• 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

Should there be a death penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 47.0%
  • No

    Votes: 45 38.5%
  • Under certain circumstances, please explain

    Votes: 17 14.5%

  • Total voters
    117
murder is wrong.

killing in war, in self-defense, by accident, is not wrong.

killing as part of the judicial process, in some cases...also isn't wrong.

side note: God says in the Bible "Thou shalt not MURDER". not "kill".

There appears to be several translation differences.

Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder".[49]

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[50] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3). The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[51] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[5
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that I do not take the bible to be the word of a deity makes this argument irrelevant to me in the first place. For me the bible is a set of stories that can have moral implications and give comfort as well as scare the crap out of you if you believe it. It has some very interesting notions and the problem with using arguments from the bible to justify societal norms lies in interpretation, not the literal.
 
It is a human organism, it is growing and developing. It is most certainly alive.

I'm addressing a statement you made. You are hardly consistent in saying "killing is always wrong." and then endorse killing for other reasons.

this thread is about killing people.

not 3-day old zygotes.
 
No. My argument is not inconsistent. The abortion issue, in relation to my statements that killing is wrong, centers on when life begins. If there is no life there can be no taking of of life (killing).

Human life begins at conception. This is scientifically undeniable.

Self defense: You are preventing your life from being taken. Should you allow yourself to be killed? either way it is wrong.

It is wrong to kill the person that is attempting to kill you if that is your only means of living? Is that what you are saying?

Please tell me how the DP is not revenge.

Ethics.

Punishments in our penal system are meant to protect the public, rehabilitate, give closure to victims and act as deterrents. There is substantial research which proves that the DP does not act as a deterrent, it acts to protect the public as much as life in prison. Closure for victims just simply does not occur. It is either not enough or too much and it can never bring back the victim of the condemned

The DP is not about giving closure or acting as a deterrent. At least it shouldn't be in any common sense view of the issue.
 
Human life begins at conception. This is scientifically undeniable.
What you claim to be undeniable is not indeed fact.


It is wrong to kill the person that is attempting to kill you if that is your only means of living? Is that what you are saying?
As I said: Self defense: You are preventing your life from being taken. Should you allow yourself to be killed? either way it is wrong. I guess you should just look at this as a toss-up if you do not get it.


I assume you are capable of googling. search ethics death penalty and then talk to me.


The DP is not about giving closure or acting as a deterrent. At least it shouldn't be in any common sense view of the issue.
These are two of the biggest arguments FOR the death penalty.


Seeing as you keep skirting around abortion and "life" and you are not well versed on the controversies surrounding the DP, I am guessing you came into this thread looking to catch someone in a slip up in their logic regarding killing so you can make some twisted attempt at convincing someone that abortion is murder. As I have stated: This is a thread about the DP. I am a strong believer in choice. I am also on the fence regarding the "beginning" of life. If you want to debate abortion, go to that thread. If you want to try to persuade me to your way of thinking regarding the "beginning" of life, come up with some argument as to why I should talk to you about it, PM me and then I will join you in a discussion. Get that through your head. I will not debate pro-life / pro-choice issues in a DP thread, they are independent issues with widely different consequences.

This is the last I will even respond to you in this thread unless you have valid arguments and stick to the issue at hand.
 
this thread is about killing people.

not 3-day old zygotes.

Her statement was clearly "taking a life is wrong". She did not say killing a person is wrong. I don't care how you slice it, killing a zygote is taking a life.
 
Thank you.

So, really your argument is "taking a life that has been subjectively defined as a person is always wrong". Not, "taking a life is always wrong". Correct?
 
So, really your argument is "taking a life that has been subjectively defined as a person is always wrong". Not, "taking a life is always wrong". Correct?

Well, considering we might want to keep eating...I think we will need to keep ending lives.
 
Well, considering we might want to keep eating...I think we will need to keep ending lives.

Well, there's another argument against that statement. :shrug:
 
Her statement was clearly "taking a life is wrong". She did not say killing a person is wrong. I don't care how you slice it, killing a zygote is taking a life.

dogs, cats, gerbils, snakes, ants, and worms are also alive.

are you suggesting that she was also condemning the killing of ants and worms?
 
dogs, cats, gerbils, snakes, ants, and worms are also alive.

are you suggesting that she was also condemning the killing of ants and worms?

In the manner that she put it...sure...if not, she should clarify. I'm relatively certain that she can speak for herself, though.
 
this whole thread, is about killing human beings.

live, human beings.

not worms, chickens, goats, ants or 3-day old zygotes.

A life is a life. If you are going to justify your stance against the death penalty with "taking a life is wrong", then you should actually mean it. In reality...it seems her stance is really just "The state's taking of a life is wrong."
 
A life is a life. If you are going to justify your stance against the death penalty with "taking a life is wrong", then you should actually mean it...

she does mean it. she is against the taking of the lives of living, breathing human beings.

you're whole diversion into abortion is a red herring.
 
A life is a life. If you are going to justify your stance against the death penalty with "taking a life is wrong", then you should actually mean it. In reality...it seems her stance is really just "The state's taking of a life is wrong."

My body is my property. You do not possess rights nor authority to anything underneath my skin or the skin itself.
 
she does mean it. she is against the taking of the lives of living, breathing human beings.

you're whole diversion into abortion is a red herring.

First, it's not a diversion into abortion. It's exploring the reasoning behind her opposition to the death penalty. She has stated that she opposes the death penalty because "taking a life is wrong." And yet supports the right to abortion...which is taking a life. This really is not hard to understand, and it's not a red herring.
 
First, it's not a diversion into abortion. It's exploring the reasoning behind her opposition to the death penalty. She has stated that she opposes the death penalty because "taking a life is wrong." And yet supports the right to abortion...which is taking a life. This really is not hard to understand, and it's not a red herring.

she means a "a human being", and you know it.
 
My body is my property. You do not possess rights nor authority to anything underneath my skin or the skin itself.

That doesn't change the fact that an abortion is "taking a life" which she seems to support while denouncing it when it comes to the death penalty. I'm not arguing (here) that abortion is right or wrong, I'm asking her to explain her statement.
 
she means a "a human being", and you know it.

Irrelevant. She seems concerned with life. What you think she means is irrelevant, and if I were her, I'd be pissed that you insist on speaking for her.
 
but its not killing a fully-formed human being.

that's what this thread is about, mac.

:doh

It's stage of development has nothing to do with it being alive and "a life". The question that I put to Taxi, not you, is why does she have such a contradictory stance.
 
you know full well what she meant, and you're just playing games to bring up abortion in a non-abortion thread.

pathetic.

You are ignoring the impact. I'm not arguing whether abortion is right or wrong. I'm asking her if she really believes that taking a life is wrong. This really can't be put any clearer, so you're just going to have to accept that you can not understand logic.
 
It's stage of development has nothing to do with it being alive and "a life". The question that I put to Taxi, not you, is why does she have such a contradictory stance.

there is nothing contradictory about being against the death penalty but supporting abortion rights.
 
there is nothing contradictory about being against the death penalty but supporting abortion rights.


There is if it's because "Taking a life is wrong" is your reasoning. If it's because, say, you think that the states taking a life is simply vengeance and reduces society to the criminal's level, then you might have something.
 
Back
Top Bottom