Debate: Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?
Side: I oppose it

You are trying to prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer, therefore the burden of proof is yours.Again, no, you are trying to prove that executing a murderer is good, you have burden of proof.Why does it have to be me as opposed to you who should answer that question.Because you have the burden of proof, you are pushing a claim that we should change something (that we should execute all murderers), I am arguing that that something is bad.How can you prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer unless you can prove that a murderer does actually have any value?I don't have to - the assumption here is that all people have value. A murderer is a person, therefore the beginning assumption is that they have value. It is your job to prove that they don't, not mine that they do.Just because something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong.What is the point of doing it if it isn't right? Murderers can be intelligent, but that doesn't mean that they are able to use their intelligence to the benefit of society.Nor does it mean that they cannot, your absolutist logic doesn't work here.Nor does it mean that they would apply their intelligence properly.Nor does it mean that they wouldn't.Murderers are incapable of any true philanthropy and are devoid of any good will.Again, absolutist. Yes, murder is wrong, incredibly so. But that doesn't mean that there is no chance of a murderer doing something good, ever. That's a ridiculous claim.Murderers have no economic benefits.Except if they have a job, have ever sold anything, have ever made a job for another, etc.You have just answered my question, so you certainly are able to pinpoint what makes a human of any value.I gave you three examples, there are countless more - you cannot just pinpoint it on one thing and I am damn sure that you haven't looked at every case and every aspect. In other words, your sweeping assumptions are utter bullshit.so don't tell me I don't listen.Considering how many of my arguments you ignored previously, I maintain the assertion.What defines a person mentally is that they have the abilities of imagination, emotion, empathy and reason.And you have evidence to back up the claim that every person that has ever killed a person illegally has none of any of those qualities? Evil is defined by sadism, egotism, coldness and a desire to pervert what is real and true. Evil is also the desire to be repulsive and to cause repulsiveness for the sake of causing what is repulsive.Committing a violent crime is in almost if not every case not out of "the desire to be repulsive." It is usually for personal gain, and doesn't immediately entail any of those qualities. We are debating why you oppose the death penalty, instead of supporting it. Of course you are supposed to prove that executing murderers is wrong.Again, no. You have burden of proof. The affirmative claim here is that there is good reason to kill criminals, we are not here debating about my personal position on the matter but the matter itself.I believe that executing those that murder is the right thing to do, therefore it isn't "murder"Ah I see so if I believe that killing a person is the right thing to do it isn't murder. That's the distinction you're making?Of course I didn't "answer" your statements. Instead I had asked you what you actually thought.If you don't answer the statement then the (utterly accurate) assumption is that you either agree with them or cannot answer them. Seeing as you still haven't it only furthers my point.Prisons should be used to rehabilitate those who can change for the better of society, not to house those that only murder others.So you're saying that any criminal that isn't a murderer can be rehabilitated but not a murderer? If I were to brutally rape 20 people and you shot a person over a disagreement - you're telling me that I am perfectly fine to "rehabilitate" but we must immediately execute you? The whole point of a prison isn't to waste money on murderers who can't change. That's counter intuitive.No, the point of a prison is punishment for those that do wrong. Additionally - provide a logical explanation as to a: why every murderer is inherently a bad person regardless of any other trait they have and b: why they cannot ever changeMurderers are also in high security prisons. Within those prisons murderers always live a life of luxury. They are nothing like those hell houses that petty criminals tend to go to.Cite your sources for that - a high security prison is not "a life of luxury." It has high security - by definition that is the only assumption you can make.You're claim is that the death penalty is wrong. Just because something isn't right doesn't make it wrong. Based on that argument it would be wrong for me to rub my head. Just because rubbing my head isn't right doesn't make it wrong.My argument that killing in general is wrong - it isn't exclusive to capital punishment but that is an extension of it. It is established that the downside of capital punishment is a person dying - so until you can prove that there is a legitimate good thing that comes out of that then this is an argument you have lost.Morality is subjective, so executing a murderer isn't necessarily wrong because morality can be subjective.Executing anyone is wrong, if you would argue otherwise why the fuck are you defending your position?Yes, it can be proven that it is beneficial to society.Then prove that it is and that it outweighs the downsides.Of course psychopaths have no value as people.Based on what warrant? You are speaking as if they're a different species.Psychopaths are inherent monsters. All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory.Again, provide evidence supporting the claim that every person that has ever had psychopathy is a monster and should be killed.But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society.Oh I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists fighting the system.Murderers are the monsters that can't.Provide a fucking warrant for your claims, seriously. Give me a logical, step by step explanation as to why a person can, regardless of any and every other factor, NEVER be beneficial to society based on the fact that they killed a person illegally.When it comes to murderers, there is not a very big difference between the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath".There is, and I have explained it to you. But again, you have been ignoring it, you haven't looked it up, you haven't thought it through. You are sticking to your emotions, and failing to use logic.Whenever we use any of those terms, I obviously intend to describe anybody who feels no emotions.In which case you are "obviously" only talking about sociopaths. Not every murderer, apparently.Being a soldier benefits society, so even if a psychopath is a soldier, doesn't mean we should execute them.So again we have a contradiction. You have been arguing that every psychopath, regardless of any other factors, is a monster with no value and should be executed. Now you have made an exception to psychopaths that are part of the military.Having that has no value is a waste of money.A life is more important than money.We are trying to debate why murderers from your perspective have no value.Actually that is your position, that they have no value, regardless. My position is that they should not be executed, which does not mention value.Killing someone without good cause or motive is classified as murder.So it isn't murder then if I stand to gain money? It isn't murder if I consider that person mean enough to be killed? It isn't murder if I want something they own? It isn't murder if they stole from me? It isn't murder if I stand to gain power? It isn't murder if they are offensive? I could go on, but you get the point.The motives for murder are merely to gain control and to cause pain and shame to the victims.Except that usually murder is done for money, or in revenge of something. (the latter being what you are here advocating for)The motives for murder are very egotistical in nature.Not all murders, very few in fact. Lack of empathy means that someone likes every single other quality known to man.I'm assuming this was a typo and you meant "lacks" but correct me if I'm wrong. Empathy is just the ability to see from another's perspective (something that you seem very lacking in). It doesn't entail any other quality.Keeping people isn't meant to reduce money, keeping people in prisons is to house people without having to kill them. It is about locking people up. As I had said before, keeping murderers in prisons still wastes money and more expensive than killing them or just letting them to die.The fact that money here is even a question really says a lot about the kind of person you are. You're right that not killing people is more expensive than killing them, but the fact that you cannot see why we almost always choose the former in today's society begs the question of why you are acting so much higher than a person that kills illegally. We can't get arrested for rising hatred for murders.And I am not saying that you should be, hatred for the act of murder is completely justified. Hate crimes are considered hate crimes if you raise hatred for black people and gays, you can't commit a hate crime against murderers, legally.I haven't said anything about hate crimes, and I don't really know why you think I have. Additionally, this is an utter lie. If you were to go into a prison right now and kill someone who was locked up who was a murderer, you would be charged legally with murder.I just shows a good backbone.Oh fuck yeah lets make ourselves look manly and kill people because we're tough and have good backbones!If a person has absolutely NO value, then there is no point in allowinf them to live.I don't think you know what utilitarian meansI have already offered evidence for my claim that I believe murderers lack value and should be killed.You have provided claims, but no evidenceNot all psychopaths should be killed.Okay literally quoting you from this post: "Psychopaths are inherent monsters.All psychopaths are egotistic and predatory.But some monsters like CEO's are also capable of benefitting society.Murderers are the monsters that can't."Just those that commit murder.What about people that commit murder that aren't psychopaths?There is nothing wrong with that, is there?Of course there is something wrong with that - to hold any sort of absolutist viewpoint that says "they should die" is wrong because it doesn't take into account any possible context!No one should care for a murderer being executed. They cause more harm than good. And the family and friends of a murder are better of without them, too.Go find someone whose child is on death row - and say that to them.I'll ask you this question, why would it damage the justice system?Because a justice system that is against killing cannot turn around and use killing as punishment - it is counter intuitive. You made that claim, now I want to know why you believe it.And I did - I don't make claims I haven't thought through and stick to themThere is nothing wrong with being a Jew.I would agree that you shouldn't go out and kill Jews - whether or not there's something wrong with it is a different argument entirely and isn't exclusive to Judaism.We are talking about murderers here and why they have no value.We're actually talking about whether they should be executed or not.As long as we aren't murderers, we all have something to offer to societyBeing a murderer doesn't inherently mean you can offer nothing to society - and you have yet to offer evidence to support that claim.How am I wasting money on the internet.Using the internet uses moneyChildish.And undisputedEven more childish.Considering that you are arguing in favor of eugenics, through execution, it's a valid point.