Dear lord, the second part of your argument is just too painfully stupid to go undisputed, and yet it's dripping with the level of smarminess that only comes from someone who is 100% sure they're right. I cannot allow this to continue.
Tell me, have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Okay, so the founders believed in god. That's wonderful for them, but it doesn't change the clear fact that they wanted individuals to be free to choose what religion they wanted, without the state favoring any one religion.
I'm an atheist. Does the constitution not apply to me because I don't believe a god gave me those inalienable rights?
oh would you look at that, a quarter million fucking links in about 10 seconds.
gosh golly this whole "internet" business sure is confusing, huh?
mostly i just ignore joe because he's a troll who seems to think he's god's gift of comic relief to the masses.
this time, though, his reply went unnoticed in the second page of my notifications section.
(it's still gonna get ignored, though)
Granted. I suppose taking fault with how obviously wrong your original argument was would have made more sense.
Morals, you see, lie clearly within the realm of the objective. It's practically part of their definition that they are a primarily personal code of behavior. Unless you fiercely believe in a higher power, (making further debate pointless) one has to admit that morals are not set in stone.
If, on the other hand, one were to argue as you already have; that everything is objective (including witnessed events, educated theories, quantifiable evidence, etc.) you are radically broadening the definition of "objective" far beyond the relatively simple scope required to cast morals as such, rendering this and all other debates pointless and making the same mistake you are now accusing me of.
dear dumbass:
that was sarcasm. "sarcasm" is when someone says something they don't really mean, typically in order to make fun of the people who really do believe that thing
in this case, i was using sarcasm to point out how silly his argument really is when you boil it down to its fundamental reasoning.
also, you really should know that this debate has been dead for two fucking months and by now no one gives a shit what you think.
i hope this helps!
"Appeals are part of any trials and is the most expensive part in any trials so what are you trying to prove? "
That there are more of them in a capital case, making them more expensive? I thought we went over this. At first I actually thought I was just getting another notification for a response I'd already read.
>
second paragraph is a pretty blatant appeal to sentimentality so i'll just ignore that for now.
>
third paragraph is stating an opinion and then vaguely referencing research of some sort. nothing to debate here.
>
"And for your information recent records released by the Bureau of Criminal Justice in the U.S have shown that the death penalty have saved thousands of lives by decreasing the amount of homicides and murders that occurs per year."
Please post these. I've been arguing under the impression that the death penalty was having a negligible affect on crime rates, but a report showing the opposite would definitely make a difference in my stance.
The act itself, of clicking a button on the camera, is not art.
The process and result, on the other hand, is indisputably art. Granted, it's hard to draw a line between the mechanical and the artistic, but I think it's safe to say that when you go out with the intention of creating a picture, you are creating art.
"mistaking the executing of the person and the appeals process that follows because it is not the death penalty itself that is expensive but the appeal processes that follows."
I consider appeals part of the capital punishment process. Either way, you're just arguing semantics.
"For now the death penalty might be expensive but studies have shown that the costs for prison functions will increase since it is already increasing yearly and added to that will be the additional costs for fighting crimes."
Okay, capital punishment might make sense one day. That doesn't particularly matter to me. The point of this debate was whether or not one can logically oppose it while supporting abortion, and I believe you can. I also think you can use logic to flip that around, or perhaps oppose or support both at once. There are decent arguments for both sides (well, abortion anyway. As it stands, CP is dead in the water) and it's a pretty tough issue to debate without a lot of free time. The sort of time investment that you would only bother with if you actually cared what the person on the other end thinks.
It's not black and white is what I'm saying. Not many things are.
I agree with your entire first paragraph.
Your second one, however, is just plain wrong. The very existence of capital punishment costs far more than simply containing the prisoners would. This isn't really up for debate. Yes, the prisons are overcrowded and inefficient.
As for abortion, there's no sense arguing with you here. Not because you're necessarily right, but because judging from the strength of your convictions, you don't seem like you're going to change your mind any time soon. (Yeah, I hate it when people tell me that, but I just don't feel like wasting even more time on this site. Go look at someone else's response.)
