Can someone criticise my argument?

[Oxymoron Man]

Link to original post: [drupal=3010]Can someone criticise my argument?[/drupal]



Hi there.

I've been given an assignment by my English teacher to create and present an argument for or against a particular motion. The topic I have chosen is Capital Punishment in Britain and I have chosen to support its re-introduction. My speech has to be up to 5 minutes long, it's recommended that it contains no grammatical errors, it is persuasive and fluid and above all I should be able to answer any questions or counter-arguments. I am going to put up my argument but it hasn't been checked grammatically yet, I have read through it critically and it isn't finished. However, I would like some real-time support because its deadline is not far from now. I would really appreciate it if you could have a good read of it and criticise the argument (assume that the conclusion is that capital punishment should be introduced in Britain), explain to me how I can improve it or present it better (I am preparing a supplementary powerpoint presentation for it too) and how I can make it more convincing. English is my native language so grammar shouldn't be a priority when criticising it as I will deal with it. I WILL CONTINUE TO UPDATE THIS AS I WRITE IT. Thanks in advance!

Here it is:

Britain is at its apex in violent crimes. Are you not concerned that there is an increasing amount of aggressive criminals, roaming our streets to satisfy their cruel demands? And what will YOUR peers feel when they have been sexually violated beyond disapprobation?

General capital punishment was abolished in Great Britain to some extent in 1969 but was only fully abolished in 1998 when the death sentence for treason, piracy with violence and military offences had been hitherto legal. Public votes determined whether the act should be abolished but debates have continued since then as to whether it should be reintroduced in Britain. It is currently legal for a spectrum of crimes in countries such as China, the USA and Saudi Arabia. Capital punishment became perceived as

 

[§witch]

What kind of criticism are you looking for here? Criticism of your stance in general? Or just of how convincing your argument is?

I'm not really sure how Britain's constitution is written, but I'd imagne that it's fairly similar to Canada's. In Canada capital punishment will never be reintroduced because it is a direct violation to our Section 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person). Our Section 1 allows for exceptions to the other Sections, however, there's a legal test that it must pass for the exemption to be allowed, and one of the criterion it must pass is that it is a minimal infringement on the person's rights, and death is the most maximal infringement possible.

I'm not sure if Britain works that way, but it must be something similar.

Anyways, I'll wait until your actual argument begins.

 

[Oxymoron Man]

What kind of criticism are you looking for here? Criticism of your stance in general? Or just of how convincing your argument is?

I'm not really sure how Britain's constitution is written, but I'd imagne that it's fairly similar to Canada's. In Canada capital punishment will never be reintroduced because it is a direct violation to our Section 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person). Our Section 1 allows for exceptions to the other Sections, however, there's a legal test that it must pass for the exemption to be allowed, and one of the criterion it must pass is that it is a minimal infringement on the person's rights, and death is the most maximal infringement possible.

I'm not sure if Britain works that way, but it must be something similar.

Anyways, I'll wait until your actual argument begins.

Yes I would like criticism of my reasoning (e.g. how adequate my proposals are), how convincing it is and literarily persuasive and how I can improve on that. I am trying to support it so I am looking for counter-arguments that I can counter to add to the strength of my argument. I've basically completed the argument now because I've updated it; I too am checking it for grammatical errors and points of error and inconsistency.

 

[Sucumbio]

I find two major flaws in your argument.

1.) The Death Penalty does NOT deter crime. It has no effect on the crimes committed, planned or otherwise. Any study you look up will show there's almost no difference between states in the US that ban the death penalty vs states that don't in terms of crime numbers per population.

2.) You have attempted to assign punishment that would seemingly fit the crime, by bringing up ****.

(You should join the Debate Hall proving grounds, you'd see an interesting thread in there about this very thing... )

See... the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, and generally, courts see this as to mean excessively brutal or painful.

But... as is seen over and over, the Supreme Court is continually having to re-debate this, because more and more people are finding that to take a life, is cruel, and unusual punishment. It's making the Punishment fit the Crime, which is inherently against the 8th amendment. The only time it's not, is when it's desertion/treason which is totally different. That's war, that's military, they play by their own rules. They're outside society (they are not civilians).

so anyway not to preach or anything but basically those 2 things. Death penalty serves no legit purpose. It's uncivilized. And it brings you back to an "eye-for-eye" mentality (you even cited religion as justification !?!?!?!? no......)

Anyway, good luck w/the essay.

 

[Oxymoron Man]

I find two major flaws in your argument.

1.) The Death Penalty does NOT deter crime. It has no effect on the crimes committed, planned or otherwise. Any study you look up will show there's almost no difference between states in the US that ban the death penalty vs states that don't in terms of crime numbers per population.

2.) You have attempted to assign punishment that would seemingly fit the crime, by bringing up ****.

(You should join the Debate Hall proving grounds, you'd see an interesting thread in there about this very thing... )

See... the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, and generally, courts see this as to mean excessively brutal or painful.

But... as is seen over and over, the Supreme Court is continually having to re-debate this, because more and more people are finding that to take a life, is cruel, and unusual punishment. It's making the Punishment fit the Crime, which is inherently against the 8th amendment. The only time it's not, is when it's desertion/treason which is totally different. That's war, that's military, they play by their own rules. They're outside society (they are not civilians).

so anyway not to preach or anything but basically those 2 things. Death penalty serves no legit purpose. It's uncivilized. And it brings you back to an "eye-for-eye" mentality (you even cited religion as justification !?!?!?!? no......)

Anyway, good luck w/the essay.

OK, since I'm clearly new to the topic, how can I make amendments? And before you made your response, I changed my second **** example to a serious mass murder case.

 

[Sucumbio]

OK, since I'm clearly new to the topic, how can I make amendments? And before you made your response, I changed my second **** example to a serious mass murder case.

ugh, you've really picked a tough side to defend IMHO. It'd be more effective for you to defend NOT bringing it back, lol. I mean you can go on record as you have, because the "flaws" I've pointed out, don't necessarily mean squat to citizens of other counties... even the UK. But what's happening in the UK seems to be due to overpopulation, I remember visiting there a decade ago and the locals were complaining about all the Indians moving in and taking over, lol. Racism! I love seeing it in other countries than our own. BUT ANYWAY, if you must defend bring back the death penalty, your best bet is to cite military examples, and why it'd be appropriate for military application. It won't do for crimes of murder, ****, theft, these types of crimes are not death penalty material... but treason is definitely worth it, because you're potentially saving the whole country from demise. It's got nothing to do with morality at that point. Murder, eh, it's too close to call.

Something that might be better than all the above is expulsion to a martian penal colony

 

[Oxymoron Man]

ugh, you've really picked a tough side to defend IMHO. It'd be more effective for you to defend NOT bringing it back, lol. I mean you can go on record as you have, because the "flaws" I've pointed out, don't necessarily mean squat to citizens of other counties... even the UK. But what's happening in the UK seems to be due to overpopulation, I remember visiting there a decade ago and the locals were complaining about all the Indians moving in and taking over, lol. Racism! I love seeing it in other countries than our own. BUT ANYWAY, if you must defend bring back the death penalty, your best bet is to cite military examples, and why it'd be appropriate for military application. It won't do for crimes of murder, ****, theft, these types of crimes are not death penalty material... but treason is definitely worth it, because you're potentially saving the whole country from demise. It's got nothing to do with morality at that point. Murder, eh, it's too close to call.

Something that might be better than all the above is expulsion to a martian penal colony

Well I'm stuck with this.

 

[§witch]

The update isn't showing up on my computer for some reason.

 

[Oxymoron Man]

The update isn't showing up on my computer for some reason.

Just so you know, it's been checked for grammatical errors and is updated. I've also removed a few useless or irrelevant parts.