CreateDebate


Debate Info

89
100
Yes! Kill for punishment! No this is wrong.
Debate Score:189
Arguments:128
Total Votes:231
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! Kill for punishment! (60)
 
 No this is wrong. (65)

Debate Creator

Freedom12 pic



Do you agree with the Death Penalty?

Do you agree with the Death Penalty? You know killing someone for a crime by means such as lethal injection, or electricution?

Yes! Kill for punishment!

Side Score: 89
VS.

No this is wrong.

Side Score: 100
3 points

I think the death penalty should just be enforced for rapists

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
nummi(1432) Disputed
3 points

Or cut off their balls. Literally. Should work very effectively.

Side: No this is wrong.
3 points

Or vagina's, let's not be sexist.

---------------------------------

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
GeneralLee(134) Disputed
2 points

True enough, but that doesn't account for murders. I think the death penalty should be used for murders also.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
2 points

I think you have a fucked up sense of what's morally right and wrong.

Side: No this is wrong.
truthteller(64) Disputed
3 points

What's wrong about it a killer destroys a persons life well a rapists does the same thing just becuase there alive doesn't mean that they don't live with that for the rest of thier lives u have no idea what they go threw unless u have been in that position or know someone really close that has had that happen to him or her don't tell me ur sticking up for rapists maybe ur one of them

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
Liber(1730) Disputed
0 points

So somebody should have their life, their supreme possession, taken away from them simply because a small part of their body went inside of another person's body?

Side: No this is wrong.
truthteller(64) Disputed
1 point

People are destroyed mentally for life and some even kill them selves.due to what happened to them becuase it was so traumatic and most get away with one and do it again some even start killing thier victims so yea .I'm surprised that you are sticking up for rapists

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
2 points

"He who takes a man's life, so shall his life be taken."

It's not just the act of murder that's bad, but also the thought process leading up to the actual murder. It takes a really hateful, spiteful, incurable mind to do something as think about murder until he actually does it. Death to rapists and murderers.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

In which case, why is the death penalty acceptable? By your definition, the death penalty is hateful, spiteful, etc. And how is life imprisonment a less effective solution?

Side: No this is wrong.

If you kill people you should die too. But only in that case. It's not right to kill someone who hasn't actually killed anyone. If it was a crime other than murder they should just be jailed.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

Yes the death penalty is good for society. Why should someone have to suffer in prison for the rest of their life? People who commit bad crimes shouldn't be allowed to suffer in prison for the rest of their life. Just give those who do bad crimes lethal injections.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

Thanks for your concern, you don't think that will help the inmate don't you?

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

As controversial as this topic is here is something else to consider. I live in a country where the justice system is corrupted and rapists and murderers walk scott free without even facing imprisonment, and they continue to terrorise people daily. Regular citizens live like prisoners in their own homes and that is clearly not the way society is meant too be.

Perhaps a death penalty will be more effective in such a country, it is succesfully implemented in others, and these horrible people need to have some fear, something stopping them, they have no damn right to do what they do.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

Kill anyone convicted of hurting children, violent rape, mass murder and treason.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

In some countries no, not at all. Government could kill someone for now reason but in America I do, I mean I think it might be demoralizing but after it goes through the legislative system I think it's pretty fair.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

I am a deep, caring hearted woman first off. I do believe in the death Penalty, eye for and eye. I've seen docs about a man killing a child and gets the death penalty, then I also seen on a doc that someone killed a grown woman and raped her, and get life in behind bars. To me if that I was my daughter or something, I would want the dude dead. It shouldn't be picked on the crime, I do believe in eye for eye.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

Yes you're a deep caring hearted women to children but you should'nt base on your emotion and affection. Condolensce but If the kid is already dead then their dead. We should care to the people who our alive than those who are dead. We should focus more on disciplining the inmate instead of making another mess and don't base on Eye for an eye , it's just reacting to evil by doing evil, there's no good at that. there are no morals, you're just doing what you want , you're just basing with your emotion and not on the right thing. Dispute me if I'm wrong.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

Imagine how tortured and twisted serial killers et.c's minds are, the constant cycle of suffering that they must be going through. And we don't even let them end it for themselves.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

Nope, the most humane solution to people with mental illness is sending them to a mental hospital, while the rehabiliator is lecuring them the inmate must be locked from head to fingers

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

Many believe that the possibility of winding up on death row is a powerful argument against committing a capital crime (i.e., murder. The last execution in the US for a crime other than homicide, in this case, robbery, occurred in 1964). If indeed the death penalty is a significantly stronger deterrent than the usual alternative, life in prison, then a case could be made that the existence of the death penalty is likely to save more lives than it takes, and that the lives saved are likely to be those of innocent people.

A variation of this argument is that, regardless of how effectively the death penalty might deter potential murderers in general, it is 100% effective in deterring executed murderers from repeating their crimes.

If there is good reason to believe that a particular convicted murderer might kill again, given the chance, then the alternative to execution would be a long, perhaps lifetime, prison sentence, to protect the general public. For such people, costly prisons are needed, and it is necessary to have prison guards whose working lives are spent in proximity to very dangerous individuals. In effect, for each killer so sentenced, we are sentencing prison guards as well. If not needed for such work, these guards might serve society in other useful and less onerous occupations.

In primitive societies lacking formal mechanisms for apprehending and punishing criminals, it is common for families, or broader kinship groups, to try to avenge the killing of members. This is generally undesirable as it can lead to endless cycles of killing. An important function of a criminal justice system is to head off such reactions. But, in the case of particularly horrific murders, the families of the victims sometimes feel that anything short of death would be grossly inadequate punishment. So the death penalty might be considered as satisfying the need for justice, or, in some cases, vengeance, on the part of people who lose loved ones to brutal killers.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

Yes! Murderers should get the death penalty! They don't know how precious life really is!

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
0 points

We have to pay to keep these f*ers alive. I don't feel good knowing my tax dollars are taking care of murders and rapists. The county next to mine just cut the jail budget and had to let out a bunch of petty criminals. If we put all the really bad criminals to death there would be room to keep the petty criminals in jail.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

The solution is not to kill the life of an imperfect person but to the extent of the prison or to transfer the criminal to another prison, not just the money that moves people to work, people can voluntarily assist the expansion of the prison if they know the benefits of doing so.

We need to take care of criminals because they can not afford to pay for their own salary and they still receive their imprisonment penalty.

They must be alive today because we are too moral to do violent things.

Side: No this is wrong.
0 points

I would rather taxes be spent on a bullet than a home for someone for the rest of their life. Inhumane ways of execution are unnecessary, if you are going to execute someone, do it quickly.

However, there are other ways of punishing people. I think it is in Norway, where they send people to a place that they must take care of, it is different to Papillon in some ways because they still have some connection to the outside world. However because of the efficiency of it the reoffending rate in England is much higher. Norway has the lowest reoffending rate. An interesting website on Norway's experiment is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/ article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html

There are alternatives to the death penalty, but to completely eliminate any chances of reoffending the death penalty is the best thing I know of. I think it is better than prison.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
0 points

Death is the best deterrence. Imprisonment can be waited out, fines can be paid. Before one commits a crime, in the face of possible death they will seriously be forced to reconsider their actions. Unless one welcomes death.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

It's not about the inmate's death or the saved lives , it's about what we are doing ,we aren't humane, we aren't right, we are contradicting ourselves if we kill the prisoners we're violent.

Side: No this is wrong.
0 points

I agree in the death penalty for extreme cases. Jeffrey Dahmer and David Westerfield both deserved the death penalty, in my opinion, so do most serial murderers. However, the problem comes in trying to codify which people deserve the death penalty. I don't think all murderers deserve the death penalty. Most people would agree that someone who kills someone in self defense doesn't deserve the death penalty, but there have been a couple of recent cases where someone killed someone in revenge for molesting their children. Here you have a case where someone is doing something most of us would applaud, but since there was no trial, you're really depending on the parent to use good judgement on how certain they are that they're getting the right person.

What about someone who walks in on their spouse in bed with another person? Some people might call this justified, some wouldn't. I think ideas on this are shifting to the not-justified side, but the mere fact that attitudes are changing means that it's not cut-and-dried. Personally, I think crimes of passion like this should be punished, but I think the death penalty might be a little extreme.

To summarize, I think the death penalty should be used, but only in extreme cases. I think we should err on the side of caution, and only use it when the evidence is solid, and the murder shows a level of social deviance that almost everyone would find abhorrent.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

Can we kill someone because everyone's angry with him? It's not right, because morality is not based on emotions but what is right for everyone, even if we want someone to die, it's always wrong to kill someone, because they are human just like us and we should not kill each other

Side: No this is wrong.
-1 points

Yes. I believe that people who have killed, raped, tortured, or have done any other extreme act of violence should get the death penalty. Whatever the offender did should have the same done to him/her. It may be savage and against a civilized society, but the evil people in this world should receive the consequences for their actions.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
-1 points

Yes. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to keep serial rapists and murderers alive on our tax dollars instead of bidding them adieu.

The point is, life is not just inherently sacred, it has to earn its worth. When someone kills a bunch of people and rapes a buch of women, that's when their life is no longer sacred. And keeping them alive with my money, paying for their food, their bedding their drink, is repulsive to me.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

Yes. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to keep serial rapists and murderers alive on our tax dollars instead of bidding them adieu.

Avoidance of another mess. If killing is a mess why would we do the same?

Side: No this is wrong.
6 points

I believe that people should only be put to death because of an inability to keep the general public safe from the individual. With today's system of prisons, we are able to do this and should put them in jail to suffer for the rest of their life. Death is also permanent. People have been found out to be innocent after the death penalty ha already been carried out....

Side: No this is wrong.
Elvira(3446) Disputed
2 points

The prisons are full :( They'll die eventually any way... so,

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
GeneralLee(134) Disputed
0 points

So why aren't you on the Yes! Kill for punishment! side? because technically you should be due to your opening statement.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
6 points

Violence and death only begets more violence and death. Killing a man for killing a man just makes you as despicable as him. There is nothing righteous about the death penalty. There's righteousness in the protection of the innocent and the such, but not the killing of a helpless prisoner.

All you do when killing a killer is make people around you subtly believe that killing a killer will somehow put an end to all murder, when this is oxymoronic and hypocritical.

Side: No this is wrong.
4 points

More expensive, hypocritical and not proven to be any worse than solitary confinement. Hell yes I disagree with it.

Side: No this is wrong.
Elvira(3446) Clarified
1 point

I think that it should be done by blade. Who would want to die strapped up to a chair?

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
GeneralLee(134) Disputed
0 points

More expensive? Electricity is cheap. Prison's are expesive to build and expensive to run, not to mention the cost of living.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
3 points

Not the execution itself, but the cost of Death Row is far higher than life imprisonment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/ us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.T8-0VdVfFn4

Side: No this is wrong.
disputatio Disputed
1 point

prisons are profitable to run..... if they were not how would a private prison survive?

Side: No this is wrong.
3 points

Historically, the death penalty has not had any effect on crime. For example, in England, the crime for pick-pocketing used to be public hanging. During the hangings, there was a high rate of pick-pocketing. Also, studies show that the serverity of a punishment is unrelated to it's effectiveness. The swiftness and certainty of it are. Therefore, to decrease crime, there should be court reform to make courts more effective, not a death penalty.

Supporting Evidence: Criminologists' views on the death penalty (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)
Side: No this is wrong.
3 points

I simply think that since we are all humans, and since none is superior to anybody by right, to think to have the right to kill, or make kill, someone has no logical sense? Please, don't forget what all the great Religions, irrespective of where they are spreading, base on the same, deep, ideal: love anyone, even your worst enemy. Most people could, erroneously, answer saying: "it's easy for you to talk like that, what would you do if someone killed your daughter? Wouldn't you kill him? Or, at least, wouldn't you ask politics for a sentence to death?" Well, let me tell you one thing: this is right the reason why judges and courts were established; when someone gets hurt, immediately he wants revenge: right in this moment there should be a super partes administrative body who, far-off to be involved emotionally, it would help you to have justice, without yielding to one of the worst diseases in the world: resentment.

Side: No this is wrong.
2 points

Why kill someone for doing wrong. If they killed someone, killing them won't bring the deceased back to life. It won't make everything better. You're just sinking to as low/lower than them. If you're innocent, and you are on death row for 10, 20, maybe even 50 years, i cannot think of any worse mental torturer.

Side: No this is wrong.
GeneralLee(134) Disputed
1 point

"It won't make everything better."

Yeah it will! If one of my friends/family was murdered, and his punishment was death; then at least justice was served.

And the amount of people who are innocent as compared to the amount of people who are guilty; it doesn't add up. So quit trying to weasel that in. It only matters if it's a huge number.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
LoveU(339) Disputed
1 point

justice was served.

Killing shouldn't be considered as justice bro. Ask the executioners, they feel like they did something wrong, they will just think they're doing the right thing because they have avenged the victim but there's still guilt on their system since they victimized the inmate.

Supporting Evidence: Executioner's says (www.theguardian.com)
Side: No this is wrong.
truthteller(64) Disputed
1 point

First off all Idk if u have ever been in a life or death situation but Idk if u would be saying the same thing if u had and there is alote of killers behind bars still killing people on the our streets without even doing it them selves I don't think most of these people on this site know realty having more time in jail just makes u a better killer inside/ out execution stops some from acting on killing not everybody

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
1 point

You are sinking to as low/lower than them

I don't think that's true. Delivering justice is something good that isn't sinking, regardless of the method it is delivered by.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
2 points

No. The death penalty is completely, irrevocably wrong.

What makes the man who pulls the trigger or adminsters the injection any different from the killer himself? At the end of the day the killer is being punished for ending a life. How is it NOT hyprocritical and moronic to punish him by ending his life?

More importantly, what gives a regular person, a judge, the jury, what gives any of them the right to decide if a person should live or die? Nothing gives them that right. We're all the same.

My final point is, whether you believe in the afterlife or whether you think once we're dead this is it, do you not think death is the least punishing form of punishment? If there is an afterlife, the killer will go where he deserves to (and that will differ - everyone will have a different opinion) if there is nothing, then that's it, nothing. The murderer ceases to exist and I think we can all agree that that cannot be a form of punishment since he no longer exists.

If you want to punish a murderer, I'm all for life sentence. This will sound horrid, but I'm even for a little bit of torture. The family and friends of the deceased will want to see that murderer put through the same amount of pain they went through.

I think those debating the cost factor in this whole issue are, frankly, ridiculous. What you're saying is that you would basically kill someone if it saves you some money. Life and death decisions should NOT be based on money.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

You're right on one thing: the death penalty is morally wrong and a horrific way to "rehabilitate" someone. That's what prison's about, right? Rehabilitation?

Anyways, what you say about torture is so out of this world that I don't feel like I should respond to it, but I will.

We must look into why the person raped a child or murdered a father. Under what conditions was this person raised for them to have been able to shoot someone in the head or to physically abuse a child?

Taking revenge is a short term fix that will wear off quickly. You will find your true solace after you make peace with what that murderer/rapist did.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
2 points

No. Death penalty is not the solution to the rising crime rate.

If death penalty were the solution for such criminal actions, then people who are "good" and have contributed to society deserve to live forever.

Instead of death penalty for nefarious criminals, we could keep them alive and make them useful by allowing them to contribute back to the society (Community Service).

All in all, everyone has the right to live.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

Make them cycle on exercise bikes with dynamos to produce electricity!

Side: No this is wrong.
2 points

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

the death penalty is wrong because killing is wrong. i say this not on any kind of religious basis, but one of humanity. if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not. the fact that it has been shown not to be a deterrent in preventing crime shows that it is not effective, since part of its use was the fear of being put to death. the use of the death penalty is an act of revenge which cannot be undone, so should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder. i think that life without opportunity of parole is the more humane and just punishment instead of the death penalty.

Side: No this is wrong.
riahlize(1573) Disputed
3 points

if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not.

Remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family.

And by your statement, accidental killing is also murder.

should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder.

The term "Murder" is a legal argument. Murder is the inlawfull killing of a human being. If they follow due process, they did the best they could do. I'm certainly not arguing in favor or disfavor of the death penalty, I'm only responding to some of your claims that I disagree with.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
twaggoner(31) Disputed
2 points

"remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family."

This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door. I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community.

"the term murder is a legal argument. murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. if they follow due process, they did the best they could do."

tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought. with technological advances in not only investigation but in evidence collection and preservation (dna is a huge one) more and more could be proven innocent, which makes no difference if they are already dead at the states hand.

Side: No this is wrong.
nummi(1432) Disputed
2 points

because killing is wrong

The fact that there are bad and evil people means that killing is not wrong. It means that in certain situations it is necessary to kill, if possible.

By not killing those who deserve it you are condoning their actions. Essentially showing everyone that it is okay to do it.

[assuming you are a good guy] If someone (a bad guy) tried to kill you and the only way for staying alive is you killing your attacker, would you not kill him to save yourself from death? You'd be stupid if you didn't.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
twaggoner(31) Disputed
2 points

here is the problem with your statement "bad and evil people, where it is necessary to kill if possible"..who decides who is bad/evil? who decides that it is necessary to kill? the obvious answer is the judge who hears the case based on the law of the land. The problem is that the judge is human and there are no black and white answers but instead a million shades of gray.

"by not killing those who deserve it"....do rape victims deserve it? do children who are victims of molestation deserve it? do the victims of these murderers deserve it? of course not...and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problem.

thank you for your assumption that im a good guy..i like to think i am.

in your basic question you are bringing up basic human survival instincts, no one wants to die and one will do whatever is necessary to survive. but that is the absolute last resort with no other recourse, and all other options have been exhausted. this is not the case when talking about the death penalty, we are not talking about survival instinct then, we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

if we are giving deathn penalty nfor a crime then what is the difference between us and those criminals

Side: No this is wrong.
Elvira(3446) Clarified
1 point

The difference is the reason.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!
1 point

The death penalty is an absolute judiciary measure that succeeds in rectifying the grievances of the murder victim's family and peers, yet fails to undo an inevitable flaw of any judiciary system; human error. Without a truth-seeking function, which may or may not be administered in any given proceeding case, the system is error-bound. The odds of an error in judgment is a fixed possibility, meaning, there is always a chance that those sentenced to death may still be innocent and thus, wrongfully killed. True, the times that the State has wrongly killed a convict may not outweigh the times it hasn't, numerically, however, this rationalization can only yield a more authoritarian society. For every time the state wrongfully punishes someone with impunity, it leaves the rest of us equally susceptible to the scourge of error-bound agents of the state.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

nobody is in a position to judge PERFECTLY if someone is to die.

Also, keeping people in prison for life IS NECESSARY precisely because it incurs a cost. If the state were to execute people, it would be cheaper and the validity of justice would NEVER BE QUESTIONED. Any law can be passed and ALL CITIZENS are DISPOSABLE.

On the other hand, if the politicians have to explain why they have to spend billions of dollars keeping a whole population or 'criminals', it leaves the possibility that the laws are unjust and scrutiny can begin, which is impossible with mass graves.

Even if there is no possibility of rehabilitation, having them alive is better than to execute them because he is a living example to the dangers of society; like remembering past mistakes.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

The government should not be allowed to play god and decide who lives and who dies; it's not right because how is that ethical? Lethally inject a man or woman because they made a mistake? It's not right for men to murder, to rape, to cheat, and if the government kills them, they're no better than the very same people they're trying to get rid of.

Side: No this is wrong.

The Death Penalty is a system of revenge. If the wrong person is executed, he cannot be brought back. So, the Death Penalty should be abolished.

Side: No this is wrong.

You send the wrong message.

Capital Punishment is a Constitutional Right. Politically when a person describes the state action as Death Penalty they are making a statement of political Liberty as promotion to the attempt to represent justice. It is understandable that a person may move away from any obligations to Constitutional guidance to general welfare as we are opening the topic to a conviction which changes the state of judicial separation.

The point is that a Death Penalty is something the criminal imposes on a victim of the crime murder. The witness account to a Capital Punishment though in general observation appears equal to the criminal’s death penalty. It in no uncertain terms equal by the liberty held by Constitutional Separation.

So in saying no I do not agree with a Death Penalty I am still agreeing with the action of state to apply Capital Punishment. What is being refused is my verbal incrimination of states which hold this type separation in their judicial order.

Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles..

Supporting Evidence: iliketurtles (www.iliketurtles.com)
Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.

Supporting Evidence: Turtles (www.iliketurtles.com)
Side: No this is wrong.
1 point

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.

Side: No this is wrong.
jonnymayes(4) Disputed
1 point

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.

Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!