor paid to smear dangerous chemicals on peoples' skin and observe the resultant chloracne. What about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment? Black men, ignorant of the reality, forced to live out their cases of syphilis until they've gone mad and died, even though effective treatment was available! What about governments all over the world who dumped nuclear waste embedded in concrete into the oceans? Many sailors became sick, while the government refused to acknowledge the once-accepted practice. Many were left to think they'd become delusional, all the while the government was simply trying to cover their own asses and deny any sort of remedial treatment to those who suffered for its crimes. Experiments on the public probably never happened They've admitted to simulating biological attacks all across America. they were probably conducted in tiny harmless doses Actually, massive harmless doses. But, unfortunately, not always harmless. nothing like what had happened to the pitiless prisoners You seem to have a similar mentality to that of too many Americans: prisoners are wild animals, deserving nothing more than a piece of bread, some water, and a kick on the ass. 1% of Americans are behind bars. Of these, the majority are not violent. So many thousands of people are in jail as a result of minor drug offenses. Many were set up by the government simply to fulfill quotas and to make it look like the agency is effective. Anyway, the few people that were tested with plutonium was necessary in comparison to the vital research that could be garnered from it. I'm sure you could learn a lot about the effects of bullets soaring through a human brain if you were to shoot a hundred people in the head from various distances. Think of the research! Think of the learning! I have made it my life's mission to learn as much as is humanly possible. I have spent most of my life reading books, scientific journals, etc. Yet, even as absolutely obsessed as I am with the acquisition of knowledge, I would never, ever, ever condone an act of violence against another human being merely in the name of the advancement of learning. From this mind controlling research, millions of lives could be saved, so the experiments were worth it. You mean, millions of lives could be controlled. 'cause, y'know, that's kinda the whole thing about mind control. The site that you had just provided says nothing to do with plutonium being harmful in a few milligrams. Did you read it? Keep looking, you'll see where I got my quote. Were even the worthless prisoners Why don't we just execute every single person ever so much as accused with a crime? It would seem that that would be your utopia. A few is not a specific number statistically I'll be sure to plead that if ever I am accused of homicide. But, your honor, I only killed ONE person! That isn't even statistically significant! exposes this claim and being baseless and possibly fraudulent. Nobody but you - not even the government, anymore - denies most of these cases of unethical human experimentation. The fact is, whether it is done on one person or on a million, it sets a dangerous precedent and illustrates the lack of consideration held by the government for human rights. The government adding poison to alcohol was to help tackle stupidity. That somehow justifies it? Stupidity causes people to excessive drink usually. Some of the smartest men in history have been drug addicts. Stupidity doesn't (always) cause people to drown their sorrows: sorrow causes people to drown their sorrows. The government was merely trying to fight stupidity by preventing idiots from making the bad decision to excessive drinking. No, they were trying to control the population by turning a blind eye to the poisoning of people who refused to capitulate to the whims of a fanatical government. Stupidity is something that is hard to tackle and the government were only doing what they could do to tackle idiocy. By this line of reasoning, would you object to the forced sterilization of all people with IQs under X points? I don't blame the government. Nor should you. You should blame the people in the government making such vile decisions. You get that feeling from your thought process of idiocy. Coming from you, this is a great compliment. swift striking tenacious bulldog Hitler was swift-striking. Americans are lazy. They couldn't win Vietnam. They can barely even hold their own against terrorism. Indeed, I'd say the terrorists have won: look at all the procedures implemented out of fear that have decimated the quality of life for so many Americans! Side: I oppose it
1
point
In today's world, that is only too true. Absolutely. Never would have said it is Good. I take it you wouldn't mind being fucked up the ass with your entire family watching? That would be incestuous. Not an invasion of privacy. Hardly. Oh, it is. It really doesn't do much good. Even with all these ridiculous programs, the majority of would-be Islamist terrorists are still turned in by their co-religionists, rather than apprehended by intelligence derived from all these invasions of privacy. The media only documents Islamic terrorists being caught if they were turned in by someone else. The media doesn't cover terrorists getting caught if they were caught due to intelligence collecting emails, phone conversations, etc. Do you know why? The reason is because if terrorists are caught by being turned in, the media is able to find out and like all gossip, it spreads virally. That is the only reason the media grabs hold of cases like that. However, the MI5, MI6 etc, does catch criminals through spying on public communications, the only reason the media isn't able to publicise this is because it is kept hidden from the media's view. The MI5/MI6 etc, doesn't gossip. That somehow justifies it? Wow. I agree. Fascinating how morality works. Such people should be protected, not experimented upon. I would add a caveat that such may not always be the case. In a purely eugenic-driven society, I would not object. However, by the nature of the current socio-political climate, this is inexcusable, and I would tend to agree. All people who are high up have high IQ's. All people who are low down have low IQ's. Control the low IQ's! Was "to be tested upon, poked, prodded, and injected with chemicals" part of their sentence handed down lawfully by a judge presiding over a jury of the accused's peers? Yeah, I didn't think so. The secret services are beyond judicial apprehension. The secret services are only within the governments apprehension, but not the laws. The secret service is above and beyond the law. Could you be any more ignorant? Innocence is the most subjective of all the terms thrown about in today's society. And the evidence that I am providing will prove my subjectivity! No. Government control is about control. Plain and simple. It is a deep-seated element of the human character to desire power. No matter what spin you put on it, this remains the same. It is the entire government combined that has the full control, not any one individual in the government has complete control, but when all those individuals are combined they have complete control. This means that the not one individual has complete control, but the government does. This is an answer to whether people who are hungry for power have the opportunity to dictate America. They will not. I agree that chaos should not be allowed to reign supreme. However, we are getting to the point where totalitarian control may someday reign supreme, and that is no better. The Middle-Ground is a precarious position, difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. America may have been there at one point, but it definitely is not there anymore. Totalitarian control by the government is needed. No citizen desires a middle ground. Nobody deserves it. What we deserve is based on what we have to offer. These experiments are all the inferiorities have to offer. While I would tend to agree that only the more severe cases get reported by our sensationalist news media, there is still the very real possibility that many similar cases remain hidden from the eyes of the public. Every now and then new information comes to light, shedding its rays upon evil deeds committed by the American government: who knows how much worse will appear next year. But, that is, at the moment, unknowable and thus moot. Still, we've plenty to work with. How about the Holmesburg Prison experiments, shall we? A doctor paid to smear dangerous chemicals on peoples' skin and observe the resultant chloracne. What about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment? Black men, ignorant of the reality, forced to live out their cases of syphilis until they've gone mad and died, even though effective treatment was available! What about governments all over the world who dumped nuclear waste embedded in concrete into the oceans? Many sailors became sick, while the government refused to acknowledge the once-accepted practice. Many were left to think they'd become delusional, all the while the government was simply trying to cover their own asses and deny any sort of remedial treatment to those who suffered for its crimes. The thing is, that doctor was careful to pick the right patients to test the skin of regarding the Holmesburg experiment. He was being careful to check for the right results. All these experiments that were tested on prisoners where only tested on the dumb ones. Any doctor or scientist that has performed experiments on prisoners, the dumb ones are always known not to be able to have the same consent. You can't reason with a dumb person, thus a dumb person can't give consent. But an intellectual can. An intellectual is capable of and can't be bypassed when it comes to their ability to give consent. An intellectual is a very powerful person. A prisoner who is intelligent has a lot of rights, perhaps even credentials. They have status and freedom and know how to interact properly. And is there any evidence of those toxic substances deliberately harming any sailors? They've admitted to simulating biological attacks all across America. Any evidence of this? Actually, massive harmless doses. But, unfortunately, not always harmless. Doses cannot be massive. Error filled thinking. You seem to have a similar mentality to that of too many Americans: prisoners are wild animals, deserving nothing more than a piece of bread, some water, and a kick on the ass. 1% of Americans are behind bars. Of these, the majority are not violent. So many thousands of people are in jail as a result of minor drug offenses. Many were set up by the government simply to fulfill quotas and to make it look like the agency is effective. Not all prisoners need a kick up on the ass. First off, most Americans don't believe ALL prisoners need a kick up the ass. You've been living in a vain revolution for too long. Not the rest of the country is like that. What state are you in? I live in Britain. And don't lecture me on Britain. The more intelligent ones like con-men and fraudsters, hackers and more higher ranking drug dealers can be rehabilitated. But the murderers can't be. No one can bypass the respect of an intellectual prisoner. No scientist would think about testing an intellectual prisoner. It would just be out of hand. However, any prisoner in full disgrace can be tested by any means possible. They earned the disgrace. I'm sure you could learn a lot about the effects of bullets soaring through a human brain if you were to shoot a hundred people in the head from various distances. Think of the research! Think of the learning! I have made it my life's mission to learn as much as is humanly possible. I have spent most of my life reading books, scientific journals, etc. Yet, even as absolutely obsessed as I am with the acquisition of knowledge, I would never, ever, ever condone an act of violence against another human being merely in the name of the advancement of learning. You haven't tried to learn anything. Don't talk about yourself. That proves you've ran out of arguments. I've done a lot of studying in my time. There's just you. First off, it is better to save idiots for experiments than to just kill them off with bullets. We don't need to experiment on idiots by firing bullets at them, because we already know the damage that bullets cause. If we were to waste dozen of bullets on prisoners by firing bullets at them, we would be testing the damage that bullets cause, but why do we need to test something that we are already aware of? No, instead we need to save prisoners for testing purposes and experimental purposes, they can also be kept as slaves and can be genetically altered to improve their intelligence. But we don't need to waste bullets on them, that is a pointless experiment since we already know the damage of bullets via other means. Firing-boards, firing-fabrics and animal testing is how we test bullets. You mean, millions of lives could be controlled. 'cause, y'know, that's kinda the whole thing about mind control A few dozen or a few hundred minds cause be controlled for the sake a million of a billion lives saved and improved. Did you read it? Keep looking, you'll see where I got my quote. I've roamed around for a while, haven't found it yet. Still waiting to see it hidden under a rock. Why don't we just execute every single person ever so much as accused with a crime? It would seem that that would be your utopia. A lot of criminals can be rehabilitated. But not all of them. Execution when applied on the right people can be useful. I'll be sure to plead that if ever I am accused of homicide. But, your honor, I only killed ONE person! That isn't even statistically significant My point had gone over your head. Any real number is statistically relevant, no matter how small. Even half than one. But a few isn't statistically relevant because it is a generic number. "A few" is not a real number. Statisticians don't say "a few". So your claim that "a few" doses can kill is fraudulent. Statisticians don't say "a few", do they? Who told you "a few" doses can kill? Certainly not a statistician. If someone was taken to caught for injecting fluid into someone and you said "he injected a few milligrams into this person, cause the statisticians told me so" the judge would say back "really, you believe someone poisoned him because the statisticians TOLD YOU that somebody put a few milligrams into the person?" "What statistician says 'a few'!?!" Yeah right, come on, of course the statisticians told us that the government put a few milligrams into people. What statistician says a "A Few" to begin with? Moron. Nobody but you - not even the government, anymore - denies most of these cases of unethical human experimentation. The fact is, whether it is done on one person or on a million, it sets a dangerous precedent and illustrates the lack of consideration held by the government for human rights. You've made your opinion clear. Can you still say where it actually comes from without me disputing it? And I certainly have. That somehow justifies it? Well, yeah. It was only put in the drinks that drunkards often snatch on a Friday night. Some of the smartest men in history have been drug addicts. Stupidity doesn't (always) cause people to drown their sorrows: sorrow causes people to drown their sorrows. I will correct you. Smart people can be keen drug users, but they can't be drug addicts. Only morons are keen drug addicts. Even though smart people may like to use stimulants, only an idiot would constantly overdose on alcohol. No decent person over-doses on alcohol. poisoning of people who refused to capitulate to the whims of a fanatical government. If this line of reasoning was true, then we would see anti-protestors being the primary targets of alcohol poisoning. Not true. By this line of reasoning, would you object to the forced sterilization of all people with IQs under X points? Yes, either we genetically alter them, or we sterilise them. Nor should you. You should blame the people in the government making such vile decisions. Anybody in particular that you hate? Please don't start some hate group. Coming from you, this is a great compliment. Cliché. Not a smart comment at all. Hitler was swift-striking. Americans are lazy. They couldn't win Vietnam. They can barely even hold their own against terrorism. Indeed, I'd say the terrorists have won: look at all the procedures implemented out of fear that have decimated the quality of life for so many Americans! Hitler being swift-striking was evil. Hitler was one individual. We shouldn't rely on the power of one mere swift striking individual. But we should rely on the complete swift power of an entire government. The American government is not lazy. It is the lazy idiots at the bottom that prevent the American government from fighting terrorism. You know exactly what I mean. Side: I Support it
You might not think so once the "death panels" arrive. Now that they're in the healthcare business, the government's going to need to find ways to pay for it and reduce costs. I've worked for a couple large hospitals in my State and have heard things. The best advice I can give is to stay as healthy as you possibly can. Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You mentioned the "death panels". A method of killing people, by drawing them into ill health and death. The government should have the power to kill murderers. Especially when it is up to forensics, judge and jury to decide, as well as psychologists who are experts in psychopathology. Side: I Support it
1
point
Why do you act like I can't back up what I said? Leland Yee is the perfect example. He was a staunch anti gun advocate in California. It turns out he was selling missiles when he wasn't working in the government. Side: I oppose it
0
points
All I am claiming for is a good argument to back up ones claim. Nothing more, nothing less. Let's keep things simple and hopefully you can sort out your differences. No big deal, ok? Leland Yee was a traitor, he should not have been considered a true member of the government. He neither had the Governments or the peoples best interests at heart whatsoever. A traitor shouldn't be regarded as a member. Side: I Support it
1
point
The majority of people in the government tend to have our best interests at heart, not all of them, but most of them. Just like people in general tend to be empathetic and kind, but not all of them.(which has been made quite clear, I'm sure). The role of being in the government is to do ones job, anybody who belongs to the government and acts against the will of the people isn't doing their job properly. Someone in the government with only bad intentions is like a fireman who doesn't put out fires. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
Which people in the government have asked for a pay rise. You need to be specific. I am unable to debate with you unless you happen to be specific. Secondly, the government has indeed promised to raise the minimum wage, they haven't yet broken the promise, they just haven't been able to carry out the promise yet. Just because it didn't happen straight away doesn't mean they haven't followed through with the promise. And in my country at least, the minimum wage has gone up every year. Side: I Support it
All of them vote for pay increase all the time. It isn't one specific case. Why does everyone else have to be specific and you are allowed to avoid the topic and lie? Your country raising the minimum wage every year just proves that my country not raising minimum wage is then not caring about the people. Side: I oppose it
1
point
All of them vote for pay increase all the time. It isn't one specific case. Never use the word "all" when talking about everybody, there is such as thing as "majority", but there is no such thing as "all" when talking about such a huge crowd of people. There are thousands of politicians. Just a side note. To get to that point, I feel that we are unable to judge whether it is right for politicians to get a pay rise. If a politician is of a higher ranking, being a politician can be an expensive job that requires an higher wage, if a politician is of a lower ranking then they are not always paid much money. Low ranking political positions aren't really all that well paid. Why does everyone else have to be specific and you are allowed to avoid the topic and lie? I'll ignore this attempt at a smear, if this is what you mean be "avoiding". Your country raising the minimum wage every year just proves that my country not raising minimum wage is then not caring about the people. I live in Britain, I assume you live in America. The thing is, in Britain the minimum wage does go up per year, which does at least prove that their are some honest governments out their in the world. We may not be talking about the USA, but at least Britain has a fair government. And the thing is, Britain is a smaller country, so it is much easier to rise the minimum wage in that country, but America is a lot larger, so it is more difficult for politicians to efficiently raise the minimum wage. Just a guess, I hope I'm being nice and obvious for you. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
It is YOU who has claimed to not smear me. Claiming that I "avoid everything" is a smear in itself, it has no basis. Now lets actually get back to what we were discussing. We were talking about whether the government is to be trusted with the death penalty and whether the government has our best interests at heart. Are you going to go back to that discussion? Side: I Support it
It is YOU who has claimed to not smear me. And, you agreed. Claiming that I "avoid everything" is a smear in itself, it has no basis. It is based on you avoiding everything. So, since it is true, it isn't a smear. Now lets actually get back to what we were discussing. So, admitting that you derailed us. We were talking about whether the government is to be trusted with the death penalty and whether the government has our best interests at heart. And, you have avoided providing any evidence that the government cares about the people. Are you going to go back to that discussion? Waiting on you. Side: I oppose it
1
point
And, you agreed Since when? It is based on you avoiding everything. So, since it is true, it isn't a smear. Since when? Yet again you try to smear me. So, admitting that you derailed us. It wasn't me who derailed the discussion. Why haven't you refuted any of my very last arguments on my opinion on why I believe the government isn't able to raise the minimum wage? And, you have avoided providing any evidence that the government cares about the people. It wasn't me who derailed the discussion. Why haven't you refuted any of my very last arguments on my opinion on why I believe the government isn't able to raise the minimum wage? Waiting on you. I have provided an argument which you had ignored to do with the minimum wage. Haven't you bothered to read the post I had made? Side: I Support it
Since when? A couple posts ago. Since when? Yet again you try to smear me. 16 days and counting. It wasn't me who derailed the discussion. Why haven't you refuted any of my very last arguments on my opinion on why I believe the government isn't able to raise the minimum wage? Because you don't actually believe that the government can't raise minimum wage. You provided evidence that contradicts your claim that the government can't raise minimum wage. Because your idea of refuting my argument is to just claim that a member of the government is not a true member of the government. I have provided an argument which you had ignored to do with the minimum wage. Haven't you bothered to read the post I had made? Which argument should I read? The one where you said it is ok for the government to not raise the minimum wage, or the one where you said it is good when they do. Side: I oppose it
1
point
A couple posts ago. I'm not interested if that is your only reply. 16 days and counting I'm not interested in this talk. Because you don't actually believe that the government can't raise minimum wage. You provided evidence that contradicts your claim that the government can't raise minimum wage. Because your idea of refuting my argument is to just claim that a member of the government is not a true member of the government.* How have I contradicted my claims? I am claiming that anybody who is part of the government yet happens to counter the soul purpose of aiding it's citizens is counter to the purpose of the government and really doing their job. Of course the government has made efforts to raise the minimum wage, it just struggles to, it doesn't mean that the government doesn't try to help raise the minimum wage, it means they just haven't managed to yet. The one where you said it is ok for the government to not raise the minimum wage, or the one where you said it is good when they do. There are two sides to the government, one side that believes it is best to raise the minimum wage and the other who believes it is best to leave it as it is. Those who don't do so because they see fit. Those who do want to raise it simply haven't seen the minimum wage go up because they have been unable to raise it. They both want to do what they see is best, they just haven't been able to do it yet. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The harm done would be that a person that didn't need to die did, justice doesn't work out of cold blood. Additionally, that isn't justification to kill, so don't act as if it is. That kind of logic can be used to justify plenty of terrible things. The idea that you should kill a person because no negative consequences come out of the killing is incredulous and doesn't make you any better than those on death row, if anything it makes you worse. Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
No it isn't acceptable. But one person killing someone isn't justification to kill any more, best to just keep the amount of deaths to a minimum. If a person is in custody and kept in prison their entire life then they won't hurt anyone else, there is no point to killing them. Killing is wrong no matter who is doing the killing and who is the victim, and as said earlier, the justice system doesn't work out of cold blood. Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
I would completely agree that Ted Bundy is a heinous person, but to say that you can't consider him a person is ridiculous. People aren't inherently good, you can be a bad person and still be considered a person. But the quality of a person, again, isn't justification to kill them. For the third time, justice doesn't work out of cold blood. Your entire argument goes in with the assumption that it does. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Ted Bundy is an evil sociopath. A sociopath is unable to experience fear, shock, regret, sadness, joy. remorse, empathy or sympathy. I sociopath is incapable of finding any meaning or joy while looking at the most beautiful paintings or watching the sunset. They are incapable of finding any joy in holding a first-born baby in their hands for the first time. They do not fear for the lives of anybody, they aren't even afraid to lose their own lives, they do not care whether they live or do, they are incapable of fear. They have such a disconnection to truth. They do not have any emotions so they are unable to feel any connection to what is true, they are compulsive liars and lie simply because they can. They lie about everything big and small, they have lied their whole lives, they are so dead and void, they just don't care about the truth, look at Ted Bundy's mugshot and look at his eyes, you can see the deadness inside of him right there. Side: I Support it
1
point
As fun as that narrative was it was extremely dishonest. Being a sociopath doesn't inherently mean you're a monster, roughly 1 in 100 people are one. Sociopathy is a mental disorder that prevents a person from feeling any extreme emotions, good or bad. It isn't a "disconnection to truth" its a mental disability. Is Ted Bundy an evil person? Yes, of course. But your lack of empathy prevents you from recognizing why. And seeing as this point has gone utterly ignore, I can see that you AGREE with it as you have failed to dispute it: justice DOESN'T WORK OUT OF COLD BLOOD. We don't have laws to get revenge for victims we have them to keep people safe, if a person is policy custody they no longer pose a threat so there is no inherent need to have them killed. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Psychopaths do know what they do is wrong, they simply don't care. They realise that another person is being hurt, they don't can't feel it is wrong. They know what they do is wrong, they just don't feel any wrong. They merely don't care. If a psychopath is so devoid of emotion, then they are merely worthless and aren't to be considered as people. Emotions is what makes someone human. You can't empathise with something that has no emotion, psychopaths have no emotions, you can't feel any pity for them. The thing is, keeping a worthless "person" alive just wastes prison resources and valuable money. Side: I Support it
1
point
First of all: there is a huge difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. The literal definition of psychopathy is that you don't know, or cannot control what you are doing. A sociopath does know what they are doing, and yet because of their mental disorder they don't feel any particular remorse or fear of the consequences because of it. I'm not saying that psycho and sociopaths that murder shouldn't be brought to justice - but yet again you have utterly ignored everything I have been saying. This is because you cannot respond to the arguments legitimately so you have decided instead to ignore it and go on with your narrative. Murderers, although horrible people, are people. Your argument is blatantly made to try to see them as something different. You have ignored and failed to respond to my points, that isn't how you debate. There is no way to make murder into a good thing, killing a person is killing no matter who it is. Prisons were made to keep bad people locked away, there is no way to argue that keeping a bad person in prison is a waste of resources because that is the only thing they are used for. Side: I oppose it
1
point
A psychopath is the same as a sociopath. Go visit Robert Hare. I have just answered your question. Someone devoid of any emotions is worthless. Only someone who has emotions is of value. How can something devoid of any emotions be of any worth? How can it be wrong to kill someone devoid of emotions? Do you get my point? Side: I Support it
1
point
Robert Hare on psychopathy and Sociopathy: "There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in the popular science book entitled Snakes in Suits that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases the two terms may be used with different meanings that reflect the user's views on the origins and determinants of the disorder. Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[86] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.[166][167]: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In other words, no. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Robert Hare has used the term "psychopath" in the business sense as well as the criminal sense. He has also use the term sociopath in the exact same way. All Robert Hare has said is which term most people tend to prefer depending on the circumstances. Robert Hare has described a sociopath as being someone whose morality is different from most people, but he also describes psychopaths this way to. They are interchangeable. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I did read his quotes. Wikipedia says that Robert Hare describes sociopaths as being merely different to other people in moral values. But he also has another way of describing them which Wikipedia didn't include. Wikipedia may be correct in it's facts, but it doesn't mean that it includes every fact about any given subject under the sun. I have read up on Robert Hare a little bit and he describes sociopaths as being people who are both different to other people in their consciences. as well as being without emotions and manipulative. Side: I Support it
1
point
A psychopath is the same as a sociopath. No it isn't, at all. They are two distinctly different mental illnesses. How can it be wrong to kill someone devoid of emotions? It's wrong to kill anyone, regardless. You are going into this argument as if a sociopath or a psychopath aren't human (and have stated so bluntly), this is nothing more than a lie. Sociopathy is a MENTAL DISORDER, now, is it bad if a sociopath kills a person? Yes, of course it is, but the fact that they have less emotions is not justification for capital punishment at all. The argument for psychopathy goes even further - they have no control (that is why they are put in mental institutions.) Do you get my point? No, because your point is based on flawed logic and half-truths. Side: I oppose it
1
point
No it isn't, at all. They are two distinctly different mental illnesses. The last person to offer the last rebuttal is the winner in a debate. Offer one. Don't say "I just did". It's wrong to kill anyone, regardless. You are going into this argument as if a sociopath or a psychopath aren't human (and have stated so bluntly), this is nothing more than a lie. Sociopathy is a MENTAL DISORDER, now, is it bad if a sociopath kills a person? Yes, of course it is, but the fact that they have less emotions is not justification for capital punishment at all. The argument for psychopathy goes even further - they have no control (that is why they are put in mental institutions.) You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you. In order to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value. I have asked you these questions and you haven't yet answered them. No, because your point is based on flawed logic and half-truths. I'll say it again. Re-read what I had said. You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you. In order to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value. I have asked you these questions and you haven't yet answered them. Side: I Support it
1
point
The last person to offer the last rebuttal is the winner in a debate. Offer one. Don't say "I just did This is pretty hypocritical considering you repeated your point about how they are the same thing. For which you didn't provide a warrant as to why (I did). This in and of itself is a reason to ignore your argument here completely, you said something, but you didn't provide any reasoning for it. You have ignored the actual questions I have asked of you. The actual questions you asked me were the same question rephrased. You asked if it is wrong to kill someone without or having very limited emotions, simply put yes it is. to determine whether it is wrong to kill psychopaths based on the fact that it is wrong to kill and execute people in general, then you need to ask yourself a few questions. Well seeing as you have just acknowledged that it is a fact that killing people is wrong (when you said "based on the fact"), then the only question we need to ask is whether or not psychopaths are people. Why is murder in itself wrong and under what circumstances. Hence, I said why murder is wrong. And also what you need to ask is what constitutes a person as well as what makes a person have any value. Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder. Side: I oppose it
1
point
This is pretty hypocritical considering you repeated your point about how they are the same thing. For which you didn't provide a warrant as to why (I did). This in and of itself is a reason to ignore your argument here completely, you said something, but you didn't provide any reasoning for it. I only repeated what I had said because you had ignored me. You had ignored me a two or three times and haven't offered a proper rebuttal to settle the claims and the scores. The actual questions you asked me were the same question rephrased. You asked if it is wrong to kill someone without or having very limited emotions, simply put yes it is. Saying that killing people with very limited emotions doesn't tell me why murder is wrong, what makes a person have value, nor does it tell me what constitutes a person. Of course you have told me that not having emotions doesn't mean that you aren't a person, but what makes someone a person then, if emotions don't make the person? Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder. Of course being a vigilante is wrong. But killing someone lawfully by the death penalty isn't going to make any laws flouted, is it? Only people who commit murder should be eliminated. Side: I Support it
1
point
I only repeated what I had said because you had ignored me. You had ignored me a two or three times and haven't offered a proper rebuttal to settle the claims and the scores. And again you have failed to provide a warrant for your claim. Of course being a vigilante is wrong. But killing someone lawfully by the death penalty isn't going to make any laws flouted, is it? It doesn't make a difference who is doing the killing because the outcome is the same, either way you're killing a person. Side: I oppose it
1
point
It doesn't make a difference who is doing the killing because the outcome is the same, either way you're killing a person. In your opinion why do you feel it's wrong to kill? It's wrong to kill a person because you are destroying someone who has value. Why does a psychopath have any value? You aren't making sense. What do you mean by "you are killing a person"? How? Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Again, you are doing nothing more than repeat yourself. This argument has become circular and it is because you have failed to dispute my points. Come up with a (new) response or admit you have lost this point I have just repeated myself, of course I have. You have failed to answer the question. What gives a person any value? It is YOU who has lost the entire argument. You have no provided any evidence for your assertion other than claim that you somehow have the general population on your side. Let me spell it out for you. I will ask again, WHAT GIVES A HUMAN BEING VALUE IN YOUR BOOK. PROVE TO ME THAT MURDERERS HAVE ANY VALUE. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE. Side: I Support it
1
point
You have failed to answer the question. What gives a person any value? Actually I have, you just either didn't like or didn't read my answer: "Murder is wrong if nothing more for morality's sake, and believe me I know that is a weak argument but it applies here. There needs to be lines for which the law should never cross, and whether or not to kill someone when there is no need to is one of them. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent. However your argument is that we should kill socio/psychopaths simply because of the fact that they exist. You have provided no benefit to killing them other than they're expensive, you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder." It is YOU who has lost the entire argument. You haven't answered my points past repeating your already disputed assertions. That isn't how you debate, so no. You have no provided any evidence for your assertion other than claim that you somehow have the general population on your side. Nor did I make the assertion that I did. An assertion that has been made though (by you) is that the death penalty is good. This is an affirmative claim, meaning that without any evidence or reasoning to back it up then it isn't a valid position. You have provided no evidence to back it up and your only positions are that people in prisons are expensive and we should kill every psychopath and sociopath because you believe they can have no value as people. WHAT GIVES A HUMAN BEING VALUE IN YOUR BOOK. PROVE TO ME THAT MURDERERS HAVE ANY VALUE. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE. I already answered your questions, and you have done nothing more than spout bullshit rhetoric. Your only position is that you seem to think I need to prove that people have value for us not to kill them. This is plainly false, and is shitty logic. So here, "let me spell it out for you": 1: You are making an affirmative claim here, the burden of proof is on you. 2: Your position this entire debate has been "sociopaths and psychopaths don't have value as people" 3: This position is based on the faulty presumption that they are the same thing 4: Additionally, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to WHY we need to kill these people 5: Reiterating burden of proof, it is YOUR job to prove that there is a reason to kill these people, it is NOT my job to prove that they don't need to be until that is sufficiently done. 6: Use your fucking brain, please it is embarrassing to you Side: I oppose it
1
point
" For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent." The value of a person is a broad question? Well, can you provide explanations for this broad question? The value of a person can differ from person to person? Well, what are the different things that can make a person of value? Personally everybody has value to some extent? What sort of value? No, you have explained nothing. As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one. And just because someone is biologically a person doesn't mean they are mentally. Someone who is evil is only human in flesh and blood, their minds are sick and twisted and inhuman. "you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder." Yes, that is what the whole point of the debate is about. Except I wouldn't call it "murder. You haven't answered my points past repeating your already disputed assertions. That isn't how you debate, so no. I just had, it is you who hasn't. Nor did I make the assertion that I did. An assertion that has been made though (by you) is that the death penalty is good. This is an affirmative claim, meaning that without any evidence or reasoning to back it up then it isn't a valid position. You have provided no evidence to back it up and your only positions are that people in prisons are expensive and we should kill every psychopath and sociopath because you believe they can have no value as people. Psychopaths of course have no value as people and are expensive. Why should we let manipulative murderers waste the systems money? Why should we allow arrogant serial killers to mess with the system and live a life of luxury like a king? : You are making an affirmative claim here, the burden of proof is on you. That would be you making an affirmative claim, actually. You can't prove that executing a murderer is harmful. 2: Your position this entire debate has been "sociopaths and psychopaths don't have value as people" My position is that psychopaths have no value as people? Anything wrong with that? 3: This position is based on the faulty presumption that they are the same thing Psychopaths are roughly the same thing as sociopaths. All people who end up committing murder are psychopathic, regardless. 4: Additionally, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to WHY we need to kill these people I actually did. Because they are worthless, because they have no empathy and because they are egotistic and parasitic. They are a waste of money. Killing them is like killing flees. Stop these silly word-jumbos. 5: Reiterating burden of proof, it is YOUR job to prove that there is a reason to kill these people, it is NOT my job to prove that they don't need to be until that is sufficiently done. There is no proof to suggest that the death penalty is wrong. The death penalty is either wrong or right. You can't prove it is harmful and wrong unless you provide evidence. Does the death penalty cause any harm? No. So it's not unnecessary and wrong. If psychopaths waste money then kill them. Simple. 6: Use your fucking brain, please it is embarrassing to you This debate has gone up to your head and out through the nose. Cocky. Side: I Support it
1
point
The value of a person is a broad question? Yes Well, can you provide explanations for this broad question? Burden of proof lies with you, you provide a value, I will dispute it as needed. The value of a person can differ from person to person? Well, what are the different things that can make a person of value? Intellect, philanthropy, economic benefits, etc. Personally everybody has value to some extent? What sort of value? Again, you can't pinpoint it. No, you have explained nothing. Yes I have, you just don't listen And just because someone is biologically a person doesn't mean they are mentally. Then tell me what exactly is the mental state of a person? Someone who is evil is only human in flesh and blood, their minds are sick and twisted and inhuman. No such thing as an evil person, only evil things. Additionally, define evil. Yes, that is what the whole point of the debate is about. No, the whole point of this debate is to decide whether or not there is good reason to kill criminals. Except I wouldn't call it "murder. That's because you see killing as okay I just had, it is you who hasn't. No, you answered my points with the same questions. That isn't answering Psychopaths of course have no value as people and are expensive Based on what? You've spent the whole debate asking for me to tell you what makes a person valuable - even though you've obviously got more reason to considering you are using it to make arguments. Also, tell me what you think a prison is used for. Why should we let manipulative murderers waste the systems money? Because that is the whole reason that that portion of the system was made. Why should we allow arrogant serial killers to mess with the system and live a life of luxury like a king? Life of luxury? You're kidding right? They're going to prison, please tell me how the fuck a prison is a "life of luxury like a king." That would be you making an affirmative claim, actually. My claim is that the death penalty is wrong. You are saying that it is right and should be implemented, you are making an affirmative claim. Ie, you have burden of proof. You can't prove that executing a murderer is harmful. Executing anyone is harmful, for morality's sake if nothing else. Additionally, you can't prove that it is beneficial (which is the first thing that needs to be proven) My position is that psychopaths have no value as people? Yes, that is what you have been arguing Anything wrong with that? It's a legitimate mental disorder and you are going in with the assumption that every one is an inherent monster regardless of their actions. Psychopaths are roughly the same thing as sociopaths. No, there are very big differences which you have yet to dispute. All people who end up committing murder are psychopathic, regardless. Really? So every soldier that has ever killed someone is a psychopath, regardless? What exactly is your definition of psychopathy? Because it seems to be extremely flawed. I actually did Okay, they are expensive and have no value. Both positions poorly defended and not backed up by any reasoning. Because they are worthless, because they have no empathy and because they are egotistic and parasitic. Nothing inherently egotistical with murder, it is bad but doesn't mean you are egotistic. As to the parasitic comment, that would be why we put them in prison. And lack of empathy doesn't inherently take away your worth as a person. They are a waste of money. How much money? Keeping people in prisons is not expensive, and that is what prisons are meant to be used for. Killing them is like killing flees. Because dehumanizing people hasn't caused anything bad, ever. coughholocaustslaverycrusadeshumantraff There is no proof to suggest that the death penalty is wrong Well sure, if you're a utilitarian. The death penalty is either wrong or right. Well it definitely is the first one. I do agree that it is only one or the other. You can't prove it is harmful and wrong unless you provide evidence. Okay so going by your arguments: people who murder are inherently psychopaths - all psychopaths must be killed - because killing cannot be proven to be wrong. You really don't see the problem here? Does the death penalty cause any harm? No. Except of course to the person who is executed, their family, their friends, and the justice system as a whole. So it's not unnecessary and wrong. You realize that you are using the same arguments the Nazis did to justify the holocaust? If psychopaths waste money then kill them. Simple Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet), me, every other person on the internet, every person who is buying or has bought something they didn't need, and every person taking part in a government peacekeeping effort. For starters, we can work out a more comprehensive list later. This debate has gone up to your head and out through the nose. At least my arguments are going through my head first. Cocky. Better cocky than a eugenic executioner. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Yes Good. Burden of proof lies with you, you provide a value, I will dispute it as needed. You are trying to prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer, therefore the burden of proof is yours. I had asked you a question, therefore you should answer it. Why does it have to be me as opposed to you who should answer that question. How can you prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer unless you can prove that a murderer does actually have any value? Just because something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong. I asked you. Intellect, philanthropy, economic benefits, etc. Good, you have finally answered the question. Murderers can be intelligent, but that doesn't mean that they are able to use their intelligence to the benefit of society. Nor does it mean that they would apply their intelligence properly. Murderers are incapable of any true philanthropy and are devoid of any good will. Murderers have no economic benefits. Again, you can't pinpoint it. You have just answered my question, so you certainly are able to pinpoint what makes a human of any value. Yes, you can pinpoint that what makes a human valuable. Yes I have, you just don't listen I have heard everything you had said, so don't tell me I don't listen. Then tell me what exactly is the mental state of a person? What defines a person mentally is that they have the abilities of imagination, emotion, empathy and reason. No such thing as an evil person, only evil things. Additionally, define evil. Evil is defined by sadism, egotism, coldness and a desire to pervert what is real and true. Evil is also the desire to be repulsive and to cause repulsiveness for the sake of causing what is repulsive. No, the whole point of this debate is to decide whether or not there is good reason to kill criminals. We are debating why you oppose the death penalty, instead of supporting it. Of course you are supposed to prove that executing murderers is wrong. That's because you see killing as okay I believe that executing those that murder is the right thing to do, therefore it isn't "murder". No, you answered my points with the same questions. That isn't answering Of course I didn't "answer" your statements. Instead I had asked you what you actually thought. Based on what? You've spent the whole debate asking for me to tell you what makes a person valuable - even though you've obviously got more reason to considering you are using it to make arguments. Also, tell me what you think a prison is used for. I had already told you what I believe makes a person valuable. I had to keep asking you because before you wouldn't answer the question. Prisons should be used to rehabilitate those who can change for the better of society, not to house those that only murder others. Because that is the whole reason that that portion of the system was made. The whole point of a prison isn't to waste money on murderers who can't change. That's counter intuitive. Life of luxury? You're kidding right? They're going to prison, please tell me how the fuck a prison is a "life of luxury like a king." Murderers are also in high security prisons. Within those prisons murderers always live a life of luxury. They are nothing like those hell houses that petty criminals tend to go to. My claim is that the death penalty is wrong. You are saying that it is right and should be implemented, you are making an affirmative claim. Ie, you have burden of proof. You're claim is that the death penalty is wrong. Just because something isn't right doesn't make it wrong. Based on that argument it would be wrong for me to rub my head. Just because rubbing my head isn't right doesn't make it wrong. Executing anyone is harmful, for morality's sake if nothing else. Additionally, you can't prove that it is beneficial (which is the first thing that needs to be proven) Morality is subjective, so executing a murderer isn't necessarily wrong because morality can be subjective. Yes, it can be proven that it is beneficial to society. Yes, that is what you have been arguing Of course psychopaths have no value as people. It's a legitimate mental disorder and you are going in with the assumption that every one is an inherent monster regardless of their actions. Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory. But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society. Murderers are the monsters that can't. No, there are very big differences which you have yet to dispute. When it comes to murderers, there is not a very big difference between the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath". Whenever we use any of those terms, I obviously intend to describe anybody who feels no emotions. We are talking about murderers. Really? So every soldier that has ever killed someone is a psychopath, regardless? What exactly is your definition of psychopathy? Because it seems to be extremely flawed. Killing someone as a soldier is of benefit to society, so being a soldier doesn't make one an evil psychopath. Although some psychopaths can be soldiers. Being a soldier benefits society, so even if a psychopath is a soldier, doesn't mean we should execute them. Okay, they are expensive and have no value. Both positions poorly defended and not backed up by any reasoning. The former mentioned can be proven by the latter that you had mentioned. Having that has no value is a waste of money. So murderers that have no value are wasting of money. We are trying to debate why murderers from your perspective have no value. I have told you my perspective already. Nothing inherently egotistical with murder, it is bad but doesn't mean you are egotistic. As to the parasitic comment, that would be why we put them in prison. And lack of empathy doesn't inherently take away your worth as a person. Killing someone without good cause or motive is classified as murder. The motives for murder are merely to gain control and to cause pain and shame to the victims. The motives for murder are very egotistical in nature. Parasites can't be allowed to live, otherwise they are still using up money. Lack of empathy means that someone likes every single other quality known to man. How much money? Keeping people in prisons is not expensive, and that is what prisons are meant to be used for. Keeping people isn't meant to reduce money, keeping people in prisons is to house people without having to kill them. It is about locking people up. As I had said before, keeping murderers in prisons still wastes money and more expensive than killing them or just letting them to die. Because dehumanizing people hasn't caused anything bad, ever. coughholocaustslaverycrusadeshumantraff We are talking about executing people that kill other people. We can't get arrested for rising hatred for murders. Hate crimes are considered hate crimes if you raise hatred for black people and gays, you can't commit a hate crime against murderers, legally. It doesn't harm society to raise hate for murderers. I just shows a good backbone. Well sure, if you're a utilitarian. If a person has absolutely NO value, then there is no point in allowinf them to live. Well it definitely is the first one. I do agree that it is only one or the other. Exactly. And we are trying to prove that it is wrong to kill murderers, in that case. I have already offered evidence for my claim that I believe murderers lack value and should be killed. I have already stated my perspective. Okay so going by your arguments: people who murder are inherently psychopaths - all psychopaths must be killed - because killing cannot be proven to be wrong. You really don't see the problem here? Not all psychopaths should be killed. Just those that commit murder. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? Except of course to the person who is executed, their family, their friends, and the justice system as a whole. No one should care for a murderer being executed. They cause more harm than good. And the family and friends of a murder are better of without them, too. You had said that the justice system as a whole would be damaged by executing murderers? I'll ask you this question, why would it damage the justice system? You made that claim, now I want to know why you believe it. I already told you what I believe and why. You realize that you are using the same arguments the Nazis did to justify the holocaust? There is nothing wrong with being a Jew. We are talking about murderers here and why they have no value. Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet), me, every other person on the internet, every person who is buying or has bought something they didn't need, and every person taking part in a government peacekeeping effort. For starters, we can work out a more comprehensive list later. As long as we aren't murderers, we all have something to offer society. And there is no such thing as a useless activity. It is all beneficial to buy things that we like to buy without physically needing it. It is still healthy. Nothing wrong with buying something pleasing to see or that keeps us productive. "Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet" There was no need for this comment. How am I wasting money on the internet. There is no such thing as wasting money if it keeps one occupied. We aren't robot's, were people. At least my arguments are going through my head first. Childish. Better cocky than a eugenic executioner. Even more childish. Side: I Support it
1
point
You are trying to prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer, therefore the burden of proof is yours. Again, no, you are trying to prove that executing a murderer is good, you have burden of proof. Why does it have to be me as opposed to you who should answer that question. Because you have the burden of proof, you are pushing a claim that we should change something (that we should execute all murderers), I am arguing that that something is bad. How can you prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer unless you can prove that a murderer does actually have any value? I don't have to - the assumption here is that all people have value. A murderer is a person, therefore the beginning assumption is that they have value. It is your job to prove that they don't, not mine that they do. Just because something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong. What is the point of doing it if it isn't right? Murderers can be intelligent, but that doesn't mean that they are able to use their intelligence to the benefit of society. Nor does it mean that they cannot, your absolutist logic doesn't work here. Nor does it mean that they would apply their intelligence properly. Nor does it mean that they wouldn't. Murderers are incapable of any true philanthropy and are devoid of any good will. Again, absolutist. Yes, murder is wrong, incredibly so. But that doesn't mean that there is no chance of a murderer doing something good, ever. That's a ridiculous claim. Murderers have no economic benefits. Except if they have a job, have ever sold anything, have ever made a job for another, etc. You have just answered my question, so you certainly are able to pinpoint what makes a human of any value. I gave you three examples, there are countless more - you cannot just pinpoint it on one thing and I am damn sure that you haven't looked at every case and every aspect. In other words, your sweeping assumptions are utter bullshit. so don't tell me I don't listen. Considering how many of my arguments you ignored previously, I maintain the assertion. What defines a person mentally is that they have the abilities of imagination, emotion, empathy and reason. And you have evidence to back up the claim that every person that has ever killed a person illegally has none of any of those qualities? Evil is defined by sadism, egotism, coldness and a desire to pervert what is real and true. Evil is also the desire to be repulsive and to cause repulsiveness for the sake of causing what is repulsive. Committing a violent crime is in almost if not every case not out of "the desire to be repulsive." It is usually for personal gain, and doesn't immediately entail any of those qualities. We are debating why you oppose the death penalty, instead of supporting it. Of course you are supposed to prove that executing murderers is wrong. Again, no. You have burden of proof. The affirmative claim here is that there is good reason to kill criminals, we are not here debating about my personal position on the matter but the matter itself. I believe that executing those that murder is the right thing to do, therefore it isn't "murder" Ah I see so if I believe that killing a person is the right thing to do it isn't murder. That's the distinction you're making? Of course I didn't "answer" your statements. Instead I had asked you what you actually thought. If you don't answer the statement then the (utterly accurate) assumption is that you either agree with them or cannot answer them. Seeing as you still haven't it only furthers my point. Prisons should be used to rehabilitate those who can change for the better of society, not to house those that only murder others. So you're saying that any criminal that isn't a murderer can be rehabilitated but not a murderer? If I were to brutally rape 20 people and you shot a person over a disagreement - you're telling me that I am perfectly fine to "rehabilitate" but we must immediately execute you? The whole point of a prison isn't to waste money on murderers who can't change. That's counter intuitive. No, the point of a prison is punishment for those that do wrong. Additionally - provide a logical explanation as to a: why every murderer is inherently a bad person regardless of any other trait they have and b: why they cannot ever change Murderers are also in high security prisons. Within those prisons murderers always live a life of luxury. They are nothing like those hell houses that petty criminals tend to go to. Cite your sources for that - a high security prison is not "a life of luxury." It has high security - by definition that is the only assumption you can make. You're claim is that the death penalty is wrong. Just because something isn't right doesn't make it wrong. Based on that argument it would be wrong for me to rub my head. Just because rubbing my head isn't right doesn't make it wrong. My argument that killing in general is wrong - it isn't exclusive to capital punishment but that is an extension of it. It is established that the downside of capital punishment is a person dying - so until you can prove that there is a legitimate good thing that comes out of that then this is an argument you have lost. Morality is subjective, so executing a murderer isn't necessarily wrong because morality can be subjective. Executing anyone is wrong, if you would argue otherwise why the fuck are you defending your position? Yes, it can be proven that it is beneficial to society. Then prove that it is and that it outweighs the downsides. Of course psychopaths have no value as people. Based on what warrant? You are speaking as if they're a different species. Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory. Again, provide evidence supporting the claim that every person that has ever had psychopathy is a monster and should be killed. But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society. Oh I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists fighting the system. Murderers are the monsters that can't. Provide a fucking warrant for your claims, seriously. Give me a logical, step by step explanation as to why a person can, regardless of any and every other factor, NEVER be beneficial to society based on the fact that they killed a person illegally. When it comes to murderers, there is not a very big difference between the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath". There is, and I have explained it to you. But again, you have been ignoring it, you haven't looked it up, you haven't thought it through. You are sticking to your emotions, and failing to use logic. Whenever we use any of those terms, I obviously intend to describe anybody who feels no emotions. In which case you are "obviously" only talking about sociopaths. Not every murderer, apparently. Being a soldier benefits society, so even if a psychopath is a soldier, doesn't mean we should execute them. So again we have a contradiction. You have been arguing that every psychopath, regardless of any other factors, is a monster with no value and should be executed. Now you have made an exception to psychopaths that are part of the military. Having that has no value is a waste of money. A life is more important than money. We are trying to debate why murderers from your perspective have no value. Actually that is your position, that they have no value, regardless. My position is that they should not be executed, which does not mention value. Killing someone without good cause or motive is classified as murder. So it isn't murder then if I stand to gain money? It isn't murder if I consider that person mean enough to be killed? It isn't murder if I want something they own? It isn't murder if they stole from me? It isn't murder if I stand to gain power? It isn't murder if they are offensive? I could go on, but you get the point. The motives for murder are merely to gain control and to cause pain and shame to the victims. Except that usually murder is done for money, or in revenge of something. (the latter being what you are here advocating for) The motives for murder are very egotistical in nature. Not all murders, very few in fact. Lack of empathy means that someone likes every single other quality known to man. I'm assuming this was a typo and you meant "lacks" but correct me if I'm wrong. Empathy is just the ability to see from another's perspective (something that you seem very lacking in). It doesn't entail any other quality. Keeping people isn't meant to reduce money, keeping people in prisons is to house people without having to kill them. It is about locking people up. As I had said before, keeping murderers in prisons still wastes money and more expensive than killing them or just letting them to die. The fact that money here is even a question really says a lot about the kind of person you are. You're right that not killing people is more expensive than killing them, but the fact that you cannot see why we almost always choose the former in today's society begs the question of why you are acting so much higher than a person that kills illegally. We can't get arrested for rising hatred for murders. And I am not saying that you should be, hatred for the act of murder is completely justified. Hate crimes are considered hate crimes if you raise hatred for black people and gays, you can't commit a hate crime against murderers, legally. I haven't said anything about hate crimes, and I don't really know why you think I have. Additionally, this is an utter lie. If you were to go into a prison right now and kill someone who was locked up who was a murderer, you would be charged legally with murder. I just shows a good backbone. Oh fuck yeah lets make ourselves look manly and kill people because we're tough and have good backbones! If a person has absolutely NO value, then there is no point in allowinf them to live. I don't think you know what utilitarian means I have already offered evidence for my claim that I believe murderers lack value and should be killed. You have provided claims, but no evidence Not all psychopaths should be killed. Okay literally quoting you from this post: "Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory. But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society. Murderers are the monsters that can't." Just those that commit murder. What about people that commit murder that aren't psychopaths? There is nothing wrong with that, is there? Of course there is something wrong with that - to hold any sort of absolutist viewpoint that says "they should die" is wrong because it doesn't take into account any possible context! No one should care for a murderer being executed. They cause more harm than good. And the family and friends of a murder are better of without them, too. Go find someone whose child is on death row - and say that to them. I'll ask you this question, why would it damage the justice system? Because a justice system that is against killing cannot turn around and use killing as punishment - it is counter intuitive. You made that claim, now I want to know why you believe it. And I did - I don't make claims I haven't thought through and stick to them There is nothing wrong with being a Jew. I would agree that you shouldn't go out and kill Jews - whether or not there's something wrong with it is a different argument entirely and isn't exclusive to Judaism. We are talking about murderers here and why they have no value. We're actually talking about whether they should be executed or not. As long as we aren't murderers, we all have something to offer to society Being a murderer doesn't inherently mean you can offer nothing to society - and you have yet to offer evidence to support that claim. How am I wasting money on the internet. Using the internet uses money Childish. And undisputed Even more childish. Considering that you are arguing in favor of eugenics, through execution, it's a valid point. Side: I oppose it
1
point
Again, no, you are trying to prove that executing a murderer is good, you have burden of proof. Burden of proof goes both ways. I would have had burden of proof because I was trying to prove that murderers should be executed. You did have burden of proof because you are trying to prove that executing murderers is wrong. I have already given my proof, so burden of proof was carried off from me and had moved onto you. You had burden of proof because you had not given any refutation. The last person to offer a rebuttal in a debate is the winner of the debate, no matter how accurate the rebuttal is. Even if my rebuttal did have errors in it, you would still have to had put forward a rebuttal. You had finally provided a rebuttal anyway, so this argument is now moot. You couldn't have claimed that you couldn't have offered a rebuttal when you have demonstrated that you could. The burden of proof was on you, so it was indeed up to you to provide that rebuttal. Otherwise you would have lost the debate. Because you have the burden of proof, you are pushing a claim that we should change something (that we should execute all murderers), I am arguing that that something is bad. We both have burden of proof now, but before, it was only you since before you had failed to offer a rebuttal. I don't have to - the assumption here is that all people have value. A murderer is a person, therefore the beginning assumption is that they have value. It is your job to prove that they don't, not mine that they do. The assumption here is that most people have value, not all. We both agree that most people have value. All isn't the correct assumption. What we both disagree on is that murderers have a lack of value. It is up to you to prove that murderers have value and it is up to me to prove that murderers have no value. There is no given assumption that murders have value because there is no reason for anyone to believe that they do. We are trying to discuss what makes a murderer have value. Yet again I'll say it: I had started off proving that murderers have no value, I had already given evidence. Now it is up to you to disprove this and offer a rebuttal. What is the point of doing it if it isn't right? What is the point of not doing it if it isn't wrong? (I am already in the process of debating this, so I still don't know why you are arguing instead of having a normal debate) Nor does it mean that they cannot, your absolutist logic doesn't work here. Murder is the only action that exists that is about being completely destructive. The motive for murder is complete destruction and control, as well as egotism. Anybody that commits any other action is not interested only in destruction. But it takes a heart that is interested in 100% destruction to commit murder. Since murder is all about destruction, it would appeal to someone who is completely interested in destruction. Someone only interested in destruction wouldn't apply their intelligence for constructive means, only destruction means. Nor does it mean that they wouldn't. Nor does it mean they would. Again, absolutist. Yes, murder is wrong, incredibly so. But that doesn't mean that there is no chance of a murderer doing something good, ever. That's a ridiculous claim. What if a murderer is only hell bent on destruction. Murder is completely about destruction. Nothing constructive about it. The only thing a murderer is hell bent on is destruction They have no desire to be constructive. Except if they have a job, have ever sold anything, have ever made a job for another, etc. If a murderer who is hell bent on destruction ever sold anything, or had a job, it would only be for ill will. Even an action that appears to be out of sheer generosity can turn out to be intended as poison. I gave you three examples, there are countless more - you cannot just pinpoint it on one thing and I am damn sure that you haven't looked at every case and every aspect. In other words, your sweeping assumptions are utter bullshit. You have given me three examples and for now they will do. How do you know that there are more examples if you can't think of or see any other examples? Yes, you can. You're a smart enough guy to do it. Don't tell me you can't. I don't believe in "can't". Considering how many of my arguments you ignored previously, I maintain the assertion. I ignored "you"? "Ignored"? Now that's a word that is completely irrelevant! And you have evidence to back up the claim that every person that has ever killed a person illegally has none of any of those qualities? Someone who has committed murder does not have all of those four qualities. They certainly don't have emotion and empathy and I'm not sure about imagination. They may have the ability to reason. Some has to have all of those qualities to be considered a person. Don't you remember me omitting the word "combined" at the end of the sentence that you had responded to? Committing a violent crime is in almost if not every case not out of "the desire to be repulsive." It is usually for personal gain, and doesn't immediately entail any of those qualities. Committing murder is not about personal gain, since it doesn't achieve personal gain in that context. It is about stealing, destroying and possessing the person that has been murdered and about eliminating and sucking away the person that has been murdered. The desire to murder is a destructive force that is about sucking away the life and personhood of a human being, it is like a black hole that sucks in and destroys. Again, no. You have burden of proof. The affirmative claim here is that there is good reason to kill criminals, we are not here debating about my personal position on the matter but the matter itself. Your personal position is your personal stance on the debate. We are having a debate, not some monologue. You are involved in the debate. I have to convince you. And you have to convince me. I am not out there to convince a judge. A debate is about our own stances on the matter. I am here to debate. Not just to prove. Ah I see so if I believe that killing a person is the right thing to do it isn't murder. That's the distinction you're making Something isn't murder if it actually happens to be the right thing to do. Not just whether I think it is or not. The right thing to do is subjective. Is it murder? That is subjective. I wouldn't necessarily call it murder, myself. If you don't answer the statement then the (utterly accurate) assumption is that you either agree with them or cannot answer them. Seeing as you still haven't it only furthers my point. I have already provided an answer to counter your claims that you couldn't provide a rebuttal. Doesn't change the fact that I had to ask you a question since you refused to provided a rebuttal. So you're saying that any criminal that isn't a murderer can be rehabilitated but not a murderer? If I were to brutally rape 20 people and you shot a person over a disagreement - you're telling me that I am perfectly fine to "rehabilitate" but we must immediately execute you? Rape isn't all about destruction. But murder is. I could rub my nose 20 times, still wouldn't mean I was a destructive person. But I could kill someone only once and it would make me a destructive person. No, the point of a prison is punishment for those that do wrong. Additionally - provide a logical explanation as to a: why every murderer is inherently a bad person regardless of any other trait they have and b: why they cannot ever change Prisons shouldn't really be about punishment. They should be about rehabilitating someone. Murderers can't change because a lot of evidence has shown that they can't change. There has been lots of books written about psychopaths/sociopaths by people who have studied them for years, examples are as follows: Robert Hare. Hervey Cleckly, Kevin Dutton. Martha Stout. Jon Ronson. Kent Kiehl. Donna Anderson. And so much more... Also, there is a very successful scientist who has discovered that he was in fact a psychopath, albeit just a civilised one (although he was still a manipulative person and lacked empathy) who agreed that as a psychopath he can't properly change innately. Cite your sources for that - a high security prison is not "a life of luxury." It has high security - by definition that is the only assumption you can make. A high security prison is properly maintained. Prisoners in high security prisons have more individualised compartments with telephone access and possibly TV's. The opportunity to write letters is also fully available. In high security prisons they also have much better funded facilities like well maintained libraries, canteens, lounges etc. Better funded medical care, etc. Cheap prisons ran by the local counsel for the lowly class tend to involve buckets for prisoners to urinate, harsher beds to sleep on, they tend to lack much warmth and aren't very cosy. They are more cramped and compartments within jails are less personalised and individualized. Everybody is cramped together. The cheap prisons such as in Manchester are relentlessly crowded and the money put into organizing those jails is not invested, no real effort is put into making the confines of those cheap prisons more comfortable. It's expensive enough for the council to even consider building a new prison, let alone maintaining one and redesigning them and changing them to consider the prisoners needs. Specialised highly security prisons are already up to full standards. The only exception that I know of in this country is high security Broadmoor and that has drawn lots of criticism for it's allegedly cruel standards. My argument that killing in general is wrong - it isn't exclusive to capital punishment but that is an extension of it. It is established that the downside of capital punishment is a person dying - so until you can prove that there is a legitimate good thing that comes out of that then this is an argument you have lost. We both agree that executing prisoners in general is wrong. What we both disagree on and what we obviously are actually debating is whether it is wrong to execute murderers. Executing anyone is wrong, if you would argue otherwise why the fuck are you defending your position? Executing most people is wrong according to both of our subjective morality. Still doesn't change the fact that it is subjective. We disagree with each other when it comes to murderers. Then prove that it is and that it outweighs the downsides. Running prisons costs a lot of money. Executing prisoners or letting them die doesn't. Based on what warrant? You are speaking as if they're a different species It's almost as if they are. Their brains work entirely differently according to scientific research. Psychopaths have no value as people in the same way that machines have no value as people. Doesn't change the fact that machines have value to society. Murderers have no value as people nor to society and that is the utmost difference. Again, provide evidence supporting the claim that every person that has ever had psychopathy is a monster and should be killed. All psychopaths are monsters, but not all monsters are completely destructive. Even wild beasts are constructive to nature, to mankind and the equilibrium. Oh I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists fighting the system. Someone who is against the system would be someone who is claiming that CEO's are completely harmful and must be over-run. I am not arguing that CEO's should be over ran. CEO's are very useful to society. Doesn't change the fact that they are psychopathic. Just useful and much needed psychopaths. In fact it was me who has at one point claimed that the government ultimately does have our best interests at heart on this thread (although it wasn't you who I was debating with, so you may not have seen that comment, just to avoid confusion). Provide a fucking warrant for your claims, seriously. Give me a logical, step by step explanation as to why a person can, regardless of any and every other factor, NEVER be beneficial to society based on the fact that they killed a person illegally. Any entity entirely set on destruction is not useful to society. That is why entirely bad germs must be completely defeated. There is, and I have explained it to you. But again, you have been ignoring it, you haven't looked it up, you haven't thought it through. You are sticking to your emotions, and failing to use logic. I have been entirely logical. In which case you are "obviously" only talking about sociopaths. Not every murderer, apparently. Every murderer is a sociopath/psychopath. (btw, the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is widely disputed, there is no difference that everyone agrees upon, as far as we are concerned those terms can be interchangeable). So again we have a contradiction. You have been arguing that every psychopath, regardless of any other factors, is a monster with no value and should be executed. Now you have made an exception to psychopaths that are part of the military. I have said that all psychopaths are monsters. I had said that all murderers are psychopaths and are worthy of death. But I hadn't said that all psychopaths are murderous and are worthy of death. Psychopaths that are in the military are still useful. A life is more important than money. The health and livelihood of society is determined by money. A better economy saves lives. Actually that is your position, that they have no value, regardless. My position is that they should not be executed, which does not mention value. This all comes down to which is more necessary for society and what costs too much money. If murderers lack any value to society and it costs more money to allow them to live, then it could only be argued that it is best to kill them. However, my stance on this is that money and value is a determining factor, so it is up to you to rebut this. Doesn't matter whether or not you had said this, I had put forward this argument, so you should still rebut it. So it isn't murder then if I stand to gain money? It isn't murder if I consider that person mean enough to be killed? It isn't murder if I want something they own? It isn't murder if they stole from me? It isn't murder if I stand to gain power? It isn't murder if they are offensive? I could go on, but you get the point. People who kill knowingly cause more trouble for or society than good. Even if they do it for themselves, they still do it relentlessly for the cause of destruction, knowing they are going counter to both society and humanity. Someone who desires to go against both society and humanity is completely destructive. The only reason that I wouldn't classify it as murder is if you are calling a murderer. Except that usually murder is done for money, or in revenge of something. (the latter being what you are here advocating for) It is still done whilst going counter to humanity and society. Still done of out of destruction. In order to kill, you also have to go against society itself and fight it. No one interested in a constructive world would kill somebody else. Not all murders, very few in fact. All murders are actually. I'm assuming this was a typo and you meant "lacks" but correct me if I'm wrong. Empathy is just the ability to see from another's perspective (something that you seem very lacking in). It doesn't entail any other quality. Empathy is the ability to understand someone else's feelings through ones heart. Which is governed by ones ability to feel emotions. (Don't tell me I am unable to see things from your perspective, I can't read your mind, can I)? The fact that money here is even a question really says a lot about the kind of person you are. You're right that not killing people is more expensive than killing them, but the fact that you cannot see why we almost always choose the former in today's society begs the question of why you are acting so much higher than a person that kills illegally. Money is important for society. And you can't rehabiliate someone for the greater good of society if they can't change and are only destructive. And I am not saying that you should be, hatred for the act of murder is completely justified What about hatred for the murderer themselves who committed them? Not just the act of murder. I haven't said anything about hate crimes, and I don't really know why you think I have. Additionally, this is an utter lie. If you were to go into a prison right now and kill someone who was locked up who was a murderer, you would be charged legally with murder I am not being like the Nazis since I am not relying on hate mongering propaganda to win my assertions. That was their ultimate argument. Oh fuck yeah lets make ourselves look manly and kill people because we're tough and have good backbones! We all need to show that we are strong and have good boundaries, otherwise we would become victims of this world. I don't think you know what utilitarian means Anything wrong with being utilitarian? You have provided claims, but no evidence Your rebuttals that have came quite late happen to consist of just as much claims as mine. Okay literally quoting you from this post: "Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory. But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society. Murderers are the monsters that can't." Thank you. What about people that commit murder that aren't psychopaths? There aren't any. Of course there is something wrong with that - to hold any sort of absolutist viewpoint that says "they should die" is wrong because it doesn't take into account any possible context! Context? You mean evidence? Go find someone whose child is on death row - and say that to them. That would be difficult to do, I live in a country where capital punishment is illegal. The family might be initially upset, but ultimately they would benefit from it once they see it. Sometimes they never realise how much the have gained by it and they still think they have lost a real person. They think they have lost something that never really was there, how sad. Because a justice system that is against killing cannot turn around and use killing as punishment - it is counter intuitive Society should only be against killing people that aren't murderers. And I did - I don't make claims I haven't thought through and stick to them I thought it through well enough. I would agree that you shouldn't go out and kill Jews - whether or not there's something wrong with it is a different argument entirely and isn't exclusive to Judaism. How am I like the Nazis then, if I had made a comment about killing Jews? You had likened my arguments to the Nazis. We're actually talking about whether they should be executed or not. Whether murderers have value is to do with my argument that murderers should be executed. Being a murderer doesn't inherently mean you can offer nothing to society - and you have yet to offer evidence to support that claim. I am in the process of actually debating that. What is your point? Using the internet uses money It doesn't waste money though, unless you're a murderer. And undisputed I don't dispute Ad Hominems. In effect, technically this whole debate is discussing the matter of whether or not my brain cells are in tact. At least you have to prove it by those means. Considering that you are arguing in favor of eugenics, through execution, it's a valid point. You aren't better than a patriotic supporter of eugenics. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
What negative consequences would arise if a guilty person would die? Precedent is a powerful thing. Guilt is ascribed to an actor who is believed to have caused an action in the past which society deems unacceptable. Morals change over time and place. The past - hereafter: history - is unknowable. There are as many interpretations of events, their causes and effects, as there are people to observe them: none none of these can be said to be without doubt 100% factual. Now, why should a person be killed because humans' faulty ability to understand history gives people to the belief that this person has committed an act that is (relatively) morally wrong and which, in fact, may not have even been caused by this person who is being killed? Finally: Is a society that kills killers any more or less morally blameworthy than the killer himself? Side: I oppose it
1
point
Psychopathy is what causes murderers to commit murder. It is a well researched topic. Murderers have no value to society. Murderers have no value as people. Murderers therefore waste money. So killing murderers that would otherwise waste money is the right thing to do. Side: I Support it
1
point
Psychopathy? Hahaha. A fraction of murderers are said to be psychopaths: if, indeed, such a disorder (or evolutionary edge?) can be said to exist. Had you said sociopathy, you may have had a better (but still laughable) case. Some 2/3 of American murderers are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime (I can provide a source, but I'm too disinterested to go searching through my archives at the moment). Ergo, does alcohol cause murderers to commit murder? Indeed, I would say that the majority of murderers do not commit their crimes out of a lack of emotion, but out of too much emotion. Murder is, after all, the great crime of passion. For instance, the Norwegian Breivik has said that he committed his 77 murders because his was, as it were, overcome by emotion at the displacement of his race by the brown invaders from the east. Most murderers are intimately acquainted with their victims: only a small minority of murders are "stranger killings" (serial killers), and it is only those killers that could make your case for psychopathy. Murderers have no value as people. What gives a human value as a person? Does somebody have value by virtue of their not having committed murder, and thus murder instantaneously sets them aside as worthless (bearing the mark of Cain, as it were)? What if Thomas Edison had murdered somebody? Would he be of "no value to society" by virtue of his having committed a murder, disregarding the invention for which he was responsible and by which humanity is now in light? Each case must be considered on its own merit: one-size-fits-all justice may seem fair to the mentally inferior, but to deny that each case is individual, that each person is individual in their motives, desires, history, and worth, is to stereotype in the vile-most of ways: after all, a life is at stake (at least in your barbaric idea of a justice system). Murderers have no value to society. Murderers have no value as people. Murderers therefore waste money. This is non-sequitur. Is money all that matters to you? Side: I oppose it
1
point
Psychopathy? Hahaha. A fraction of murderers are said to be psychopaths: if, indeed, such a disorder (or evolutionary edge?) can be said to exist. Had you said sociopathy, you may have had a better (but still laughable) case. Some 2/3 of American murderers are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime (I can provide a source, but I'm too disinterested to go searching through my archives at the moment). Ergo, does alcohol cause murderers to commit murder? Indeed, I would say that the majority of murderers do not commit their crimes out of a lack of emotion, but out of too much emotion. Murder is, after all, the great crime of passion. For instance, the Norwegian Breivik has said that he committed his 77 murders because his was, as it were, overcome by emotion at the displacement of his race by the brown invaders from the east. Most murderers are intimately acquainted with their victims: only a small minority of murders are "stranger killings" (serial killers), and it is only those killers that could make your case for psychopathy. Psychopaths like Anders Breivik was possibly doing both of the following by claiming to have noble motives: 1: As a psychopath, Anders Breivik was manipulative and a liar and would often pretend to have noble intentions and concerns. Psychopaths live their lives pretending to have humane interest and they put on a mask of sincerity and loyalty. It is what they do. Anders Breivik was possibly saying this stuff to manipulate others as well as to evade accountability. 2: As a psychopath, Anders Breivik had this inherent grandiose self belief, this belief that he was truly above and beyond. Psychopaths have such a strong belief of themselves and their inherent worth, they are incapable of having any doubts about themselves. Anders Breivik, like many other psychopaths, was also a narcissist. He believed himself to be of such value that he thought all his actions were just and noble and genuinely were the best one could commit. It wasn't that he was interested in the effects on his victims of course, it was more to do with himself. Side: I Support it
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
First of all - how hypocritical is this? If one ends a life and therefore has their life ended by the death penalty - surely the person who is the one to do this should also have their life ended for committing exactly the same crime? There has been endless evidence to prove this does not work and hasn't worked. People commit murder out of passion, defence and with reason (which even though should not be an excuse, you have to put yourself in their shoes before coming to such a conclusion) I am totally against people breaking the law let alone committing murder, but we have to act humane and not lower ourselves down to their standards - surely the person who ends murderer's life is also a murderer? Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
1
point
If a punishment is cruel or unusual then it is a violation of the 8th amendment. A crime that is unnecessary is considered unusual or cruel. If the death penalty doesnt prove to be definitively more effective at deterring crime or accomplishing justice then it ought to be considered unnecessary The death penalty has not been proven to deter crime any more than life imprisonment. Additionally it has caused innocent people to be executed for crimes they didnt commit, detracting from its ability to accomplish justice. Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary. Therefore the death penalty is cruel/unusual. Therefore the death penalty is in violation of the 8th amendment. Side: I oppose it
1
point
1
point
Okay then well if the sole purpose is to separate them from the general populace why is killing them more effective than life in prison? I mean yeah theyre dead but if they were locked away with no parole would it be that much different? And if you cant prove that the death penalty "eliminates" substantially more effectively then i would say my argument still stands. Side: I Support it
1
point
|