The Death penalty is a just form of punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

I have to be quick and I'm limited by room. ------------------------------ "I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Kant's works, but I'll refute this attack anyway." ---- My familiarity with Kant's work is irrelevant, only replying to that which you quoted is. ------------------------------ To your first response... As mentioned previously, this is allowing them to define the rules. "giving which they have set up", "the criminals have set the standard of death" and "We are essentially giving them what they want." This last one is particularly unusual thing to say, as they (generally) clearly have no desire to die. And again, as I mentioned previously, they aren't expecting to get caught. As previously, I submit that this point my opponent has put forward is an attempt to pass the responsibility of OUR actions to the criminal. The simple fact is, they only die if we kill them, that makes US responsible however you contort the logic. This... "we are showing that killing cannot be done in society." and... "I also do not think that it is wrong. I believe the death penalty is right." Contradict each other. Killing is killing. To protect yourself from an imminent threat, because there is NO OTHER OPTION, is the only time that killing is justifiable. -------------------------------- "My Response: It doesn't matter if the person was anti-death penalty. The criminal deserves the same worth he gave his victim. Which is no worth. Allowing a criminal to life, while their victim is dead, is a crime in and of itself." ---- So we have now established firmly, that my opponent thinks that the opinion and/or wishes of the victim are not important/relevant. ---------------------------- "Essentially, it is showing that the government values the life of a criminal more then that of the victim. you also like the idea of subjectivity. For this, human worth is objective. Killing without full retribution devalues the human worth of the innocent. ---- It is interesting that you would phrase it like this lol "show that the government values the life of the criminal more than the victim" Why does it not show that the government believes it is more moral, and should NOT preform the same physical act that the criminal has committed? Someone probably loves this person whatever their actions (their mother/father) so in fact by killing them, we are not ending the emotional anguish of victims but creating MORE victims. This goes against the very reason for justice, to protect innocent people. Unless of course my opponent believes that the relatives of the perpetrator are less human/important/innocent than any other victim? --------------------------- "My Response: I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Locke's philosophy as well...." Again, this is not relevant to the debate at hand, and I would put forward that it is a subtle attempt to suggest that my not having read the works of these people undermines my side of the debate, it does not. I'm sure there are works that you have not read, and more so that neither of us have read. Again, this is a debate on the issue presented, AS PRESENTED. This is NOT a debate on the works of Kant and Locke, so ask that you try not to deviate from the subject at hand. ---------------------------- In reply to the rest of your above response (the third). ---- "government has an obligation to it's people to distribute justice" This is why we have prisons among other things. If you are suggesting that "people do not have the right to live in this country if they do not except this 'social contract'" Should anyone who does NOT believe in the death penalty be deported? Where to? Or should they be executed as well? lol --------------------------- "Response #4 = The Social Contract is a contract between people and state... "According to locke" is not an argument of merit, according to some people they have been abducted by aliens and been given an anal probe (worth traveling across the universe for I'm sure). Quoting someone is fine, but it does not give the argument any more gravitas (not when debating someone who sees things like that anyway). As for "if a person does not leave their country then the submit to the contract" Firstly, people can not choose where they are born, and secondly, where should they go? What about people who disagree with the death penalty ("contract") but have no intention of committing a crime? They should leave also? --------------------------- Response #5 = No offense, but you seem to be confused with polticial philsophy with political application... ---- lol "No offense" is something said to appear polite as you offend someone. But anyway, how have I confused them? I think both are relevant if that's what you mean. I don't get confused easily you'll find. "Politicians increasing their own career have nothing to do with this" Are you joking? You think if 99% of people disagreed with the death penalty they'd still enforce it? --------------------------- Response # 6 = Ok, and what does the victim have left?... ---- We established your opinion on the wishes of the victim and their families already, I'm not sure why NOW you DO think they are important. ------------------------------ Response #6 = Of course there is. We as people agree to living in a particular society... ---- Already covered twice above. ------------------------------ Response #7 = It is not about stooping to their level... ---- According to you it is about affording to the perpetrator that which they have afforded to the victim, irrespective of the wishes/beliefs of the victim's beliefs in life, or those of the family of the condemned. How is this not at least stooping CLOSE to their level? Killers don't care about the wishes/beliefs of others either. "I never debated consquentialism as a point of mine. I am debating from a deontological perspective." How is that not relevant to my belief that prison (protecting the innocent) is a moral obligation and executing someone is not? Or does it only matter what you think/debate? lol ----------------------------- 1) It's a long process to limit the number of innocent people killed. And I didn't say we should go for the cheapest option, I said it was more expensive as a logical side issue worth consideration in context with everything else. Is it not relevant? 2) But the Bill surfaced in the first place it could of gone either way. Stealing a car in your opinion doesn't warrent death, murder in my opinion doesn't either. The point was you allow it for one thing, it can escalate. Which was my point 3) The killer is a killer lol This is another blatant example of you suggesting we can be the same. Wow! (that alone should win it for me right there) 4) This one has been covered extensively above. 5) As I said "It's a social issue comprised of many factors". But, it is not proved either way to discourage murder this is true. This would however logically suggest that if there is an effect, it is minimal. Otherwise the proof would be obvious. 6) "No the death penalty is driven by people who want to see criminals GET WHAT THEY DESERVE and to archive justice." ---- Hmm, sounds like revenge to me "Revenge is a personal retribution". Also, psychologically speaking, it is interesting that "justice" came second to "get what they deserve". "Were Kant and Locke ill-informed citizens of their country?" Relevance discussed. "This attack about citizens and politicians isn't warranted at all. It's only coming from an assertion from someone who cares more about the life of the criminal then the human worth of the victim." Discussed, also I will point out that even criminals are human. This perhaps is the point being missed. A good point at which to close.