Ok we did this ages ago but with so much new blood i thought it might be fun to do it again

a formal debate on the death penelty

oviously some rules from a debate cant be aplied on a message board but some stucture is good to use rather than just having a free for all.


the rule about one side at a time is to hard to implement but things like

No off topic and no crap would be good starts.
no personal atacks ect

what do you guys think?

i will leave the start to an afermitive like a real debate tho:p

should the state murder?

i would ask you to investigate WHAt the STate IS? what are its principles, its morals, its agandas, etc.

For example with BushCo...heard of 'the New American Century/ New World Order'? it is EVIL. truly fascist. Now THAt State wants to murder individuals. so ARe there individuals SO evil they deserve it?

Well what about the EVIl State. is THAt included in the death penalty? For maybe its very mode of operation BREEDS the horrific violence people do to each other. People become demoralized, desperate, and just give up and murder. Maybe for drugs, money, etc

We KNOW dont we that the death penalty is not a deterrant? Do you agree with that, or do you have evidence it DOEs work? If it doesn't sowk, what then i the prupose of it? Is it to get votes? i would say sure as FUK it is!
i wonder how many black people are on death row in comparison with white people.
And why is that? that lack people are more prone to violence, or that they are more victims of a fasicstic culture that treats
black people as second class citizens

we already know abothe war on SOME drugs dont we, and how this war is fucussed on balck people and ethnic minorities

Instead of keeping our minds focussed on whether the death penalty is right or wrong, it is better to see how the State OPERATES. How it divides and controls. It gets up to all kinds of evil---causing conglics between people, polluting the environment of the world, drugging children to fit into their evil shit.

look, i KNOW that people can commit awful crimes of violence. BUT to just fous on them withOUT looking a the State and how it operates just really makes us scapegoat its victims, instead of looking at the roots of what makes people desperate, and violent

And the debate rules stall at the starting line.

:m: Peace.

duendy do you know what a formal debate is?

i guess its not going to work if i cant even get one post for the affermitive to start it off.
oh well

Mod Hat - Beneath the Wheel


And the debate rules stall at the starting line

Maybe I should start experimenting with "moderated debates", but to be honest I no more wish to filter through the posts and censor them than I would imagine anyone else would want me to.

In the meantime, have patience, unless of course you are covertly working under a deadline.

As for the stumbling and stalling itself, I'm going to let it stand. As a testament to ... um ... er ... something.

The human dromedy? Maybe?
______________________

A note on the title: I have no idea why, but that was the first phrase to mind after seeing the term "starting line". It comes from a song. I ripped off the title. And I felt some strange compulsion to make an appearance here in green type. It bears no actual relevance to the contents of the post. Er ... smoke on, folks. Or something like that.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85871

Here are some already established rules you can leech off, err, borrow.

t, are you high... again? use your freedoms wisely man..

Mod Hat - Again?

What's all this about "again"?

More seriously, though, I respect attempts to foster organized debate that actually goes somewhere. Also, Duendy's response sparked some minor tension. I operate as casually as possible in the moderator role. Putting in an appearance reminds that I do pay attention from time to time, despite a recent failing in that regard. Additionally, it drops the hint that I can force "civilized" and "progressive" debate. And while I'm reluctant to censor mere deviation from a request, and feel the direct responses of posters adequate without being too severe, putting on my green hat early gives me greater influence before anything truly ugly occurs.

I perceived enough reasons to drop in, but there wasn't a whole lot to say.

south star: that is much more limited than i intened. i didnt mean a debate with a time limit or rounds as most people have other things to do nor did i want to limit who could go for it. I was just trying to make it slightly more structured than the genral threads where its free for all and anything is alowed. An example of what i was TRYING to avioid is the only post here. it has barly anything to do with the intened topic and could have been posted in any other thread or its own. i was just trying to start a light hearted debate on a topic that isnt as inflamintory as something like religion or politics or gay rights where it is totally emotional. I think most people understand how a real debate works and altho i didnt want one team against another team with only one responce from each i did kind of want a little stucture in it

hope you understand

ok i think i will try and get the ball rolling even tho the coustem is for the afermitive to start

ok why is the Death Penelty wrong?

I will be arguing that the death penelty is not just wrong but unnessary for a civilised sociaty to even contemplate. My reasons for this are varied from religion, to falibility

I belive the death penelty is wrong because it doesnt deter crime. In fact the oposite is almost always the case. In places where the maximum sentance is life without the possability the murder rates are usually lower than in places where the death penelty is the higest punishment

I also belive that the saying "an eye for an eye" is not the way a civilised sociaty should go. I prefer to take the other message of forgiveness from jeasus than the old testerments ridgid rules

Also there is the chance of killing an inocent person. I belive that ANY chance of the states killing the wrong person is enough for the death penelty to be abolished by itself. After all a life with out sentance can always be revoked and the person compensated. This isnt true if you kill them

Then there is the actual person carring out the sentance. You have efectivly turned them into the very thing you are against, a murder. Is it really fair to ask someone to perform this weather they are willing or not

so inclosing i belive that this is the wrong action to take in any case as we have a viable option to it

thank- you

duendy do you know what a formal debate is?

dont go get all high and mighty with me. I know what relating to serious issues is. Formality usually hides behind a pile of self-denying crap prtending to want to explore the truth of things. Thus i HATe formality. when you talk about issues such as death penalties etc, EVERYTHING is inlcuded in it, especially the high falluting manner of the one who began the topic

i guess its not going to work if i cant even get one post for the affermitive to start it off.
oh well

it aint 'workin' cause you dont CARe about what yer discussin, but only the FORMALITY. you'd make a good politician

note - i am anti DP, but i love a good debate so:

I belive the death penalty is wrong because it doesnt deter crime. In fact the oposite is almost always the case. In places where the maximum sentance is life without the possability[of paroll] the murder rates are usually lower than in places where the death penalty is the higest punishment

that is because in places with low cirme rates a prison sentence is all that is needed. yet in high crime areas, with gangs and unemployment at every turn
a more severe punishment is needed, so that people learn crime doesnt pay, it has infact lowered crime rates, yet the amount of crime is too high to start with for the DP to make much of a difference, it would be worse if it wasnt there.

I also belive that the saying "an eye for an eye" is not the way a civilised society should go. I prefer to take the other message of forgiveness from jesus than the old testaments ridgid rules

it is not directly an eye for on eye, the first murder lands you a jail sentence, then the second gets you killed, because if you did not change your ways after the punishment, the only way to ensure the safety of others is to eliminate all chance of you repeating your crime

Also there is the chance of killing an inocent person. I belive that ANY chance of the states killing the wrong person is enough for the death penalty to be abolished by itself. After all a life sentence can always be revoked and the person compensated. This isnt true if you kill them

what makes their chances of being freed any more if they are given a sentence instead of death, with the amount of time served on death row there is more than enough time to present evidence to free them

Then there is the actual person carring out the sentance. You have efectivly turned them into the very thing you are against, a murder. Is it really fair to ask someone to perform this weather they are willing or not

but that person would also have the pride of the knowing they have prevented the murder of many more

The death penelty is uneffective as a deterant. This if firstly because most crimes are comited under an altered mind state, be that from achole, drugs, self delusion or mental illness. Apart from that it may seem to be an easier sentance to just die rather than spend everyday of the rest of your life in a 10x10 cell.

If a person is locked away for the rest of there life that would seem to be the end of there threat to sociaty. there is no need for more punishment. After all we want to proclame that we are a civilised sociaty yet we are acting no better than thoes we seek to punish. Sociaties should follow there own rules and if killing is wrong its wrong.

Also it costs as much as 3-4 times the cost of keeping a person in prision for the rest of there life to kill them

As to how they have to prove there inocence it could come the day after they are killed. How long did it take to for linisly Chambelen to be found to be inocent? It took an intire change in forensic science to prove that she was telling the truth. Why take the risk when the person is locked up anyway?

leniancy is shown in cases where people are in a bad state of mind, yet if they choose to drink themselves stupid again, after whatever pnuishment they are given, they deserve to be removed from the gene pool

life in prison can be sweet when you have the money tho, mobsters often pay off guards in return for better facilities and luxuries normal prisoners dont get. what is the point even putting them there, it is not a punishment. but when they are killed, a strong messace goes out to others that killing is nto acceptable

i seriously doubt your source on this

but we have reached almost perfect forensics, plus generally, if someone did not commit the crime there is evidence to prove it. if we kill one person by accident then that is a small price to pay in order to prevent the murders that others who are guilty from killing again

It has been mentioned that the Death Penalty is needed in regions with high crime rate. In regions with lower crime rates the Death Penalty is not required as a deterrent.

We shouldn't confuse cause and effect here. What is the real reason that in certain regions, or countries the crime rate is lower. Apparently not because there is a Death Penalty. If you truly want to lower crime rates you should look at the real factors that are responsible for lower crime rates, such as a more equal distribution of wealth and a fair system of social welfare, and other factors.

Death Penalty is not going to have a major effect on crime rates. It seems more like a desperate last measure. Why not go about it in a more rational appraoch and make changes at fundamental social levels.

are you pro or con?

Who cares in a democracy if an individual is pro or con?

edit- I live in a country without death penalty or without worrying crime rates and are quite happy about it. That would make me a con I guess.

IF you agree with the death penalty then you can identify with a fat bellied, red necked fartin pseudo-cowboy Texan with his pseudo-cowboy hat on.....you also would feel quite at home close chattin with WbushCo at dinner....etc etc etc

when you accept the death penalty you have GIVEN UP!

you are quite happy with the sate of things, with exploitation of people, with polluting Nature making it unfit for others, other species, and all the generations to come....'fart'.....

You IMAGINE your state-murder is doing something. yeah, right, like the state sponsored murder in Iraq is gonna DO something!

See through this crap, for fuks sake.

ohg yeah, and if we are talking death panalty for 'more than one murder' (did someone say here?)...well, hey, why isn't BushCo already on death row?....they have tankloads of blood on their hands, and other evil shit like causing all kinds of cancers, causing the awful death (through sanctions of over a million children, causing monstrous birth deformities, and unprecidented pollution to the environment...etc etc
So why aren't you screaming for them to be exterminated if you care about the death paenalty so much?

off topic but: because they are blind to the actions of their government, people in yankland actually believe bush is a good man :eek:

what you just said vslayer is...IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER "off topic"!
If 'formal debate' means that one mustn't mention about the MULTIPLE murderous foulness of Mr preseedent, who keeps the death penalty fat with planty sacrifical victims, then formal debate can go and %$£* itself. i want no part in it. you simply cannot talk about issues like this withut being aware of the whole picture, otherwise it is totally superficial and wont open anything up...that NEEDs opening. they only way you can see is when you open it up and have a LOOK

yeah the dupes think that murdering war criminal Bush is marvelous and the best thang since jeeeesuz. And then demonize the black people, American indians, ethnic minorities, poor people, people. Many of them--lead desperate lives
i am not saying therer aren't people who do really shoking evil stuff to others. i am not saying they shouldn't be punished--locked up so they dont do some more. but to then sit on a system which condones mass murder, and say that's alright abc should be executed is hypocricial to the extreme. it is just MORE murder commited and backed by people who dont WANT to even understadnwhats going on

Someone should point duendy to one of the many 'I hate Bush' threads, where his vitriol would be much more suited.

bush is a factor, but you have to remember that there is more to the evil american overlords than jsut bush, he has an entire party backing him, and that party is backed by 50%of yanks, so that just makes the death penalty issue even more fence sitting

That begs the question if all those people that voted for a world leader that orders attrocities such as the unnecessary murdering of civilians also should receive the death penalty. If I am not mistaken you would also be guilty of murder under the american law system if you support someone to commit murder or don't stop him doing so.

yeah spyke, you're the 'someone' thats done it int ya?
and please dont direct my vitriol. i am quite capable of knowing when, and where, to direct it ta

having said that, do YOu not see the relevance of why i bring it up in this discussion, about the death penalty that BushCo loves?
if not, please explain to the ladies and gentlemen if you'd be soooo kind?

Since you asked. And I'll use your own words -

If 'formal debate' means that one mustn't mention about the MULTIPLE murderous foulness of Mr preseedent, who keeps the death penalty fat with planty sacrifical victims, then formal debate can go and %$£* itself. i want no part in it.

Wanting no part of it means staying out of it, not mucking up someone else's thread with your own propaganda. It's like an anti-abortion critic demanding equal time on the microphone at an anti-war rally. If you want to condemn Bush, there is the 'One Thread To Rule Them All' where you can rail to your heart's content about Iraq without ruining this thread.

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution, expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim's relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general.

[...]

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint.

[..]

Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed.

And finally, our ultimate trump card, used way before us by the slave masters in their attempt to justify slavery.

The Greeks were a civilized society and they did it, so that means we can do it too!!!

Capital punishment for murder, treason, arson, and rape was widely employed in ancient Greece under the laws of Draco (fl. 7th century BC), though Plato argued that it should be used only for the incorrigible. The Romans also used it for a wide range of offenses, though citizens were exempted for a short time during the republic. It also has been sanctioned at one time or another by most of the world's major religions.Followers of Judaism and Christianity, for example, have claimed to find justification for capital punishment in the Old Testament passage “Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Yet capital punishment has been prescribed for many crimes not involving loss of life, including adultery and blasphemy. The ancient legal principle Lex talionis (talion)—“an eye-for-an-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth, a life-for-a-life”—which appears in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, was invoked in some societies to ensure that capital punishment was not disproportionately applied.


And so we have presented moral, utilitarian, practical, and historical arguments in favor.

[Note: The above does not necessarily reflect my views, only trying to stimulate something. //End backdoor cop-out]

how can ANY risk of killing an inocent be concidered to be justifide? In a sociatly that values life how can we aford to take that risk? would you favor charging the judge who handed down a sentance of death to an inocent man with murder? how about the jury? or the prosicutor? After all that is what they have done, they have taken an inocent life in cold blood which is the definition of murder.

This is going ... well.

how can ANY risk of killing an inocent be concidered to be justifide? In a sociatly that values life how can we aford to take that risk? would you favor charging the judge who handed down a sentance of death to an inocent man with murder? how about the jury? or the prosicutor? After all that is what they have done, they have taken an inocent life in cold blood which is the definition of murder.

Remember this truth:

No one has earned the right to live.

mSince you asked. And I'll use your own words -



Wanting no part of it means staying out of it, not mucking up someone else's thread with your own propaganda. It's like an anti-abortion critic demanding equal time on the microphone at an anti-war rally. If you want to condemn Bush, there is the 'One Thread To Rule Them All' where you can rail to your heart's content about Iraq without ruining this thread.

But you avoided my question. i asked you to explain why it is you do not see the relevance of a State that sponoros and carries mass murder, and pollution of Nature isn't relevant to this discussion?
Why do you wanna get rid of this aspect. VERY important aspect i might say.