• 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
Centrist77 said:
well since he didn't mention stats or opinions or say "aggregated" or any other QUALIFIERS to make his statements at least "debatable" currently his statement is still and just flat out wrong :shrug:

that wont change lol he could now go back and say he mispoke or meant something else but what he wrote is in fact wrong.
Click to expand...

I think once you start talking about the public at large, which was what the statement spoke to, you're no longer speaking of individual cases; but rather the aggregated system. Under such, the statement is correct.
 
Centrist77 said:
well since he didn't mention stats or opinions or say "aggregated" or any other QUALIFIERS to make his statements at least "debatable" currently his statement is still and just flat out wrong :shrug:
Click to expand...
I always laugh when people think that someone's first comment in a thread should be a detailed explanation of their theory. Consequently, if I don't say "statistically" or "in general", then clarifying later will just be perceived as dishonest which is why I don't even bother. But yes, Ikari is right about my statement.

That said, you haven't even proved the absolute wrong considering that your arguments against it have simply been your non-fact based opinions.
 
theplaydrive said:
I never said they didn't.


Nope, the death penalty may actually increase crime since death row inmates have nothing to lose.


It's not dishonest to want proof for a threat to safety.



You've offered opinions and nothing more.

It's neither, just a misunderstanding. I misread it. :shrug: But leave it to you to always assume the worst.
Click to expand...

LMAO Im not even playing silly word games, i deal in reality and facts, your statement is flat out wrong and it has been proven

% of how wrong doesnt matter if its .0001% wrong its wrong

next time dont speak in absolutes an you wont have that problem :)

if you would like to reword or add qualifiers to your wrong statement thats fine by me but the statement you made is wrong :shrug:
 
theplaydrive said:
I always laugh when people think that someone's first comment in a thread should be a detailed explanation of their theory. Consequently, if I don't say "statistically" or "in general", then clarifying later will just be perceived as dishonest which is why I don't even bother. But yes, Ikari is right about my statement.

That said, you haven't even proved the absolute wrong considering that your arguments against it have simply been your non-fact based opinions.
Click to expand...

if you dont like it, make better statements or when the fact is pointed out that your statement as it stands is wrong just INSTANTLY admit it and explain what you REALLY meant instead of trying to back pedal or deny it. pretty simple solution.

thats what I do when I misspeak and make a mistake, i simply admit it :shrug:

your statement as originally made is wrong, you either accept that fact or you dont.
 
Ikari said:
I think once you start talking about the public at large, which was what the statement spoke to, you're no longer speaking of individual cases; but rather the aggregated system. Under such, the statement is correct.
Click to expand...

possibly but ONLY if you add qualifiers which you are doing :)
 
Centrist77 said:
i deal in reality and facts
Click to expand...
Obviously not.

1. Prove that life sentences increase in prison crime.
2. Prove that attempted prison escapes BY people with life sentences w/o parole lead to crime.
3. Prove that gang/cartel/etc. leaders who are executed are either a) not replaced b)more or equally violent than their successors

Until you can prove that, then all you have is opinion. The absolute "the DP does not increase safety anymore than LS" is an opinion. However, your absolute arguments against that absolute are also opinions. Your error is in assuming that your absolutes are fact - they aren't - unless you can provide facts to back them up.
 
Centrist77 said:
possibly but ONLY if you add qualifiers which you are doing :)
Click to expand...

I think that in the end this is just silly semantics. You can't talk about the "public", which is the aggregation of the individuals in a society, without speaking of statistics. Whether the guy is in jail for life or killed by the State, the public still has the same relative amount of "safety". the DP does not buy us anything in that regard.
 
theplaydrive said:
Obviously not.

1. Prove that life sentences increase in prison crime.
2. Prove that attempted prison escapes BY people with life sentences w/o parole lead to crime.
3. Prove that gang/cartel/etc. leaders who are executed are either a) not replaced b)more or equally violent than their successors

Until you can prove that, then all you have is opinion. The absolute "the DP does not increase safety anymore than LS" is an opinion. However, your absolute arguments against that absolute are also opinions. Your error is in assuming that your absolutes are fact - they aren't - unless you can provide facts to back them up.
Click to expand...
1.)
can a dead man commit a crime? no
could a live man commit a crime? yes

2.)
attempting a prison break IS a crime.

3.)
nobody said they arent replaced lol the answer is already given in answer 1.

no opinion here all facts.

You spoke in an absolute so you were wrong, no biggie, it happens, usually if a person speaks in absolutes they are wrong.

also you fail because I never made you quoted statement lmao and you obviously dont understand absolutes, I dont need an absolute to prove an absolute wrong, all i need is a POSSIBILITY

LMAO





game over
 
Ikari said:
I think that in the end this is just silly semantics. You can't talk about the "public", which is the aggregation of the individuals in a society, without speaking of statistics. Whether the guy is in jail for life or killed by the State, the public still has the same relative amount of "safety". the DP does not buy us anything in that regard.
Click to expand...

no not at all, its not semantics im going by EXACTLY what was said and you are trying to add qualifiers, which by the way may or may not be right, wrong, true or false but they do nothing to make his false statement true :shrug:
 
Centrist77 said:
no not at all, its not semantics im going by EXACTLY what was said and you are trying to add qualifiers, which by the way may or may not be right, wrong, true or false but they do nothing to make his false statement true :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think you are completely playing semantics for the reason I had already listed.
 
Centrist77 said:
1.)
can a dead man commit a crime? no
could a live man commit a crime? yes
Click to expand...
I asked you to prove that life sentences increase crime. I didn't ask you to restate the logic behind your opinion.

2.) attempting a prison break IS a crime.
Click to expand...
Oh my God. Obviously in the context of this discussion, I'm talking about crimes that lead to a harmed society which an attempted prison does not do in and of itself. So prove it.

3.) nobody said they arent replaced lol the answer is already given in answer 1.
Click to expand...
Your logic for the idea that a dead man is less dangerous because he can't give orders rests upon the logic that he either won't be replaced or that he is equally or more violent than his replacement. Prove that logic or all you have is an opinion.
 
Ikari said:
I think you are completely playing semantics for the reason I had already listed.
Click to expand...

your allowed to think that but you would also be wrong :shrug: and it does nothing to change his false statement
 
Centrist77 said:
your allowed to think that but you would also be wrong :shrug: and it does nothing to change his false statement
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be wrong as public is innately the aggregated society and thus innately speaks to statistics, not individual cases. Perchance you just feel like saying it's wrong. Regardless, there does not seem to be any benefit at all to the public and society at large from the use of the death penalty.
 
theplaydrive said:
I asked you to prove that life sentences increase crime. I didn't ask you to restate the logic behind your opinion.


Oh my God. Obviously in the context of this discussion, I'm talking about crimes that lead to a harmed society which an attempted prison does not do in and of itself. So prove it.


Your logic for the idea that a dead man is less dangerous because he can't give orders rests upon the logic that he either won't be replaced or that he is equally or more violent than his replacement. Prove that logic or all you have is an opinion.
Click to expand...

1.) thats not the logic behind my opinion, its the logic that proves your statment false :shrug: my opinion is not involved in any way what so ever LMAO
2.) again thats not what you asked but the fact remains that prisoners COULD escape and then COULD endanger the public in a way a dead man could not
3.) no that's what you tried to turn my logic into but i wont let you. My REAL logic is about your statement and a criminal alive could commit more crime and a criminal dead could not.

the first domino has to be the guy getting killed or not getting killed, if that guy is alive he can continue to bring crime.

none of this is opinion its the facts and you acceptance of these facts is meaningless, they were facts yesterday, they are fact now and they will be facts tomorrow.

Your statement was wrong, man up and admit or dont, doesn't change the fact that it was wrong. answer one in the privious post is all the proof that is needed.
 
i said you are wrong about "thinking" im playing semantics LMAO not the rest
 
Centrist77 said:
my opinion is not involved in any way what so ever
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any links to statistics or studies, so your opinion is the only thing involved at this point.
 
theplaydrive said:
I haven't seen any links to statistics or studies, so your opinion is the only thing involved at this point.
Click to expand...

if you say so but you would be wrong again

its a fact that an alive person COULD commit a crime and a dead person can NOT commit a crime

sorry no opinion there :shrug:
 
As a Christian one might think I would be against the Death Penalty but you would be wrong because you are not familiar with the Bible's teachings on the subject.

What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?
The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, every sin we commit should result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8).
Click to expand...

With these things in mind I have to come down on the side of the laws on the books.
 
Councilman said:
As a Christian one might think I would be against the Death Penalty but you would be wrong because you are not familiar with the Bible's teachings on the subject.



With these things in mind I have to come down on the side of the laws on the books.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing though that the commands of the Old Testament are no longer valid as the obligations were fulfilled with the coming of Jesus and that the New Testament composes the new ideals and philosophies. So is there something in the New Testament which upholds the death penalty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom