CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I do not think the death penalty should be allowed. When one thinks about it the issue is if someone goes to jail for murder you can not go on to give that person the punishment of death. What does that teach society? the easy way out? No we should not have the right to determine someone's life. It is not our choice to chose the future of someone within the death aspect.
I don't even think you need to defend being against the death penalty. The burden is on the other side to demonstrate that it actually works as some kind of deterrent in the first place; then we can debate the morality and/or logic of it.
The morality behind the death penalty is wrong. It's almost doing an eye for an eye. What are we teaching others then? that if you commit a bad crime all you'll get death? The government's job is to provide Justice. How are you going to provide a good and fair Justifiable act when you're literally doing what a person is told not to do. It's straight up bull.
Morality is subjective. There is no such thing as right and wrong in an objective sense.
It's almost doing an eye for an eye. What are we teaching others then? that if you commit a bad crime all you'll get death? The government's job is to provide Justice. How are you going to provide a good and fair Justifiable act when you're literally doing what a person is told not to do. It's straight up bull.
I agree with you. I'm completely against the death penalty. My point was simply that these other arguments about morality and hypocrisy don't even matter if the death penalty doesn't do the job it is supposed to be doing in the first place.
Okay you say Morality is subjective meaning morals are only applied because we've put them and they're actually not real but
I say that morality is not subjective. While the concept of right and wrong is different for other human beings, there are central tenets that all humans share in regards to morality such as:
- Do not hurt other humans.
- Do not beat your spouse.
- Give your children a loving home to grow up in.
- Live your lives with dignity, and respect for yourself.
- Be the better man/woman in arguments.
And so on.
There are certainly some areas of morality which are subjective and open to opinion, but there are central points and characteristics which make you moral or immoral.
You can say what you like. That doesn't make it true, reasonable or even plausible. In fact, all you've done by writing that statement is alerted me to the fact that you are not very smart.
While the concept of right and wrong is different for other human beings, there are central tenets that all humans share in regards to morality
OK, well the immediate problem with that is that humans are only one out of a current 8.7 million different species, many of which regularly eat each other. Some of them even eat their own young.
Blah, blah, blah
The similarities between moral values across cultures is no different -- or less explainable -- than all the other similarities which exist across cultures. Most cultures wear clothes. Therefore, following your (ahem) "logic", then it must be an objective fact that every form of life in the universe wears clothes, right?
No, not right. Learn to think harder. The human race was once much smaller, much closer together, and these values we share can be traced back through history to older cultures.
I've had another think about it and decided it was unfair to say that you're not very smart. You've made a good attempt at defending an indefensible position.
Another thing that we have to look into is the fact that how can you even prove subjective morality exist. If there really is no difference between right and wrong, then sociopaths are perceiving the world more accurately than the rest of us. While we look at the world and perceive a difference between right and wrong that isn't really there, sociopaths see the world as it truly is--completely devoid of any right or wrong. But we all think sociopaths are crazy. That's why we consider it a mental illness. Their minds aren't working right. If we consider sociopath y to be a mental illness, that shows that we think a correctly working mind is a mind that perceives a difference between right and wrong.
objective morality exists, whether we like to acknowledge it or not. Those that base their morals on a subjective source (one's self or another person) would say "no". If morality was a subjective matter, there wouldn't be an objective wrong - yet if one breaks a law, it is an objective wrong. It is counted as "wrong" because the law was broken, not because the action was judged good or bad by the person breaking the law
just because you don't agree with my arguments doesn't mean you have to call me as not being smart. Maybe I word things differently, and if you were a so called great debater as you perceive to be you wouldn't of made that abusive argument. If morality is subjective, then any act of 'evil' is no more 'evil' than a shark preying on its victims for food. So if I came to your house, beat your mother and sisters to death, beheaded your father and brothers, raped your wife and ate your baby on the basis of what I think is right and okay for me, are you telling me that you wont judge me and hate me because you must respect my subjective morality? That you have no right to feel disgust of disapproval because my wrong and right doesn't apply to you? Are you saying that nobody else in the world will feel the same way you would if I did it to their family? Then you subjective morality argument completely fails.
just because you don't agree with my arguments doesn't mean you have to call me as not being smart.
Yes, I've already acknowledged that I was being unfair. But it isn't a case of agreeing or disagreeing with your arguments. Capitalism has helped forge this egregious belief that everything is a matter of opinion, but many things in the universe are simply objectively true. No amount of argument is going to overcome them.
If morality is subjective, then any act of 'evil' is no more 'evil' than a shark preying on its victims for food.
I'm afraid this is also a misunderstanding. Humanity creates subjective interpretations of reality because humans themselves are subjective. They cannot experience the universe in an objective way directly. It can only be done by training the mind to differentiate between signals (i.e. thoughts) coming from the subjective (i.e. emotional) side and those coming from the objective (i.e. rational) side. Fundamentally, just because rules (including what is/is not morally acceptable) might not reflect objective reality, it does not necessarily mean they do not have any value for the societies in which we live.
The death penalty is an outdated and unconstitutional punishment. It violates the eighth amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and it puts too much power in the hands of an imperfect justice system. Also, although I think people's lives should be considered more than a price-tag, it is an extremely costly procedure, the trial alone costing 6 times more than a normal one, and life sentences are actually a cheaper option.
And more of a reason why it should be banned. Being that it isn't effective because people still continue to make crimes, the death penalty is put to make a change yet we aren't seeing any change within crime.
Along with other considerations, all sentences for criminal offences including the death penalty is a punishment.
As punishments should be commensurate with the crime being addressed the death penalty should be the accepted form of justice for those who have wilfully and premediately taken the life of another human being.
Along with other considerations, all sentences for criminal offences including the death penalty is a punishment.
"Punishing" people for an event which has already taken place serves no purpose except as a deterrent to anybody else thinking about the same action. You can't bring murder victims back to life or un-rape people.
As punishments should be commensurate with the crime being addressed the death penalty should be the accepted form of justice for those who have wilfully and premediately taken the life of another human being.
That is ridiculous. It's an infinite regression. If you "punish" a crime with the same crime then you lose all moral ground to be punishing the crime in the first place!! Following the same logic the people who kill the killer are just as culpable as the killer. The killing was willful and premeditated.
The fact that you find "punishment" as murdering someone valid is completely stupid. How is it a punishment when it's basically contradictory to murdering someone and then applying that on the person who committed murder.... please explain to me where the logic in this is? The truth is it doesn't work. We all want a criminal justice system that’s sensible, effective, and creates a safe society with less crime—and evidence shows that the death penalty has no impact on public safety. Stats from the Death Penalty Information Center indicate that in the past forty years, there have been 1,184 executions in the South compared to just four in the Northeast, and yet homicide figures in 2015 were nearly 70 percent higher in the Southern states.We need to take a closer look at what works and what doesn’t, and use a common-sense approach to improve public safety. By abolishing the death penalty, we could focus our time, energy and resources on supporting victims and families harmed by violence. We must ensure that all victims are treated fairly and with respect. If you listen to victims speak about their experience with the death penalty, you find that virtually all are frustrated with the current system. There’s no such thing as quick and easy in a system that’s supposed to be deliberative to ensure that the innocent aren’t punished along with the guilty—and even then the system gets it wrong too often.
I apologise for being unable to make you see sense.
Blaming the other person for finding the weaknesses in your own arguments is cowardly and weak. Your argument failed because it is self-contradictory and regressive. Perhaps spend more time thinking critically about your own opinions and how they do (or don't) stand up to scrutiny rather than blaming the other guy by default every time they fall short of the mark.
“You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well. When they wish to haul you to court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. When they force you to go one mile, go with them two. Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete.
Murdering people will only result in more hostility towards the governing bodies. Although some times we are inclined to accept the death penalty for heinous criminals who have been committing serial crimes. A sentence of death might look like the only appropriate punishment for a serial assailant, but imprisonment without parole to these criminals would not only be adequate but would serve the purpose more than intended. A lifetime in jail is no mild or generous punishment but would force them to live their remorseful lives whereas execution frees them from the sins they've committed.
