Debate: Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?
Side: Anti-Death Penalty

I made an argument for punishment's place in government and simple human interaction. I gave arguments supporting the view and all followed logically. You dismissed what I said based on the definition of the idea of punishment. I will hopefully show you how this is NOT good argument.Let's pretend that we are arguing whether hoses should be used to squirt random kids that we dint know. I say "We should not be able to do that, because squirting little kids does not accomplish what hoses are used for" and then I go on to describe how hoses are used every day and what they are for and why that does not permit us to use it in the way I am debating.You say "Well your idea of hoses is wrong, because the definition of hose is 'a rubber tube that squirts water'. The definition is not 'gardening tool' or 'car washing tool' so your conclusion of why we shouldn't squirt kids with hoses is invalid.  That is a bad argument, because you are describing what is it, not what its proper use is. I was arguing punishments proper use with humans not what is punishment. The definition of punishment includes killing or obviously we wouldn't be debating whether or not it should be actually used. I was saying that assuming the way we use punishment is acceptable, to teach, it would then be unacceptable to kill because it does not fit the bill of proper punishment, because it doesn't teach. It was part of my argument so you cannot dismiss it as a conclusion until you show my arguments to be faulty. You did not do this, you just said what punishment is.There wasn't faulty logic until you made your second point. Why do people even question whether death is an acceptable form of punishment in the first place? Because there are acceptable and unacceptable forms of punishment. What makes a punishment acceptable or unacceptable? Well what makes a car acceptable? If it preforms the job of an automobile efficiently if at all. What makes anything acceptable? If it accomplishes the goal it is meant to accomplish. I made arguments as to what we want to accomplish by using punishment and my conclusion was to teach. I then went on to say how death does not teach and therefore should not be allowed as a form of punishment. I didn't alter the definition as rehabilitation, i concluded with the points that I gave that we use punishment to teach right from wrong. People in prison have done wrong and if we want our prisoners to be an asset to the country we must teach them right from wrong so they can be productive and positive. This is their rehabilitation. I did not say that punishment was rehabilitation. i was saying how their punishment should be considered a rehabilitation if we want any hope of turning their life around. Everything logically follows, you just cant stop thinking that the identity of something completely dictates its uses. Your argument for the hose would be "We should squirt little kids because hoses squirt." You didn't clarify anything, because you suck.Death was used as a form of punishment, but that doesn't mean that it SHOULD have been used. That is what I was arguing. What I was saying is that you cannot use an English description of an ancient concept and say that since the English description has it this way there can be no interpretation of its uses and practicality. Thats stupid.This next point of yours is a grade A example of how awful you are at this. Your "beef" was absolute bullshit. Punishment is a way to teach people to be better and benefit society and this was backed up by the arguments that I gave. Death should not be included as an acceptable form of punishment and this is also backed up by the arguments that I gave. I never said that death was not a form of punishment. I concluded that it wasn't based on my points, which you did not argue at all. Death is a form of punishment, but not an ACCEPTABLE form of punishment, because it does not accomplish what we use punishment for, learning. I said that the definition and what I said are the same, because the one who is being rehabilitated is still being punished with suffering or pain and it is accomplishing the goal of them learning right from wrong. Death does not accomplish this and is therefore unacceptable. How do you not get this? As for your next point, here we go. To win a debate you need a judge. What does the judge actually judge? Whether each party argued and defended well enough. You did not argue any of my points, only my conclusion. You argued against my conclusion with another conclusion, but to argue a conclusion you have to first argue its points so that the conclusion is invalid. You do not even understand what debating is! The fact that you didn't debate the points means that my conclusion is still valid because it followed from logical points. Your conclusion was valid until I argued against your points. Try to understand that I haven't been arguing against your conclusion, because I have said a million times "death IS a form of punishment" I have been arguing your points though, which are all of the reasons as to why your conclusion is right. You have to argue points to win you idiot. You say that my points are vague and random, but you haven't even been able to dispute them! You dispute my conclusion based on YOUR own conclusion which does not even make fucking sense. Think of an argument like a building. How to demolition teams take down buildings? They crumble the foundation, because without a foundation everything falls. If they tried to destroy the whole building from the top down they would be disappointed because everything under the top that is demolished will stand because it has a strong foundation.It wasn't an implication. It was a conclusion that followed from valid points. I didn't ever say that that is what punishment is. I did say that it can be considered that based on my arguments, which were logical and fine. I didn't prattle you fucking twat, I gave arguments to support a conclusion. You really anger me with your style of debating because you dint even understand how to win. You suck, thats why you need a forensics class. I never said that that is exclusively what punishment is, because you used the word exclusively yourself. I made the point that as far as our uses punishment should not include death. And your next point which is another pile of dog shit. I say things to fuck with you because I dint like you and if you could see all of the points I make on this site I'm usually respectful and nice, but you are a fucking retard and for making me seem unskillful I will prove that you are. I also fuck with people who give awful, uneducated arguments, so I guess you're a 2 birds with 1 stone situation for me. You think just because your argument gets a point on this website that it actually deserves one, but they really don't. You told me to get off this site because I didn't finish a pointless debate. I debate the issues but you don't. Every point you have made I have rebutted just to find you saying your conclusions over again as if the fact that they exist make my conclusions irrelevant. You don't argue my points, you argue my conclusion. Look up "how to debate well" or "how to properly debate" and you'll see that you don't even do it right. that is why I don't treat you with respect because you think that my arguments are bad out of your own ignorance. You are a joke. You have not had a point this entire time that I have not been able tot rebut, but you don't even rebut my points. You're an idiot and I will call you that as long as you show me you are one. Learn HOW to debate before you claim how people SHOULD debate. Idiot fuck. I have demonstrated my amazing debate skills, you are just so fucking thick headed and ignorant of logic and forensics that you cant see it. Suppose two people are boxing and two people are watching them. One of the watchers is a boxer and wants to be the best and the other knows how to win a boxing match but cares nothing of boxing itself. They watch the whole fight. It is 5 rounds and there is a bigger and stronger guy and a smaller, leaner guy. The bigger and stronger guy wins the fight by knockout and the smaller leaner guy is out for the count. The whole fight the guy who doesn't care about boxing is looking for the knockout and cares nothing of the technique that goes into it. The guy who is a boxer who is watching was not looking for the knockout. He is a boxer and wants to be the best, so he is examining the technique of each fighter and tries to learn from what he sees. When the fight is over the guy who was watching for the knockout says "Wow that bigger guy must be a better boxer, because he won" while the boxer who was watching is thinking "That smaller guy had a better technique and applied better form. The big guy just threw heavy strikes without form and one of the hundreds of swings actually landed and won the fight." He would conclude that the smaller fighter was a better fighter because he knew what he was doing. The ignorant one would think that the bigger one was better because all he knows is that a knockout wins. He doesn't know what good technique and form are because he doesn't care about boxing as much as the other guy. You are the ignorant guy thinking that one good point will win the fight. I am the boxer who knows technique and form and utilizes it. You say I prattle and ramble, but its just because you don't understand that I am using technique that you don't even know about. You are the ignorant watcher thinking that every kidney shot is useless because it cant give a knockout. You suck dick.