CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Jace

Reward Points:4329
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:6194
Debates:14
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
Jace(4329) Clarified
1 point

I think different people respond to and process that stuff differently. To be honest, I'm more inclined to your camp than the other. That's why I think there's something to be said for putting the decision of life or execution into the hands of those closest to the victims (admittedly complicated where multiple victims are involved, though).

1 point

That an overwhelming majority of people chose to continue using the products of science and technology, including those who like to rail against them, suggests the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks. Otherwise people quite simply would have abandoned them.

1 point

Plenty of people have forgiven incredible violence against themselves, their relations, and their loved ones. So you're just factually incorrect on that point. There are people who value their own ethical standards more highly than retribution, and assuming that they're deluded or misinformed is nothing more than a very simplistic presumption of your own moral values as superior without the effort of any real argumentation. If you want to make an actual case for your position that requires more than an emotive appeal to sentiment...

1 point

Wrongful conviction is not limited to the death penalty but exists at all levels of sentencing, and presumably occurs at even higher rates for some offenses where the sentence is (regarded as) less severe. if wrongful conviction is enough basis from which to stop using execution, why is it not enough of a basis from which to stop using sentencing?

Moreover, the criminal justice system you are referencing has a very bad record of racism and classism that arguably contributes to higher mortality rates and economic unrest among those demographics... so again why don't we stop the whole criminal justice system? Or, as long as this a bad record is the whole standard for something why don't we just abandon government?

1 point

It does not necessarily follow that someone deserves to die just because it is prudent to kill them. Those are distinct, albeit potentially interrelated, questions.

The notion that opposition to state executions is responsible for school shootings, home invasion, rape, arson, etc. is not only unsubstantiated but so extreme as to sound nothing short of ludicrous. All of these have existed alongside state executions and continue to occur where such executions take place, and notably have lower incidence in some nations that do not have state executions than in some of those which do. Nor is execution the only option, since lifetime incarceration is generally also an option. "Keeping society safe" may be one of the weakest argument for state executions, even wen it's given a strong defense which I don't think yours is.

1 point

What is the foundation for your ides of deserts? How can you determine whether someone deserves something or not?

Similarly, how do you identify something as being inhumane?

1 point

An omnipotent deity may be the only possible source for an objective morality, but that does not mean that religious people actually know what that morality is any more than their secular counterparts.

1 point

That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-sociality predates religion. It is what allowed people to exist in groups in the first place, which is a necessary prerequisite to religions forming.

1 point

The amoralist simply suspends belief in your opinions until you can prove them. That's all the explanation that's required. Threaten the amoralist with 'society' all you like, but you still haven't proven a thing.

1 point

That it would be just your opinion against another's is not a reason to suppose it is dependent on an objective standard.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Does the sacred have intrinsic value?
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: What is the appropriate response to ignorance?
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: Echidna
Winning Position: No

About Me


"Influenced by: egoism, nihilism, Buddhism, nominalism, skepticism, determinism, etc."

Biographical Information
Name: Owlman 
Gender: Chap
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Websites: Nihilist Owlman

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here