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

In today's world, that is only too true.Absolutely.Never would have said it isGood.I take it you wouldn't mind being fucked up the ass with your entire family watching?That would be incestuous.Not an invasion of privacy.Hardly. Oh, it is.It really doesn't do much good.Even with all these ridiculous programs, the majority of would-be Islamist terrorists are still turned in by their co-religionists, rather than apprehended by intelligence derived from all these invasions of privacy.The media only documents Islamic terrorists being caught if they were turned in by someone else. The media doesn't cover terrorists getting caught if they were caught due to intelligence collecting emails, phone conversations, etc.Do you know why?The reason is because if terrorists are caught by being turned in, the media is able to find out and like all gossip, it spreads virally. That is the only reason the media grabs hold of cases like that.However, the MI5, MI6 etc, does catch criminals through spying on public communications, the only reason the media isn't able to publicise this is because it is kept hidden from the media's view.The MI5/MI6 etc, doesn't gossip.That somehow justifies it? Wow.I agree.Fascinating how morality works.Such people should be protected, not experimented upon.I would add a caveat that such may not always be the case. In a purely eugenic-driven society, I would not object. However, by the nature of the current socio-political climate, this is inexcusable, and I would tend to agree. All people who are high up have high IQ's.All people who are low down have low IQ's.Control the low IQ's!Was "to be tested upon, poked, prodded, and injected with chemicals" part of their sentence handed down lawfully by a judge presiding over a jury of the accused's peers?Yeah, I didn't think so.The secret services are beyond judicial apprehension.The secret services are only within the governments apprehension, but not the laws.The secret service is above and beyond the law.Could you be any more ignorant?Innocence is the most subjective of all the terms thrown about in today's society.And the evidence that I am providing will prove my subjectivity!No. Government control is about control. Plain and simple.It is a deep-seated element of the human character to desire power.No matter what spin you put on it, this remains the same.It is the entire government combined that has the full control, not any one individual in the government has complete control, but when all those individuals are combined they have complete control.This means that the not one individual has complete control, but the government does.This is an answer to whether people who are hungry for power have the opportunity to dictate America.They will not.I agree that chaos should not be allowed to reign supreme.However, we are getting to the point where totalitarian control may someday reign supreme, and that is no better.The Middle-Ground is a precarious position, difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. America may have been there at one point, but it definitely is not there anymore.Totalitarian control by the government is needed.No citizen desires a middle ground.Nobody deserves it.What we deserve is based on what we have to offer.These experiments are all the inferiorities have to offer.While I would tend to agree that only the more severe cases get reported by our sensationalist news media, there is still the very real possibility that many similar cases remain hidden from the eyes of the public. Every now and then new information comes to light, shedding its rays upon evil deeds committed by the American government: who knows how much worse will appear next year.But, that is, at the moment, unknowable and thus moot. Still, we've plenty to work with. How about the Holmesburg Prison experiments, shall we? A doctor paid to smear dangerous chemicals on peoples' skin and observe the resultant chloracne.What about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment? Black men, ignorant of the reality, forced to live out their cases of syphilis until they've gone mad and died, even though effective treatment was available!What about governments all over the world who dumped nuclear waste embedded in concrete into the oceans? Many sailors became sick, while the government refused to acknowledge the once-accepted practice. Many were left to think they'd become delusional, all the while the government was simply trying to cover their own asses and deny any sort of remedial treatment to those who suffered for its crimes.The thing is, that doctor was careful to pick the right patients to test the skin of regarding the Holmesburg experiment.He was being careful to check for the right results.All these experiments that were tested on prisoners where only tested on the dumb ones.Any doctor or scientist that has performed experiments on prisoners, the dumb ones are always known not to be able to have the same consent.You can't reason with a dumb person, thus a dumb person can't give consent.But an intellectual can. An intellectual is capable of and can't be bypassed when it comes to their ability to give consent.An intellectual is a very powerful person.A prisoner who is intelligent has a lot of rights, perhaps even credentials. They have status and freedom and know how to interact properly.And is there any evidence of those toxic substances deliberately harming any sailors?They've admitted to simulating biological attacks all across America.Any evidence of this?Actually, massive harmless doses. But, unfortunately, not always harmless.Doses cannot be massive.Error filled thinking.You seem to have a similar mentality to that of too many Americans: prisoners are wild animals, deserving nothing more than a piece of bread, some water, and a kick on the ass.1% of Americans are behind bars.Of these, the majority are not violent. So many thousands of people are in jail as a result of minor drug offenses. Many were set up by the government simply to fulfill quotas and to make it look like the agency is effective.Not all prisoners need a kick up on the ass.First off, most Americans don't believe ALL prisoners need a kick up the ass.You've been living in a vain revolution for too long. Not the rest of the country is like that.What state are you in?I live in Britain.And don't lecture me on Britain.The more intelligent ones like con-men and fraudsters, hackers and more higher ranking drug dealers can be rehabilitated.But the murderers can't be.No one can bypass the respect of an intellectual prisoner.No scientist would think about testing an intellectual prisoner.It would just be out of hand.However, any prisoner in full disgrace can be tested by any means possible.They earned the disgrace.I'm sure you could learn a lot about the effects of bullets soaring through a human brain if you were to shoot a hundred people in the head from various distances.Think of the research! Think of the learning!I have made it my life's mission to learn as much as is humanly possible. I have spent most of my life reading books, scientific journals, etc. Yet, even as absolutely obsessed as I am with the acquisition of knowledge, I would never, ever, ever condone an act of violence against another human being merely in the name of the advancement of learning.You haven't tried to learn anything.Don't talk about yourself.That proves you've ran out of arguments.I've done a lot of studying in my time.There's just you.First off, it is better to save idiots for experiments than to just kill them off with bullets.We don't need to experiment on idiots by firing bullets at them, because we already know the damage that bullets cause.If we were to waste dozen of bullets on prisoners by firing bullets at them, we would be testing the damage that bullets cause, but why do we need to test something that we are already aware of?No, instead we need to save prisoners for testing purposes and experimental purposes, they can also be kept as slaves and can be genetically altered to improve their intelligence.But we don't need to waste bullets on them, that is a pointless experiment since we already know the damage of bullets via other means.Firing-boards, firing-fabrics and animal testing is how we test bullets.You mean, millions of lives could be controlled.'cause, y'know, that's kinda the whole thing about mind controlA few dozen or a few hundred minds cause be controlled for the sake a million of a billion lives saved and improved.Did you read it?Keep looking, you'll see where I got my quote.I've roamed around for a while, haven't found it yet.Still waiting to see it hidden under a rock.Why don't we just execute every single person ever so much as accused with a crime? It would seem that that would be your utopia.A lot of criminals can be rehabilitated.But not all of them.Execution when applied on the right people can be useful.I'll be sure to plead that if ever I am accused of homicide.But, your honor, I only killed ONE person! That isn't even statistically significantMy point had gone over your head.Any real number is statistically relevant, no matter how small. Even half than one.But a few isn't statistically relevant because it is a generic number. "A few" is not a real number.Statisticians don't say "a few".So your claim that "a few" doses can kill is fraudulent.Statisticians don't say "a few", do they?Who told you "a few" doses can kill?Certainly not a statistician.If someone was taken to caught for injecting fluid into someone and you said "he injected a few milligrams into this person, cause the statisticians told me so" the judge would say back "really, you believe someone poisoned him because the statisticians TOLD YOU that somebody put a few milligrams into the person?""What statistician says 'a few'!?!"Yeah right, come on, of course the statisticians told us that the government put a few milligrams into people.What statistician says a "A Few" to begin with?Moron.Nobody but you - not even the government, anymore - denies most of these cases of unethical human experimentation.The fact is, whether it is done on one person or on a million, it sets a dangerous precedent and illustrates the lack of consideration held by the government for human rights.You've made your opinion clear.Can you still say where it actually comes from without me disputing it?And I certainly have.That somehow justifies it?Well, yeah.It was only put in the drinks that drunkards often snatch on a Friday night.Some of the smartest men in history have been drug addicts.Stupidity doesn't (always) cause people to drown their sorrows: sorrow causes people to drown their sorrows.I will correct you.Smart people can be keen drug users, but they can't be drug addicts.Only morons are keen drug addicts.Even though smart people may like to use stimulants, only an idiot would constantly overdose on alcohol. No decent person over-doses on alcohol.poisoning of people who refused to capitulate to the whims of a fanatical government.If this line of reasoning was true, then we would see anti-protestors being the primary targets of alcohol poisoning.Not true.By this line of reasoning, would you object to the forced sterilization of all people with IQs under X points?Yes, either we genetically alter them, or we sterilise them.Nor should you.You should blame the people in the government making such vile decisions.Anybody in particular that you hate?Please don't start some hate group.Coming from you, this is a great compliment.Cliché.Not a smart comment at all.Hitler was swift-striking.Americans are lazy. They couldn't win Vietnam. They can barely even hold their own against terrorism. Indeed, I'd say the terrorists have won: look at all the procedures implemented out of fear that have decimated the quality of life for so many Americans!Hitler being swift-striking was evil.Hitler was one individual.We shouldn't rely on the power of one mere swift striking individual.But we should rely on the complete swift power of an entire government.The American government is not lazy.It is the lazy idiots at the bottom that prevent the American government from fighting terrorism.You know exactly what I mean.