CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
19
True False
Debate Score:36
Arguments:25
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (14)
 
 False (12)

Debate Creator

Awen27(541) pic



Evil must be punished

Are the watchmen right? Is it true that evil must be punished?

True

Side Score: 17
VS.

False

Side Score: 19
2 points

Evil must be punished to show that it will not be tolerated. But if your definition of evil is "anyone that isn't in my religion and/or race" you're probably categorized under the evil category.

Side: True
Awen27(541) Disputed
4 points

Does punishing evil suppress it sufficiently? Does it actually fix what's wrong? Or just make it so that only the evil and powerful get away with things? Aren't there other ways to prevent/get rid of evil?

Side: False
Warlin(1212) Disputed
1 point

Conflict is inevitable. Whether or not it's at the end of a barrel pointed at a family member's head is up to you to decide.

There are people on this earth who are just stone cold evil. They burn things just to watch them burn.

If it were my choice, there would be a lot of people being executed right now for the disturbing and fucked up shit they pull. But we let them get away with it because they have money.

Until we learn that the man with the most money isn't always right and that sometimes the only way to stop shit from escalating is to stop it dead there won't be a peaceful time on this earth.

Evil must be punished.

Side: True
nagtroll(275) Disputed
1 point

i agree.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: False
2 points

It's true that evil must be punished, but at what level do we consider evil punishable? I feel that evil that is punishable is that which is so far outside the norms of our society that is directly conflicts with our lives or that of our own judiciary system. But evil, great or small, should be punished.

Side: True
1 point

Uhhhh.... Yeah! Enact penalties, laws, and such to deter crime and punish those who decide to break the laws! If you don't punish them, crime will rise because people will know there is no punishment for the crime.

Side: True
Awen27(541) Disputed
1 point

Well, my question isn't so much should evil EVER be punished or deterred. I'm more asking if the punishment of evil is something that is inherently necessary/good. Is it wrong to let the evil go unpunished, or is it only wrong to let evil happen/continue to happen?

Side: False
MKIced(2510) Disputed
1 point

Evil will happen no matter what. I believe it is impossible to completely stop all evil acts from the Earth. People will always have greed, lust, wrath, etc to various extents. So we should try our hardest to prevent it, but when (not "if") people are evil anyway, we should punish them.

Side: True
1 point

If evil was not punished, people won't learnt their lessons from the bad things they have done, and will also not know the harms that they have done to affect other people. Good people will also not get their justice and might even be influenced by these bad people as they can get what they want by doing bad things and not get punished.

So, I think evil should be punished.

Side: True
1 point

Evil should be punished, yes; however, small evils must be corrected, and the perpetrators helped. Someone that complulsively hurts, or has committed war crimes or other unspeakable deeds should be punished; however, someone committing evil deeds because they have no other option or because they know no other way should be helped.

Side: True
1 point

Yes evil should be punished -.- what kind of question is this.

Have Mercy
Side: True
3 points

First, evil is relative, and more than you might think. It's not just a matter of religion "sex is evil! abortion is evil! stem cells are evil!". For example, I don't think that a man who steals to buy food for his family is evil - he's just a victim of a system which doesn't assure everyone will have access to the basic necessities of life. If you want to use an evilness scale, I'd put a person who works on advertisement, for example, much closer to evil than this poor man. This person was educated, had opportunities in life, and chose a profession which specializes in entering our heads and making us want to give them money. It's a technique of theft much more elaborate than those used by the poor man, therefore it seems to me much more evil. Still, I wouldn't say everyone working on advertisement are purely evil. What put them there was the same structure which made the poor man steal. Before going around saying people are doing evil things, I think we should look at our own actions. I know I'm directly supporting an evil act every time I buy some cheap thing made in China, but unfortunately, I'm not given enough options to be good.

Having that said, I don't think any kind of "evil" should be punished, they should be prevented. Since people who do "evil" things due to the system they are in, until the ones who do it driven by emotions (as in crimes of passion).

Punishment in itself will never fix people. We know that by observing that most people come out of prison worse than before. Also, the simple fear of punishment, more than solving problems, is simply complicating people's lives. "I really want to kill that guy, but I'm afraid of hell, I'm afraid of jail." Instead of making people live with these suppressed desires, shouldn't we make their life easier by teaching them that it's better if they don't do that? Living with fear is not necessary or desirable.

Side: False
2 points

No, it's not always true. If the Evil would recognize it's falt and reflect on one's conduct, they may not do the bad thing again.

Side: False
2 points

I think it is more necessary to prevent evil than to punish it. Justice, in terms of punishing evil, is a concept we as humans came up with; but what we really need is to DETER evil, and that may mean punishment and it may not. I think we should be more focused on preventing evil in any way we can, rather than on our human concept of justice. The question I was asking in this debate was not "in most situations is punishing evil necessary?" but "Is punishing evil INHERENTLY necessary". And I think the answer is no.

Side: False

No. Evil must be fought, and the conditions that cause evil to arise must be punished and destroyed.

Side: False
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

So fighting evil wouldn't be considered as part of a punishment? And isn't the existence of evil part of the conditions that create more evil? So evil would still need to be punished.

Side: True
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
1 point

So fighting evil wouldn't be considered as part of a punishment?Nope.

And isn't the existence of evil part of the conditions that create more evil?Sometimes.

So evil would still need to be punished.Nope. You can't punish evil. You can punish people. Sure. But that's not punishing evil.

Fighting evil would include things like utilizing better foreign policy so as to make violent extremism unjustifiable and decrease in its presence, purpose and propensity to act.

Side: False
nagtroll(275) Disputed
1 point

No evil must be fought.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: True
1 point

Can we have a clarification of what evil is first and not have to explain what we believe it is? This topic is too broad to be discussed. There are groups of people who would believe that what you say is evil, is quite normal or something they need to do. This discussion is useless, it's too subjective and broad. Say something specific, such as "Should he acts of [Group X] be punished as to attempt to reform their ways?" With sides 1. Yes, they will discontinue their acts after being deterred by punishment; 2. No, it would not change the situation, but make the situation worse.

Side: False
1 point

My apologies; I define evil as an act that harms another person. I disagree, however, that this is too broad to be discussed. Yes, discussing something broad makes things less clear cut, but sometimes more interesting as well.

Side: False
nagtroll(275) Disputed
1 point

Much too simplistic. My mama always told me...

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: True