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

" For the value of a person, well that is a very broad question, and it can differ from person to person. Personally I believe that everyone has value to some extent."The value of a person is a broad question? Well, can you provide explanations for this broad question?The value of a person can differ from person to person? Well, what are the different things that can make a person of value?Personally everybody has value to some extent? What sort of value?No, you have explained nothing.As to what constitutes a person, that's a biology question, I am a person because biologically I have the characteristics and genetic makeup of one.And just because someone is biologically a person doesn't mean they are mentally.Someone who is evil is only human in flesh and blood, their minds are sick and twisted and inhuman."you're literally sitting there trying to price people and using that as justification for murder."Yes, that is what the whole point of the debate is about.Except I wouldn't call it "murder.You haven't answered my points past repeating your already disputed assertions. That isn't how you debate, so no.I just had, it is you who hasn't.Nor did I make the assertion that I did. An assertion that has been made though (by you) is that the death penalty is good. This is an affirmative claim, meaning that without any evidence or reasoning to back it up then it isn't a valid position. You have provided no evidence to back it up and your only positions are that people in prisons are expensive and we should kill every psychopath and sociopath because you believe they can have no value as people.Psychopaths of course have no value as people and are expensive.Why should we let manipulative murderers waste the systems money?Why should we allow arrogant serial killers to mess with the system and live a life of luxury like a king?: You are making an affirmative claim here, the burden of proof is on you.That would be you making an affirmative claim, actually.You can't prove that executing a murderer is harmful.2: Your position this entire debate has been "sociopaths and psychopaths don't have value as people"My position is that psychopaths have no value as people?Anything wrong with that?3: This position is based on the faulty presumption that they are the same thingPsychopaths are roughly the same thing as sociopaths.All people who end up committing murder are psychopathic, regardless.4: Additionally, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to WHY we need to kill these peopleI actually did.Because they are worthless, because they have no empathy and because they are egotistic and parasitic.They are a waste of money.Killing them is like killing flees.Stop these silly word-jumbos.5: Reiterating burden of proof, it is YOUR job to prove that there is a reason to kill these people, it is NOT my job to prove that they don't need to be until that is sufficiently done.There is no proof to suggest that the death penalty is wrong.The death penalty is either wrong or right.You can't prove it is harmful and wrong unless you provide evidence.Does the death penalty cause any harm? No.So it's not unnecessary and wrong.If psychopaths waste money then kill them. Simple.6: Use your fucking brain, please it is embarrassing to youThis debate has gone up to your head and out through the nose.Cocky.