Proposal: Death penalty

I would like to challenge and debate MYSELF (I will explain it later) on the issue of Death Penalty (DP from now on), so we could put this issue to rest forever.

The debate would be universal, meaning not country specific, thus all or any country can be brought up as example, not just the US. Logical fallacies are not allowed, facts are very welcomed. Opinions are nice but you can keep it for yourself.

Why debate myself? Well, one condition for a debate would be that I don't debate orthodox people, who are UNWILLING to change their mind on the topic. Why? Because the debate would be worthless, and I would be wasting my time and lots of good arguments. The other side wouldn't learn anything and would never acknowledge any good point to be made. Eventually the debate would end in frustration. The DP issue is pretty much like a religion, people just don't change their view on it based on arguments or facts.

So since I don't think there is a member here on Sciforums who pass this test, I have to debate myself. Now how would that go?

Well, since there are very few real good and logical argument for the DP just for fun I will debate websites where these arguments are listed.

So if Syzygys accepts the invitation for the debate, I would like to ask anti-DP people to list the best websites with anti-DP arguments, and I will go through the top 3 and refute them one by one.

At the end of the debate posters can vote in the Discussion thread if Syzygys won or Syzygys. It is a win-win situation for everyone...

So Syz, are you up for the debate?

P.S.: I also don't debate Moderators anymore on this issue, based on bad experience in the past. Unless they can not moderate the debate thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess I accept, when do we start? Let's wait a few days for the members listing a few of those websites that needs a good beating. They can even vote among themselves which are the very best ones. As an alternate, arguments can be PMed to me if they are listed in a shortened form...

I could pick websites and arguments randomly, but after looking at 2 of those sites and found them very lucking in brainpower, I want to give a fair chance to the anti-DP side, thus waiting for your vote...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I always knew you had more than one personality. Knock yourself out, Rosanne!

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, why don't you give me let's say 2 links of the very best arguments according to you, and I will refute all of them?
I already explained the lack of aviable debaters for the anti-DP side. We can wait forever...But if you want to learn something, just give me a link and I will have fun with it.

 

Yes, deal. Shot.

P.S.: Just for the record I would like to hear you saying that if sufficient good arguments and facts are presented you are WILLING to change your position on the topic.

 

Against dead-penalty:

1. In terms of human rights (Principle/Ethics):
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

In here, you can try to beat the principles shown by Amnesty International.

2. European Union, as an example international entity (Application):
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm

In here, you should obviously beat European Union…

3. As an arbitrary practice (Politics):
a) Distribution around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
b) Differences among US states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

In here, you can defend the factual and practical advantages (less crime, more security, etc.) of DP countries/states over anti-DP countries. If there is any…

P.S. I am aware of the fact that you asked for three web-sites, yet I gave four of them. If you want to eliminate one, I prefer to keep 3. b) Differences among US states, and get rid of the distribution around the world.

 

Thanks for the effort. Since I already agreed to James earlier, I will just go with his links. I am sure they pretty much overlap with the arguments anyway. If there is any real good one that I miss to address, you can post it here and I will include it...

Edit: I took a look at the mentioned sites. I am expecting a list of arguments and not just emotional rambling...

 

I know you already are debating James R, but in case someone is interested, here are few links for the against argument:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N53/morrison.53o.html

Links are only about the US but it is a global issue. Thanks for opening to debate.

 

To bad we cannot just put humans into stasis, that way everyone would be happy.

 

I was wondering where I put forward the affirmative arguments. Should I just do a separate post? I don't particulary mind if there are more responses than 3-3...

 

Still.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Although I suspect you to be an orthodox....

 

As a quick response to your finally posted response, I am not impressed. The reason I posted pro arguments was so you can deal with them as I presented them. instead you made a list what on at least 2 occasions wasn't my argument. The #1 rule of debates is don't argue against a point, what wasn't made.
Second, you are asking for evidences on arguments, where simply there isn't an accepted statistical value. That's why both of us used words like many and some.
Third, again keep in mind that I argue universally and as it should be. just because DP most of the time isn't that way that doesn't mean it can not be or shouldn't be.

Anyhow, working on the response...

 

DP is LM (legalized murder), we might aswell call it that.

 

This in response to another's claim that we don't tell the government what to do, "they just do it:"

While they do not require individual permission, in representative governments such as the US, they most certainly require collective permission. It is for this reason that while capital punishment has been used by nearly all societies, including extensively throughout the US in her earlier years, in recent decades most state legislatures passed laws against it.

Put simply, the people said "no."

Given the sizeable number of convictions overturned on the basis of DNA and other evidence, I'm inclined to agree with a curtailment until we come up with a far more accurate justice system than the one we have.

Again, put simply, it undermines the credibility of the "proven" portion of "innocent until proven guilty," at least with respect to US Courts.