• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

  • Total voters
    34
Bodhisattva said:
I interprete this as meaning that the safety of public is the same whether or not the person is killed or incarcerated and that you don't need to kill the person to make the public safe.
Click to expand...

I agree that is EXACTLY what it says that not an "interpretation" at all :)

you took the words and used them for their face value, go figure :shrug: ;)
 
J-Objective said:
I agree that is EXACTLY what it says that not an "interpretation" at all :)

you took the words and used them for their face value, go figure :shrug: ;)
Click to expand...
So then what's the problem?
 
J-Objective said:
e you are pages later trying to act like you didnt misspeak :shrug:
Click to expand...
I didn't misspeak. But from now on, I'm going to comment on every absolute statement you make and take it literally instead of doing what most normal people do and assume that you use such statements to mean "X happens in a statistically significant manner".
 
theplaydrive said:
I didn't misspeak. But from now on, I'm going to comment on every absolute statement you make and take it literally instead of doing what most normal people do and assume that you use such statements to mean "X happens in a statistically significant manner".
Click to expand...

you do what every you want and CLAIM its what "most normal people do" lol another failed insult

I have no problem with this, the difference is IF true I will just immediately man up and admit i misspoke, was wrong or should have worded it better :shrug"

it will take two posts maybe 3 max instead of pages and pages of nonsense :)
 
J-Objective said:
its untrue and its an absolute we already been over this LOL
Click to expand...

I want to understand this better, because I know that you have a point. I want to see if it is valid though... why is it untrue?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I want to understand this better, because I know that you have a point. I want to see if it is valid though... why is it untrue?
Click to expand...

because its an absolute statement that just assumes that the risks to safety are identical between the dead criminals and the living criminals.

Dead Criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime
Live criminals = a % of them committing a crime

then he wanted to debate WHAT the percentage is, that doesn't matter because one way the percentage does exists and the other way it doesnt.

and the safety by his own words was to "all public including those in the prison"
 
J-Objective said:
because its an absolute statement that just assumes that the risks to safety are identical between the dead criminals and the living criminals.

Dead Criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime
Live criminals = a % of them committing a crime

then he wanted to debate WHAT the percentage is, that doesn't matter because one way the percentage does exists and the other way it doesnt.

and the safety by his own words was to "all public including those in the prison"
Click to expand...

I am with you and if the issue is that "those in prison" were safer then I agree that this is false. I understood the point as being ONLY safer to society and with that we generally mean society as those that are not incarcerated in prison.

I would challenge this then:

Dead Criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime or harming those not locked up
Live criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime or harming those not locked up

Because within the bounds of this discussion, most people are not including those that are locked up as "society" nor do they care if inmates are harmed by inmates.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am with you and if the issue is that "those in prison" were safer then I agree that this is false. I understood the point as being ONLY safer to society and with that we generally mean society as those that are not incarcerated in prison.

I would challenge this then:

Dead Criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime or harming those not locked up
Live criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime or harming those not locked up

Because within the bounds of this discussion, most people are not including those that are locked up as "society" nor do they care if inmates are harmed by inmates.
Click to expand...

well like I said his own words were what I stated above. and society wasnt mentioned but I would challenge that too.

because just like I asked, Zyphlin asked and some others what about

escaping
parole (this doesnt ably to him because HE said without parole but some other didnt)
faculty
visitors/volunteers/interns ie doctors, nurses, clergy, parole board members, etc etc

again are the odds that these people get hurt "probably" low? id GUESS yes but its still a POSSIBILITY vs an IMPOSSIBILITY that they get hurt by living people vs dead.

Like I said my only problem with his statement was its an absolute :shrug:

its not like in GENERAL he didnt have some valid points, its that the points didnt matter to his factually wrong statement.
 
Quite frankly I've always found the idea behind the death penalty to be somewhat appalling. The basic idea is punishing murder through murder. That doesn't make much sense does it?
 
Confucius said:
Quite frankly I've always found the idea behind the death penalty to be somewhat appalling. The basic idea is punishing murder through murder. That doesn't make much sense does it?
Click to expand...

the death penalty isnt murder.
 
Objective-J said:
the death penalty isnt murder.
Click to expand...

It's not murder. It just doesn't offer much advantage to the public on the whole and the failure mode outweighs any benefit which can be currently achieved through it.
 
Objective-J said:
because its an absolute statement that just assumes that the risks to safety are identical between the dead criminals and the living criminals.

Dead Criminals = zero possibility of them committing a crime
Live criminals = a % of them committing a crime

then he wanted to debate WHAT the percentage is, that doesn't matter because one way the percentage does exists and the other way it doesnt.

and the safety by his own words was to "all public including those in the prison"
Click to expand...
First, since you suck at following a conversation, I already explained to ~5 times that I did not support the absolute interpretation of my statement - your interpretation.
Second, even though I don't even support that interpretation - you really suck at arguing against it.
Third, I'll repeat this to highlight your double standard. You expect me and everyone else to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make absolute statements, but when I make one and presumably when others do, you latch on to them like they're the holy grail.

theplaydrive said:
This is my original comment:
theplaydrive said:
The death penalty doesn't increase the safety of the public anymore than a life sentence w/p parole.
Click to expand...


This is a comment you made later:
Objective-J said:
the fact remains people with life in prison still commit crimes
Click to expand...

Both sentences are written as absolutes. However, most people reading them wouldn't flip out and harp on the way they were written. They would understand that the person likely doesn't mean it in an absolute sense - but instead, in a statistically relevant sense. However, you've chosen to not give me the benefit of the doubt and yet excuse your use of an absolute. This conversation is a joke.

You interpreted my comment one way and Ikari interpreted it another. I agree with Ikari's interpretation and not yours. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...
 
theplaydrive said:
First, since you suck at following a conversation, I already explained to ~5 times that I did not support the absolute interpretation of my statement - your interpretation.
Second, even though I don't even support that interpretation - you really suck at arguing against it.
Third, I'll repeat this to highlight your double standard. You expect me and everyone else to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make absolute statements, but when I make one and presumably when others do, you latch on to them like they're the holy grail.
Click to expand...

more failed attempts at insults, dishonesty and twisting of words, cute. LMAO

But let me know when you have something of merit. I already answered this, see post 125. repeating it trying to make it more dramatic wont get you the answer you want. So no need to get emotional and over dramatics LOL
 
Objective-J said:
more failed insults instead of . . . . something with merit . . . very telling :D
Click to expand...
You do realize that I addressed you only with arguments until you began to insult me. Insults are all you're worth at this point. When people try to debate with you all you ever return is insults and "LMAO" in almost every thread you enter. You get what you give.
 
theplaydrive said:
You do realize that I addressed you only with arguments until you began to insult me. Insults are all you're worth at this point. When people try to debate with you all you ever return is insults and "LMAO" in almost every thread you enter. You get what you give.
Click to expand...

Wow more dishonesty. LOL Thanks I didnt expect anything else from you in this thread.
 
Objective-J said:
Wow more dishonesty. LOL Thanks I didnt expect anything else from you in this thread.
Click to expand...
I can be a lot of unpleasant things, but dishonest is not one of them. If you're going to insult me, at least pick at something true.
 
theplaydrive said:
I can be a lot of unpleasant things, but dishonest is not one of them. If you're going to insult me, at least pick at something true.
Click to expand...

im not insulting you its true :shurg: this is another game. Please get back on topic accept the fact that your statement as worded was wrong or how now you meant to say something else otherwise just move on because that facts wont change LMAO
 
Objective-J said:
im not insulting you
Click to expand...
Calling someone dishonest is an insult particularly when you haven't proven that what you perceive as dishonesty isn't simply a misunderstanding on one or both our parts. As I said, I can be many unpleasant things, but dishonest is not one of them.
 
theplaydrive said:
Calling someone dishonest is an insult particularly when you haven't proven that what you perceive as dishonesty isn't simply a misunderstanding on one or both our parts. As I said, I can be many unpleasant things, but dishonest is not one of them.
Click to expand...

not if its true

admit that your original statement as written was factually wrong and their will be no misunderstanding or dishonesty. If you continue to deny that fact you ARE being dishonest. :shrug:

Its really the only issue I have, you misspoke, big deal, happens to everyone, Ive done it plenty, if you would just admit it then there would be no misunderstandings or dishonesty, the solution is pretty simple.
 
Objective-J said:
not if its true
Click to expand...
Suit yourself. Like I said, I'm not dishonest, but since we're online, it's impossible to prove it either way so I'm not going to dwell on it. You've heard my arguments, you've chosen to respond to them with insults instead of engagement. Good luck wit that.
 
theplaydrive said:
Suit yourself. Like I said, I'm not dishonest, but since we're online, it's impossible to prove it either way so I'm not going to dwell on it. You've heard my arguments, you've chosen to respond to them with insults instead of engagement. Good luck wit that.
Click to expand...

No I responded with proven facts and you chose to deny them. Your argument was what you said was true, it is not, this is MORE dishonesty. You know the thread is still here right? LOL

Like I said the solution is a very simple one. instead you choose not to partake in such a simply civil solution so the issue is yours :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom