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

YesGood.Burden of proof lies with you, you provide a value, I will dispute it as needed.You are trying to prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer, therefore the burden of proof is yours.I had asked you a question, therefore you should answer it.Why does it have to be me as opposed to you who should answer that question.How can you prove that it is wrong to execute a murderer unless you can prove that a murderer does actually have any value?Just because something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong.I asked you.Intellect, philanthropy, economic benefits, etc.Good, you have finally answered the question.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 would apply their intelligence properly.Murderers are incapable of any true philanthropy and are devoid of any good will.Murderers have no economic benefits.Again, you can't pinpoint it.You have just answered my question, so you certainly are able to pinpoint what makes a human of any value.Yes, you can pinpoint that what makes a human valuable.Yes I have, you just don't listenI have heard everything you had said,so don't tell me I don't listen.Then tell me what exactly is the mental state of a person?What defines a person mentally is that they have the abilities of imagination, emotion, empathy and reason.No such thing as an evil person, only evil things. Additionally, define evil.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.No, the whole point of this debate is to decide whether or not there is good reason to kill criminals.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.That's because you see killing as okayI believe that executing those that murder is the right thing to do,therefore it isn't "murder".No, you answered my points with the same questions. That isn't answeringOf course I didn't "answer" your statements.Instead I had asked you what you actually thought.Based on what? You've spent the whole debate asking for me to tell you what makes a person valuable - even though you've obviously got more reason to considering you are using it to make arguments. Also, tell me what you think a prison is used for.I had already told you what I believe makes a person valuable.I had to keep asking you because before you wouldn't answer the question.Prisons should be used to rehabilitate those who can change for the better of society, not to house those that only murder others.Because that is the whole reason that that portion of the system was made.The whole point of a prison isn't to waste money on murderers who can't change.That's counter intuitive.Life of luxury? You're kidding right? They're going to prison, please tell me how the fuck a prison is a "life of luxury like a king."Murderers 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.My claim is that the death penalty is wrong. You are saying that it is right and should be implemented, you are making an affirmative claim. Ie, you have burden of proof.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.Executing anyone is harmful, for morality's sake if nothing else. Additionally, you can't prove that it is beneficial (which is the first thing that needs to be proven)Morality is subjective, so executing a murderer isn't necessarily wrong because morality can be subjective.Yes, it can be proven that it is beneficial to society.Yes, that is what you have been arguingOf course psychopaths have no value as people.It's a legitimate mental disorder and you are going in with the assumption that every one is an inherent monster regardless of their actions.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.No, there are very big differences which you have yet to dispute.When it comes to murderers, there is not a very big difference between the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath".Whenever we use any of those terms, I obviously intend to describe anybody who feels no emotions.We are talking about murderers.Really? So every soldier that has ever killed someone is a psychopath, regardless? What exactly is your definition of psychopathy? Because it seems to be extremely flawed.Killing someone as a soldier is of benefit to society, so being a soldier doesn't make one an evil psychopath.Although some psychopaths can be soldiers.Being a soldier benefits society, so even if a psychopath is a soldier, doesn't mean we should execute them.Okay, they are expensive and have no value. Both positions poorly defended and not backed up by any reasoning.The former mentioned can be proven by the latter that you had mentioned.Having that has no value is a waste of money.So murderers that have no value are wasting of money.We are trying to debate why murderers from your perspective have no value.I have told you my perspective already.Nothing inherently egotistical with murder, it is bad but doesn't mean you are egotistic. As to the parasitic comment, that would be why we put them in prison. And lack of empathy doesn't inherently take away your worth as a person.Killing someone without good cause or motive is classified as murder.The motives for murder are merely to gain control and to cause pain and shame to the victims.The motives for murder are very egotistical in nature.Parasites can't be allowed to live, otherwise they are still using up money.Lack of empathy means that someone likes every single other quality known to man.How much money? Keeping people in prisons is not expensive, and that is what prisons are meant to be used for.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.Because dehumanizing people hasn't caused anything bad, ever. coughholocaustslaverycrusadeshumantraffickingspanishinquisitioncough We are talking about executing people that kill other people.We can't get arrested for rising hatred for murders.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.It doesn't harm society to raise hate for murderers.I just shows a good backbone.Well sure, if you're a utilitarian.If a person has absolutely NO value, then there is no point in allowinf them to live.Well it definitely is the first one. I do agree that it is only one or the other.Exactly.And we are trying to prove that it is wrong to kill murderers, in that case.I have already offered evidence for my claim that I believe murderers lack value and should be killed.I have already stated my perspective.Okay so going by your arguments: people who murder are inherently psychopaths - all psychopaths must be killed - because killing cannot be proven to be wrong. You really don't see the problem here?Not all psychopaths should be killed.Just those that commit murder.There is nothing wrong with that, is there?Except of course to the person who is executed, their family, their friends, and the justice system as a whole.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.You had said that the justice system as a whole would be damaged by executing murderers?I'll ask you this question, why would it damage the justice system?You made that claim, now I want to know why you believe it.I already told you what I believe and why.You realize that you are using the same arguments the Nazis did to justify the holocaust?There is nothing wrong with being a Jew.We are talking about murderers here and why they have no value.Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet), me, every other person on the internet, every person who is buying or has bought something they didn't need, and every person taking part in a government peacekeeping effort. For starters, we can work out a more comprehensive list later.As long as we aren't murderers, we all have something to offer society.And there is no such thing as a useless activity. It is all beneficial to buy things that we like to buy without physically needing it. It is still healthy. Nothing wrong with buying something pleasing to see or that keeps us productive."Okay then I guess that we should go ahead and kill you (for wasting money using the internet"There was no need for this comment.How am I wasting money on the internet.There is no such thing as wasting money if it keeps one occupied. We aren't robot's, were people.At least my arguments are going through my head first.Childish.Better cocky than a eugenic executioner.Even more childish.