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

Again, no, you are trying to prove that executing a murderer is good, you have burden of proof.Burden of proof goes both ways.I would have had burden of proof because I was trying to prove that murderers should be executed.You did have burden of proof because you are trying to prove that executing murderers is wrong.I have already given my proof, so burden of proof was carried off from me and had moved onto you.You had burden of proof because you had not given any refutation.The last person to offer a rebuttal in a debate is the winner of the debate, no matter how accurate the rebuttal is.Even if my rebuttal did have errors in it, you would still have to had put forward a rebuttal.You had finally provided a rebuttal anyway, so this argument is now moot.You couldn't have claimed that you couldn't have offered a rebuttal when you have demonstrated that you could.The burden of proof was on you, so it was indeed up to you to provide that rebuttal.Otherwise you would have lost the debate.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.We both have burden of proof now, but before, it was only you since before you had failed to offer a rebuttal.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.The assumption here is that most people have value, not all.We both agree that most people have value.All isn't the correct assumption.What we both disagree on is that murderers have a lack of value.It is up to you to prove that murderers have value and it is up to me to prove that murderers have no value.There is no given assumption that murders have value because there is no reason for anyone to believe that they do.We are trying to discuss what makes a murderer have value.Yet again I'll say it:I had started off proving that murderers have no value, I had already given evidence.Now it is up to you to disprove this and offer a rebuttal.What is the point of doing it if it isn't right? What is the point of not doing it if it isn't wrong?(I am already in the process of debating this, so I still don't know why you are arguing instead of having a normal debate)Nor does it mean that they cannot, your absolutist logic doesn't work here.Murder is the only action that exists that is about being completely destructive.The motive for murder is complete destruction and control, as well as egotism.Anybody that commits any other action is not interested only in destruction.But it takes a heart that is interested in 100% destruction to commit murder.Since murder is all about destruction, it would appeal to someone who is completely interested in destruction.Someone only interested in destruction wouldn't apply their intelligence for constructive means, only destruction means.Nor does it mean that they wouldn't.Nor does it mean they would.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.What if a murderer is only hell bent on destruction.Murder is completely about destruction. Nothing constructive about it.The only thing a murderer is hell bent on is destructionThey have no desire to be constructive.Except if they have a job, have ever sold anything, have ever made a job for another, etc.If a murderer who is hell bent on destruction ever sold anything, or had a job, it would only be for ill will.Even an action that appears to be out of sheer generosity can turn out to be intended as poison.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.You have given me three examples and for now they will do.How do you know that there are more examples if you can't think of or see any other examples?Yes, you can.You're a smart enough guy to do it.Don't tell me you can't.I don't believe in "can't".Considering how many of my arguments you ignored previously, I maintain the assertion.I ignored "you"?"Ignored"?Now that's a word that is completely irrelevant!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? Someone who has committed murder does not have all of those four qualities.They certainly don't have emotion and empathy and I'm not sure about imagination.They may have the ability to reason.Some has to have all of those qualities to be considered a person.Don't you remember me omitting the word "combined" at the end of the sentence that you had responded to?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.Committing murder is not about personal gain, since it doesn't achieve personal gain in that context.It is about stealing, destroying and possessing the person that has been murdered and about eliminating and sucking away the person that has been murdered.The desire to murder is a destructive force that is about sucking away the life and personhood of a human being, it is like a black hole that sucks in and destroys.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.Your personal position is your personal stance on the debate.We are having a debate, not some monologue.You are involved in the debate.I have to convince you.And you have to convince me.I am not out there to convince a judge.A debate is about our own stances on the matter.I am here to debate.Not just to prove.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 makingSomething isn't murder if it actually happens to be the right thing to do.Not just whether I think it is or not.The right thing to do is subjective. Is it murder? That is subjective.I wouldn't necessarily call it murder, myself.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.I have already provided an answer to counter your claims that you couldn't provide a rebuttal.Doesn't change the fact that I had to ask you a question since you refused to provided a rebuttal.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? Rape isn't all about destruction.But murder is.I could rub my nose 20 times, still wouldn't mean I was a destructive person.But I could kill someone only once and it would make me a destructive person.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 changePrisons shouldn't really be about punishment.They should be about rehabilitating someone.Murderers can't change because a lot of evidence has shown that they can't change.There has been lots of books written about psychopaths/sociopaths by people who have studied them for years, examples are as follows:Robert Hare.Hervey Cleckly,Kevin Dutton.Martha Stout.Jon Ronson.Kent Kiehl.Donna Anderson.And so much more...Also, there is a very successful scientist who has discovered that he was in fact a psychopath, albeit just a civilised one (although he was still a manipulative person and lacked empathy) who agreed that as a psychopath he can't properly change innately.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.A high security prison is properly maintained.Prisoners in high security prisons have more individualised compartments with telephone access and possibly TV's. The opportunity to write letters is also fully available.In high security prisons they also have much better funded facilities like well maintained libraries, canteens, lounges etc. Better funded medical care, etc.Cheap prisons ran by the local counsel for the lowly class tend to involve buckets for prisoners to urinate, harsher beds to sleep on, they tend to lack much warmth and aren't very cosy. They are more cramped and compartments within jails are less personalised and individualized. Everybody is cramped together.The cheap prisons such as in Manchester are relentlessly crowded and the money put into organizing those jails is not invested, no real effort is put into making the confines of those cheap prisons more comfortable.It's expensive enough for the council to even consider building a new prison, let alone maintaining one and redesigning them and changing them to consider the prisoners needs.Specialised highly security prisons are already up to full standards.The only exception that I know of in this country is high security Broadmoor and that has drawn lots of criticism for it's allegedly cruel standards.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.We both agree that executing prisoners in general is wrong.What we both disagree on and what we obviously are actually debating is whether it is wrong to execute murderers.Executing anyone is wrong, if you would argue otherwise why the fuck are you defending your position?Executing most people is wrong according to both of our subjective morality.Still doesn't change the fact that it is subjective.We disagree with each other when it comes to murderers.Then prove that it is and that it outweighs the downsides.Running prisons costs a lot of money.Executing prisoners or letting them die doesn't.Based on what warrant? You are speaking as if they're a different speciesIt's almost as if they are.Their brains work entirely differently according to scientific research.Psychopaths have no value as people in the same way that machines have no value as people.Doesn't change the fact that machines have value to society.Murderers have no value as people nor to society and that is the utmost difference.Again, provide evidence supporting the claim that every person that has ever had psychopathy is a monster and should be killed.All psychopaths are monsters, but not all monsters are completely destructive.Even wild beasts are constructive to nature, to mankind and the equilibrium.Oh I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists fighting the system.Someone who is against the system would be someone who is claiming that CEO's are completely harmful and must be over-run.I am not arguing that CEO's should be over ran.CEO's are very useful to society.Doesn't change the fact that they are psychopathic.Just useful and much needed psychopaths.In fact it was me who has at one point claimed that the government ultimately does have our best interests at heart on this thread (although it wasn't you who I was debating with, so you may not have seen that comment, just to avoid confusion).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.Any entity entirely set on destruction is not useful to society.That is why entirely bad germs must be completely defeated.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.I have been entirely logical.In which case you are "obviously" only talking about sociopaths. Not every murderer, apparently.Every murderer is a sociopath/psychopath.(btw, the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is widely disputed, there is no difference that everyone agrees upon, as far as we are concerned those terms can be interchangeable).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.I have said that all psychopaths are monsters.I had said that all murderers are psychopaths and are worthy of death.But I hadn't said that all psychopaths are murderous and are worthy of death.Psychopaths that are in the military are still useful.A life is more important than money.The health and livelihood of society is determined by money.A better economy saves lives.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.This all comes down to which is more necessary for society and what costs too much money.If murderers lack any value to society and it costs more money to allow them to live, then it could only be argued that it is best to kill them.However, my stance on this is that money and value is a determining factor, so it is up to you to rebut this.Doesn't matter whether or not you had said this, I had put forward this argument, so you should still rebut it.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.People who kill knowingly cause more trouble for or society than good.Even if they do it for themselves, they still do it relentlessly for the cause of destruction, knowing they are going counter to both society and humanity.Someone who desires to go against both society and humanity is completely destructive.The only reason that I wouldn't classify it as murder is if you are calling a murderer.Except that usually murder is done for money, or in revenge of something. (the latter being what you are here advocating for)It is still done whilst going counter to humanity and society.Still done of out of destruction.In order to kill, you also have to go against society itself and fight it.No one interested in a constructive world would kill somebody else.Not all murders, very few in fact.All murders are actually.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.Empathy is the ability to understand someone else's feelings through ones heart.Which is governed by ones ability to feel emotions.(Don't tell me I am unable to see things from your perspective, I can't read your mind, can I)?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. Money is important for society.And you can't rehabiliate someone for the greater good of society if they can't change and are only destructive.And I am not saying that you should be, hatred for the act of murder is completely justifiedWhat about hatred for the murderer themselves who committed them?Not just the act of murder.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 murderI am not being like the Nazis since I am not relying on hate mongering propaganda to win my assertions. That was their ultimate argument.Oh fuck yeah lets make ourselves look manly and kill people because we're tough and have good backbones!We all need to show that we are strong and have good boundaries, otherwise we would become victims of this world.I don't think you know what utilitarian meansAnything wrong with being utilitarian?You have provided claims, but no evidenceYour rebuttals that have came quite late happen to consist of just as much claims as mine.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."Thank you.What about people that commit murder that aren't psychopaths?There aren't any.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!Context?You mean evidence?Go find someone whose child is on death row - and say that to them.That would be difficult to do, I live in a country where capital punishment is illegal.The family might be initially upset, but ultimately they would benefit from it once they see it.Sometimes they never realise how much the have gained by it and they still think they have lost a real person.They think they have lost something that never really was there, how sad.Because a justice system that is against killing cannot turn around and use killing as punishment - it is counter intuitiveSociety should only be against killing people that aren't murderers.And I did - I don't make claims I haven't thought through and stick to themI thought it through well enough.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.How am I like the Nazis then, if I had made a comment about killing Jews?You had likened my arguments to the Nazis.We're actually talking about whether they should be executed or not.Whether murderers have value is to do with my argument that murderers should be executed.Being a murderer doesn't inherently mean you can offer nothing to society - and you have yet to offer evidence to support that claim.I am in the process of actually debating that.What is your point?Using the internet uses moneyIt doesn't waste money though, unless you're a murderer.And undisputedI don't dispute Ad Hominems.In effect, technically this whole debate is discussing the matter of whether or not my brain cells are in tact.At least you have to prove it by those means.Considering that you are arguing in favor of eugenics, through execution, it's a valid point.You aren't better than a patriotic supporter of eugenics.