The Center Stage

[CRASHiC]

And, for the record, the cost of a prison is very high. It is far less expensive to execute someone, than it is to keep them alive for twenty five years or longer.

Before I respond to the rest, let me say this is dead wrong. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment

Now for the rest.

Are you trying to suggest that we have the right to kill people that are from other nations, but not our own?

Unfortunately, yes. Under legal standings, people not protected by the constitution of a government do not share the same rights as you and I. We have national laws set by the UN, but they have proven impossible to enforce, as the UN has little authority outside of war scenes.

Continuing from there, let us assume that we are given the right to kill only those people that are actively hostile towards our nation. Then, do we not have the right to execute those who commit treason?

Thomas Jefferson, the founder of much of our understandings upon the basic human rights says that if people do not find the government satisfactory, then we have the right to attempt to overthrow. While there is nothing directly stating this idea (though conservatives interpretation claims that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to form our own militias, but constitutional interpretation is not the debate here, but human rights.) If you are not a citizen of a country, the country has no legal obligation to you. Of course, the United Nations would disagree about rebellion not being worth capital punishment, but that is because the UNs main focus is not human rights but world peace. In the UN's eyes, unless under the most extreme circumstances, war is always too much.

And if the person is killed during a rebellion, this is different as well. Since they are labeled as causality,

I do hope that this argument is effective enough for you to consider. Please, feel free to refute me.

Actually, you already show great potential in the short time you've been in the debate hall, though this post alone was not enough for me to give you a recommendation. Still though, feel free to continue to refute, and if you (or anyone else) can get me to concede a fact or point brought up, as I said before, I will greatly respect you, as well as nominate you.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Before I respond to the rest, let me say this is dead wrong.

It appears I was misinformed. How unfortunate for me. I concede that statement to you.

Thomas Jefferson, the founder of much of our understandings upon the basic human rights says that if people do not find the government satisfactory, then we have the right to attempt to overthrow. While there is nothing directly stating this idea (though conservatives interpretation claims that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to form our own militias, but constitutional interpretation is not the debate here, but human rights.) If you are not a citizen of a country, the country has no legal obligation to you. Of course, the United Nations would disagree about rebellion not being worth capital punishment, but that is because the UNs main focus is not human rights but world peace. In the UN's eyes, unless under the most extreme circumstances, war is always too much.

And if the person is killed during a rebellion, this is different as well. Since they are labeled as causality.

Unfortunately, that didn't answer my question previously posed: Do we, or do we not, have the right to execute those that commit treason? It is rather obvious that a single person that tried to throw off their government has a variety of options, many of which do not include hostilities directed towards said nation. For example: Move to Canada. Or anywhere else. They are thusly free of said unsatisfactory government. You brought up Thomas Jefferson, but I believe what you are referring to specifically is:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now. It is not to say that I have the ability, or the full knowledge of history, to properly interpret these words. But, from my understanding, that statement was largely meant in terms of when a government becomes destructive to the ends of its citizens, and not to Jeff, the disgruntled CIA operative that decided to sell launch codes to the Chinese. I could be wrong. But, it seems unlikely. However, I have made this paragraph about my opinion. Unfortunately, I do not possess a law degree, nor one in Constitutional Law, nor one in American History, nor one in... well, you get the idea. Still, that makes it very difficult for me to render anything that is NOT my opinion when interpreting the Declaration of Independence.

As such, I would pose to you again: Do we have the right to execute those that commit treason?

Actually, you already show great potential in the short time you've been in the debate hall, though this post alone was not enough for me to give you a recommendation.

Well, thank you for saying I have potential. Hopefully, I don't let anyone down about that. ^_^

~Omni~

 

[RDK]

I think the reason that people have been more reluctant to join the debate hall is because most people here seem to be liberal atheists who like to throw around the words "evidence" and "logic."

From reading through various debate hall threads, I see a lot of faulty logic and little done to correct it, seeing as all share the same viewpoint. And they also seem like just plain difficult people to deal with.
Just my honest opinion. Plus the "Devil's advocate" stances that the people take are pitiful. No understanding of the other side, and it is easily refuted, leading to a general feeling of superiority.

Just an observation. I hope this is taken to be constructive, as it is meant to be.

If you have a problem with the way things are conducted in the DH, post some specific examples. Making sweeping generalizations without any "evidence" is not how we do things around here.

 

[Mewter]

If you have a problem with the way things are conducted in the DH, post some specific examples. Making sweeping generalizations without any "evidence" is not how we do things around here.

Let it fly, RDK.

Great Debate, OCloud, Crash. I can't wait to see more.
Now this is center stage material.

 

[CRASHiC]

It appears I was misinformed. How unfortunate for me. I concede that statement to you.

Its a common misconception, and most of the money spent goes to (ironically enough) treating the person (mostly after death) in a humane manor. (Irony, much?)

It is rather obvious that a single person that tried to throw off their government has a variety of options, many of which do not include hostilities directed towards said nation. For example: Move to Canada.

The attitude of 'moving away' is one I generally take very kindly too, because it assumes that such person has the ability to do such. Moving cost money, especially out of country, where the time and money spent to get and apply for green cards and visas can be quite strenuous on the lower, working class people who live hand to mouth. In most cases (not all such as the Magna Carta) revolts political or violent, stem from these working people. The rich move at their leisure, as an entire generation of rich Americans moved away to France and became known as the Lost Americans, where they wrote literature and art that heavily scolded American society for its growing problems, which later led to the Great Depression. These people had the money and finance security to take such a risk as moving to a country with no income. The poor workers who have started many revolutions throughout time do not have such an option.

Do we have the right to execute those that commit treason?

No, and for several reasons. But first, let me define treason.

a crime that undermines the offender's government

That's from google definitions.
Now, let us say that I were to release bio chemicals in the steam system in New York city that are pumped into every office and apartment. Based off this definition, is it treason? Was my intention to kill as many people as possible, or to hurt the government in some way? Both are very applicable to the situation. Proving intention is not only impractical, but is not generally a regarded practice in law. Very few, if any of our laws deal with intention.
Differentiating between mass murder, random acts of violence, and other crimes from treason can be a difficult thing to do. Reason number 1 why I do not believe we can use capital punishment for treason. Certinally their are such obvious cases such as the one you listed, but to discern such acts that compare to what I listed, this is where the line gets hazy.
The second reason is more broad and applies to all citizens, in that the government should not directly be in control of our death. Now, some may be reading this, and thinking, this was the same man who wants a government health care option, but a government run health care program does not stick a death needle in your arm, and Obama has already stated that anyone on the play will not be denied coverage. You could also say that War is a fault in my logic, because the government sends soldiers by the sea shore, shooting soldiers swiftly. The government is not the one putting a bullet to their brain. Clearly we must draw the line of government control when it reaches so far as to deciding the exact day and moment that we die.

I have the midst of this wall of text that is this entire post, I have left one fundamental error in my logic.

 

[GOD!]

Good job on not being an extremist. Props for that.

I actually go to malls and ask people if I can pray for them. The reason I come off as chill is because I am. In reality, all I'm doing is living a Christ-like life, though without the beard and large following.

For the record, the 'debate' about healthcare REALLY can't even be had until there's a bill on the table. Right now, we've got the media just looking for a story. And, a lot of the time, trying to scare people.

Take a stance yourself. I think we might need to nationalize drug companies (not really but maybe) or else regulate them a lot.
The media isn't trying to scare people. Scared people don't buy papers. They're trying to excite people and get them incensed so they feel like they need to do something.

I like your other ideas though. Since you're Christian, I'm somewhat interested in how you view these things. I have an idea as to how you would, because I can think Christian (as I've said before, I went to Catholic school until 8th grade, and church till I was 14, which was Episcopalian), but I've stopped BEING Christian. So, your thoughts might be interesting. I just do hope you lay off the God talk. It tends to make me think less of your arguments (though, I suppose that's REALLY my fault. >>;;; ).

Good luck to you, sir.

~Omni~

I'm pretty sure you don't think like me. Not all christians think the same?
God talk? Like saying there's a God? Why on earth would you think less of a person because they believe something else?

Well thanks for the encouragement.

To anyone who supports capital punishment.
If you can refute my claim that the government should not have the right to kill its own citizens directly, under its power of the judiciary branch, classifying someone dying in prison as an indirect death by government, you will earn my respect and I'll will nominate you for the debate hall (though you will need more backing then just me).
I will not bring up the large cost of the death penalty in terms of money compared to prison. I will speak only in legal rights and ethical rights term, and expect the same of you.
I invite all Proving Ground challenges on this debate.

Nothing really to challenge. I agree with you, I think governments metering out life and death is kind of sick.
However if someone ever kills my (future) wife, son or daughter or molests them or something, I'll kill them myself. I hope this isn't a problem for you?

If you have a problem with the way things are conducted in the DH, post some specific examples. Making sweeping generalizations without any "evidence" is not how we do things around here.

Are you my mother? Or a moderator? Stop trying to act like either.
Goodness. People like you make this place so unattractive to other people. And yeah, most of the people are liberal atheists who use fine words. Um, that's true, not a generalization.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8012430&postcount=15
This might be the most biased, dumbest, and most pointless post I've ever seen.

 

[CRASHiC]

Are you my mother? Or a moderator? Stop trying to act like either.

I believe the issue RDK had was that this is a place for debating, and you complained about the debate hall without putting up a proper argument.

 

[RDK]

Are you my mother? Or a moderator? Stop trying to act like either.
Goodness. People like you make this place so unattractive to other people. And yeah, most of the people are liberal atheists who use fine words. Um, that's true, not a generalization.

If you can't provide relevant material to support your assertions, then it's obvious you're not cut out for the Debate Hall.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8012430&postcount=15
This might be the most biased, dumbest, and most pointless post I've ever seen.

Once again, "biased, dumbest, and most pointless" means nothing unless you back up your assertion with reasoning. Exactly what do you find so appealing about Intelligent Design?

 

[GOD!]

I believe the issue RDK had was that this is a place for debating, and you complained about the debate hall without putting up a proper argument.

You seem nice.
Well whats the argument? Is this not a liberal and atheist dominated board? It was kind of teh way he said it.

If you can't provide relevant material to support your assertions, then it's obvious you're not cut out for the Debate Hall.

Once again, "biased, dumbest, and most pointless" means nothing unless you back up your assertion with reasoning. Exactly what do you find so appealing about Intelligent Design?

Your post was dumb. How else can I say it?

An enemy of scientific endeavor
Lolz.

and should be avoided at all costs?
sure, why try and think?

Sure, but then you're going to have to share time telling the kids why every other whacko theory out there is bad, too.
I mean, leading scientific theories with mechanisms and real-life examples must be whacko.

It's a waste of time.
just like replying to this was.

That's why your post was dumb. You guys in here act like ID is some far-out theory when it is actually very popular. Don't be ignorant about where you are. I could live in Florida and say snow was unpopular and whack.

Evolution (macro) doesn't have enough observational evidence.
No fossils that are definitely transitional.
No mechanism
No accurate time frame.
No sense of cause and effect? Not even a good guess.
Fruit fly experiments

Intelligent Design
Allows for complexity
Explains human nature that is common throughout cultures
Has a mechanism
Has Precambrian explosion (the biggest scientific piece for this)
Picks up where evolution (macro) fails so hard

 

[Wrath`]

No, and for several reasons. But first, let me define treason.


That's from google definitions.
Now, let us say that I were to release bio chemicals in the steam system in New York city that are pumped into every office and apartment. Based off this definition, is it treason? Was my intention to kill as many people as possible, or to hurt the government in some way? Both are very applicable to the situation. Proving intention is not only impractical, but is not generally a regarded practice in law. Very few, if any of our laws deal with intention.
Differentiating between mass murder, random acts of violence, and other crimes from treason can be a difficult thing to do. Reason number 1 why I do not believe we can use capital punishment for treason. Certinally their are such obvious cases such as the one you listed, but to discern such acts that compare to what I listed, this is where the line gets hazy.
The second reason is more broad and applies to all citizens, in that the government should not directly be in control of our death. Now, some may be reading this, and thinking, this was the same man who wants a government health care option, but a government run health care program does not stick a death needle in your arm, and Obama has already stated that anyone on the play will not be denied coverage. You could also say that War is a fault in my logic, because the government sends soldiers by the sea shore, shooting soldiers swiftly. The government is not the one putting a bullet to their brain. Clearly we must draw the line of government control when it reaches so far as to deciding the exact day and moment that we die.

I have the midst of this wall of text that is this entire post, I have left one fundamental error in my logic.

The government is in place to protect its people, right? I believe it should then have the right to kill people who want to harm the people whom it protects. Although the whole mass chemical attack by that definition is not treason, it should still be punishable by death because you had intent to kill a mass amount of people, weather or not it was against the government, it was against the governments people. So in order for the government to protect its people, it should be able to give you the death penalty. A life sentence could be too risky, you could spread your ideas and beliefs to other prisoners, and potentially make them threats to your country if they are released, so instead of taking that risk, the government, for the sake of its people, should have the right to kill you.

(hope I don't sound like an idiot)

 

[CRASHiC]

And how, may I ask, does capital punishment protect its people?
Wouldn't a maximum security prison be a better option given a 2 life sentence?
The threat is removed from the public, money is saved as I had already stated.

The other western developed countries do not have capital punishment, and yet their crime rates are far lower than ours. Death penalties have existed for years, and crime still exist, and in the case of the US, is growing. Clearly, the death penalty does in no way deter criminals.

 

[RDK]

An enemy of scientific endeavor

Lolz.

Quite a deep and insightful refutation there.

and should be avoided at all costs?

sure, why try and think?

It has nothing to do with thinking and everything to do with endorsing a pseudo-scientific hypothesis in the public school system. If you're not familiar with either the intelligent design movement as pseudoscience or the public school system's policies regarding it, I suggest you educate yourself. There are countless court rulings where ID has been labeled non-scientific.

Sure, but then you're going to have to share time telling the kids why every other whacko theory out there is bad, too.

I mean, leading scientific theories with mechanisms and real-life examples must be whacko.

That you think intelligent design is a leading scientific theory is laughable in the highest degree. ID is a fringe group at best, and the scientific community has overwhelming been critical of it and regarded it as pseudo-science, just like astrology, alternative medicine, or any other non-scientific nonsense.

It's a waste of time.

just like replying to this was.

You're a waste of time.

See; I can make baseless accusations without backing them up too!

That's why your post was dumb. You guys in here act like ID is some far-out theory when it is actually very popular.

Nice try, but not even close:

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Check the endlinks for sources. And like I said, if you feel like taking 5 seconds to google the history of intelligent design, you might learn something.

Evolution (macro) doesn't have enough observational evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

No fossils that are definitely transitional.

It's pretty obvious you don't understand what a transitional form is. All fossils that aren't left behind by animals that were the last of their line are transitional by definition.

No mechanism

Perhaps you should read up on evolutionary theory; it's glaringly obvious you know very little.

Evolution, the process of reshuffling genetic information, has at least two mechanisms: natural selection and genetic drift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

This is a good place to start, but there are more advanced sources once you've learned the basics. You can also read further on any of the subjects in that article by using the endlinks.

No accurate time frame.
No sense of cause and effect? Not even a good guess.
Fruit fly experiments

What does this even mean? You're just saying random nonsense without explaining the point you're trying to get across.

Intelligent Design
Allows for complexity

So does evolution.

Explains human nature that is common throughout cultures

So does evolution. In fact, evolution explains all of nature.

Has a mechanism

So does evolution.

Has Precambrian explosion (the biggest scientific piece for this)

Again, what does this mean? Go into detail about your posts. That's how we do things in the Debate Hall; no wimpy one-liners.

 

[Crimson King]

That's why your post was dumb. You guys in here act like ID is some far-out theory when it is actually very popular. Don't be ignorant about where you are. I could live in Florida and say snow was unpopular and whack.

Intelligent Design
Allows for complexity
Explains human nature that is common throughout cultures
Has a mechanism
Has Precambrian explosion (the biggest scientific piece for this)
Picks up where evolution (macro) fails so hard

So was Nazism, the Crusades, slavery, and many other stupid ideas, but being popular doesn't mean they are right. With ID, it's just a hypothesis because god is just a hypothesis. Unless you can scientifically disprove something, as in it as a manner of being disproven in some way not that you have to actually disprove it, ID/Creationism will always be a hypothesis and never a theory.

Also, your "pro's" for ID miss one thing: the assumption that a creator exists. All of that stuff that is "proven" hinges on whether or not there is ACTUALLY a creator.

 

[Riddle]

The government is in place to protect its people, right? I believe it should then have the right to kill people who want to harm the people whom it protects. Although the whole mass chemical attack by that definition is not treason, it should still be punishable by death because you had intent to kill a mass amount of people, weather or not it was against the government, it was against the governments people. So in order for the government to protect its people, it should be able to give you the death penalty. A life sentence could be too risky, you could spread your ideas and beliefs to other prisoners, and potentially make them threats to your country if they are released, so instead of taking that risk, the government, for the sake of its people, should have the right to kill you.

(hope I don't sound like an idiot)

Capital punishment in no way, shape, or form protects the people. High Security Prison's are nearly impossible to break out of (if not actually impossible). Maybe in movies secret mastermind spies break people in prison, but not in real life. While prison breaks do happen, so do failed death penalty attempts (not as muc obviously) and escapes don't happen enough to justify the death penalty. In the case of spreading beliefs, that can be remedied by no/very little contact between prisoners or monitoring of inmate communications by guards. Cutting off prisoners from all other people is a completely acceptable response and perhaps a necessary precaution, and logistically makes more sense than the death penalty (its cheaper) and is completely within our rights since the convicted gave up all rights when they committed the act of murder/whatever. I do not believe that killing is within the right of the government except in cases where it is the only option to save innocent lives and in this case it is most definitely not.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

The attitude of 'moving away' is one I generally take very kindly too, because it assumes that such person has the ability to do such. Moving cost money, especially out of country, where the time and money spent to get and apply for green cards and visas can be quite strenuous on the lower, working class people who live hand to mouth. In most cases (not all such as the Magna Carta) revolts political or violent, stem from these working people. The rich move at their leisure, as an entire generation of rich Americans moved away to France and became known as the Lost Americans, where they wrote literature and art that heavily scolded American society for its growing problems, which later led to the Great Depression. These people had the money and finance security to take such a risk as moving to a country with no income. The poor workers who have started many revolutions throughout time do not have such an option.

Well, I used moving away as an example. Since I live in the United States, I have the right to peacefully assemble in protest of the government. No matter how poor you are, you can stand somewhere and say, "I disagree." Now, I don't know how true that is everywhere else, but I believe it's true in... democratic societies.

On an unrelated note, you mentioned the "Lost Americans" and stated that their moving away from America lead to the Great Depression. It was, in fact, the attempt everyone made, at the same time, to withdraw all of the funds previously stored in a bank, on roughly the same day, that caused the Great Depression. Because banks became bankrupt, they had to close down. Closed banks meant no loans, no mortgages, and in many cases, not enough money to even give out to all of the people that tried to withdraw funds. Said flurry of banking withdrawal was a result of what's known as "Black Tuesday", which is when the stock market took a massive nosedive. Of course, the banks would have been fine, had they not been loaning out large amounts of money, specifically for people to buy stock. Large here meaning more than 50% face value of the stock. So, when the market crashed, and everyone rushed to take their money out of the banks, the banks were at a loss, as they'd lent out most of that money for people to buy stock.

I digress.

No, and for several reasons. But first, let me define treason.


That's from google definitions.
Now, let us say that I were to release bio chemicals in the steam system in New York city that are pumped into every office and apartment. Based off this definition, is it treason? Was my intention to kill as many people as possible, or to hurt the government in some way? Both are very applicable to the situation. Proving intention is not only impractical, but is not generally a regarded practice in law. Very few, if any of our laws deal with intention.
Differentiating between mass murder, random acts of violence, and other crimes from treason can be a difficult thing to do. Reason number 1 why I do not believe we can use capital punishment for treason. Certinally their are such obvious cases such as the one you listed, but to discern such acts that compare to what I listed, this is where the line gets hazy.

The hypothetical action would not count as treason, unless you were attempting to murder the following people: Senators, Congressmen, the President, the Vice President, and so on, in such fashion. Mass murder is not treason, so much as it is offensive to our minds. If you were to use said mass murder to then attack a Senator, or any of the previously listed types of people, then you'd be guilty of both murder on several counts, and also treason.

Intent is a huge part of the law. Murder is differentiated from manslaughter by intent. A protest is legal, but if you intend to injure people, it becomes a different issue. Intent is important, and saying it is not shows a lack of understanding, on some level.

The second reason is more broad and applies to all citizens, in that the government should not directly be in control of our death. Now, some may be reading this, and thinking, this was the same man who wants a government health care option, but a government run health care program does not stick a death needle in your arm, and Obama has already stated that anyone on the play will not be denied coverage. You could also say that War is a fault in my logic, because the government sends soldiers by the sea shore, shooting soldiers swiftly. The government is not the one putting a bullet to their brain. Clearly we must draw the line of government control when it reaches so far as to deciding the exact day and moment that we die.

Based on what you said here, would you be able to accept an optional death penalty? If convicts were allowed to chose between life in prison, and the needle (or some other method, perhaps allowing them to chose that, as well,) would that seem unreasonable? It would make it no longer the government's choice, and put the power in the person's own hands. Of course, conceding to that opens the door to assisted suicide question, as well as the morality of suicide. Then again, that's not really what's under debate.

I have the midst of this wall of text that is this entire post, I have left one fundamental error in my logic.

Well, thank you for leaving a flaw there. I think I found it, but do tell me if I missed it. I did something very unusual here. I read this, slept on it, re-read it, left, re-re-read it, and then replied. Hopefully, I convinced you. If I did not, I will try again.

I'd like to point out once more, however, that I don't like the idea of blood for blood. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, and all that.

Still, I hope those of you that are not debating this with CRASHiC and myself are enjoying the read.

Thanks to the Pink Names that have complimented me. <3 You guys are really nice. And, thanks to RDK for posting in Red. If he's important because he posts in red, clearly, I am also important. >_> :D

~Omni~

 

[CRASHiC]

Intent is a huge part of the law. Murder is differentiated from manslaughter by intent. A protest is legal, but if you intend to injure people, it becomes a different issue. Intent is important, and saying it is not shows a lack of understanding, on some level.

This, as well as Criminal of Intent was what I was looking for. This was the glaring flaw I left in the argument. You have earned my recommendation.

Tommorrow I am going to start drilling the more conservative minds. I really want to get some more opposing (yet thought out) views in the Debate hall.

 

[Fuelbi]

I know if I ask this Im gonna get held a hell of alot of steps back from the DH proper but I read and one minute we talk about religion and the other about law. What exactly are we debating? Im at a total loss and I want to prove myself for the DH...

 

[Wrath`]

@Riddle, after reading your post and Crashics' I have come to realize capital punishment isn't all it is cut out to be.

Hopefully I will do better in the next debate

 

[CRASHiC]

On an unrelated note, you mentioned the "Lost Americans" and stated that their moving away from America lead to the Great Depression

Just wanted to clear something up. What I meant by the Lost Americans was not causing the depression related, but that the rich were able to escape their dissatisfaction with because they had the money to do so. The poor do not.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

This, as well as Criminal of Intent was what I was looking for. This was the glaring flaw I left in the argument. You have earned my recommendation.

Tommorrow I am going to start drilling the more conservative minds. I really want to get some more opposing (yet thought out) views in the Debate hall.

:D I be excited! ^_^ Thanks.

I know if I ask this Im gonna get held a hell of alot of steps back from the DH proper but I read and one minute we talk about religion and the other about law. What exactly are we debating? Im at a total loss and I want to prove myself for the DH...

Two debates, at the same time. It's me and CRASHiC (and some others), and also GOD! and RDK.

@Riddle, after reading your post and Crashics' I have come to realize capital punishment isn't all it is cut out to be.

Hopefully I will do better in the next debate

Admitting your position was/is revisable?! What kind of reasonable ******* are you!? :3 I love it when people admit they need to reconsider something. Shows they're better than people that just blindly hold to their ideas with no consideration for the other side.

Just wanted to clear something up. What I meant by the Lost Americans was not causing the depression related, but that the rich were able to escape their dissatisfaction with because they had the money to do so. The poor do not.

Sorry for the mixup! That clears up what you meant, and sorry for wasting a bit of page space with that.

Anyone else have any topics they want to discuss/debate with me? :3

 

[Fuelbi]

Id like to give a crack at it with you omni but I dont know what to discuss

 

[Riddle]

Roacherman, I will argue something with you. Pcik any topic and any side of the debate and then i will arguet the other side (With devil's ad if need be).

 

[Fuelbi]

Ok what about the already done Abortion topic?

I pick pro abortion

Many people say that abortion is bad because you kill babies before they are born but I think that abortion should be allowed because it already helps save lives....

dont know what much to say but Ill argue if you say anything against me

 

[Riddle]

Ok what about the already done Abortion topic?

I pick pro abortion

Many people say that abortion is bad because you kill babies before they are born but I think that abortion should be allowed because it already helps save lives....

dont know what much to say but Ill argue if you say anything against me

You would make me argue something that I'm vehemently opposed to. Whatever, it'll be good for me to practive my devil's advocate.

Let's look at a definition of abortion. Here is what wikipedia has to say: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.

The end of this is what I think abortions fundementally boil down to. Artificial abortions result in death. Would you murder innocent newborns? I hope not. This is considered a crime in our society for obvious reasons. What difference does it make if they haven't left their mother's bodies? They are still human beings and have, as stated by the Declaration, the unalienable right of life. You may say that a fetus or embryo can not feel pain or can not think, but that does not take away the fact that you are taking away a human's life without their consent.

 

[Fuelbi]

God **** I forget its not abortion its stem cell research I meant to argue

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I would be willing to try and debate with someone on Religion (including which Religions are most negatively viewed, which Religions have made the largest impact, what the fastest growing Religion is, et cetera), few Economic topics, although I was never that good at Economics, and topics on the Universe and/or Extraterrestrial life.

I may still need practice on Debating, but still.

 

[Crimson King]

I know if I ask this Im gonna get held a hell of alot of steps back from the DH proper but I read and one minute we talk about religion and the other about law. What exactly are we debating? Im at a total loss and I want to prove myself for the DH...

To clarify, your point here is to basically make yourself shine despite the other arguments going on. While completely different, if GOD! can out do Omni, in terms of getting his point across and showing how RDK is wrong in a respectable way, GOD! will earn some recognition from us. This is basically your chance to grab a DH member, scream in their face, rile them up, and prove them wrong. If you can at least hang with them, I'd say that proves you are ready. I believe TheGreatKazoo still posts in here, and I feel his ascension is a good model. I'll try to get him to post and argue with someone.

 

[Fuelbi]

I would be willing to try and debate with someone on Religion (including which Religions are most negatively viewed, which Religions have made the largest impact, what the fastest growing Religion is, et cetera), few Economic topics, although I was never that good at Economics, and topics on the Universe and/or Extraterrestrial life.

I may still need practice on Debating, but still.

Id like to take a crack at it with you....

What about extraterrestial life? Id like to discuss that. Just choose your side and Ill pick the opposite

but then again Im already in an argument......

 

[Riddle]

Id like to take a crack at it with you....

What about extraterrestial life? Id like to discuss that. Just choose your side and Ill pick the opposite

but then again Im already in an argument......

roach I think this is for temp debaters to debate with people who have already proven themselves (Debaters). The other threads are for temp debaters debating other temp debaters.

Omnicron, I will give you the same offer I give roach. That actually applies to eeryone in the Center Stage. I am very interested in manking the Debate Hall/Proving Grounds a better place.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I would be willing to try and debate with someone on Religion (including which Religions are most negatively viewed, which Religions have made the largest impact, what the fastest growing Religion is, et cetera), few Economic topics, although I was never that good at Economics, and topics on the Universe and/or Extraterrestrial life.

I may still need practice on Debating, but still.

I may have something for you on the religion tip: It concerns Prop 8 and bigotry. Interested?

Id like to take a crack at it with you....

What about extraterrestial life? Id like to discuss that. Just choose your side and Ill pick the opposite

but then again Im already in an argument......

It's probably better to pick a side in which you favor--being a devil's advocate is (at times) detrimental to your development as a PGer. So, pick a side and argue it well.

 

[Fuelbi]

@riddle. Gah I totaly screwed up at the topic I meant to debate stem cell research. Not abortion

I choose pro stem cell. Alright they get the stem cells from aborted fetuses but it helps save peoples lives. Id get stats and links but Im on cell phone since my comp iant available at the time I cant copy paste links so Ill leave you with that argument

EDIT: alright Im back on a computer and here is my argument

Stem cell research. Sure you may take away lives from children not born yet but its for a good cause. The process is that they get fetuses and use their cells to make replacement parts in ones body. For example you are faced with a heart disease and the doctor cannot get you a replacement heart. He says youll have to wait a year or more but your disease can kill you at any second. And lets say the doctor did have a replacement heart. Chances are your immune system might reject the heart and youll die. And lets say that even if you survived all this you are gonna have to live with drugs on you for the rest of your life. With stem cells you can just get injected with "heart cells" as we are talking about a replacement heart and BAM your healed and can lead a normal life afterwards. Sounds more pleasant with stem cells huh. Many people think taht stem cell research is unethical because you are taking away a child's life before he can have one. But think about this. Yes it may have reached a stage where it can "think for itself now" but it still knows nothing. It just knows that its crammed up inside a woman's womb. It doesnt know speech and it doesnt know the world outside of it.... yet. So that means taht its like it doesnt even think except for the fact it knows its alive. And think of this. You can save a life that a person already has and not spoil it or you can wait years and years to see if the child makes anything of itself. If I get any boos for this Im sorry but this is my opinion on the subject and I wanted to debate this. Also it has saved thousands of lives already. If you are blind you can even see again with special contact lenses made of stem cells. Wouldnt this be better than if some blind person not knowing where they walk cross teh street and some drunk comes and runs over the guy/lady. I think its better like that

 

[CRASHiC]

Question, can a PG member pull an argument stated in the DH that has yet to be challenged, bring it here, and tear it apart if they feel they can do so?
I think this would open up their arguments and opportunities a bit more.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

@ Riddle

First? Yayyyy, FSM. <3

Okay. Next. What to debate? Hrmmm.... God, this is not my strong suit. I'm great at having debates, but not at starting them. However, I have a topic I'll propose, and you can pass on it, because it's somewhat obscure.

In the short story, "The Child by Tiger," written by Thomas Wolfe, the single black character was **** Prosser. **** Prosser was a servant (as this was written many, many years back, circa 1937). He had been to war (it is assumed World War I), and come back, hired to be a servant of a white family. He developed a friendship with their child and his friends. They are kind to him, and he is kind to them, and everyone else.

One day, **** Prosser discovers that his girlfriend was cheating on him. He goes to investigate, and ends up having drinks with the man she is cheating with. They drink, and speak, until **** is so intoxicated that he shoots the man, and his ex-lover, and then proceeds to go and murder I believe six other people in the town. (It might have only been four other people in the town, as it's been a little while since I read the story, and only really remember that the number six is important.)

Now, here's where the debate comes in:

It is argued that **** Prosser is used to show the evil that lurks within all men. It is stated that **** Prosser is the character that showed Wolfe's changing views on racism.

Did Thomas Wolfe's views on racism change? Or, was **** Prosser not showing the darkness that all men are capable of, and instead shows that Wolfe is, in fact, racist?

Debate.

(Side note: I'd prefer to take the second view, as I've done more research on that viewpoint, and it is my personal one. However, I will take the first, if you chose to take the second.)
(Another side note: Thomas Wolfe died in 1938, I believe. Maybe late 1937. The Child by Tiger was one of his last, if not his last, publications while alive. It is difficult to say definitively, but I am interested in trying.)
(ANOTHER side note: All the **** is actually his name. Starts with a D, and makes people think of male reproductive organs. I think you can figure it out from there. >_>;;; Stupid censorship.)

Have fun! ^_^ Or, say it's too specific, and doesn't actually matter. I won't care. I just couldn't think of anything else. ;~;

~Omni~

 

[RDK]

Question, can a PG member pull an argument stated in the DH that has yet to be challenged, bring it here, and tear it apart if they feel they can do so?
I think this would open up their arguments and opportunities a bit more.

Better yet, have them quote it so that the OP'er can respond to their response.

Edit: Dammit Omnicloud, stop posting in red.

 

[omnicloud7strife]

Better yet, have them quote it so that the OP'er can respond to their response.

Edit: Dammit Omnicloud, stop posting in red.

Never! It's my favorite color. <3

 

[Fuelbi]

Never! It's my favorite color. <3

Because you post in read I have to scroll the screen alot so it doesnt blend in with the background. I need glasses you know and thats hard on my eyes

 

[Crimson King]

I think I win the red being my favorite color contest.

 

[Riddle]

@ Riddle

First? Yayyyy, FSM. <3

Okay. Next. What to debate? Hrmmm.... God, this is not my strong suit. I'm great at having debates, but not at starting them. However, I have a topic I'll propose, and you can pass on it, because it's somewhat obscure.

In the short story, "The Child by Tiger," written by Thomas Wolfe, the single black character was **** Prosser. **** Prosser was a servant (as this was written many, many years back, circa 1937). He had been to war (it is assumed World War I), and come back, hired to be a servant of a white family. He developed a friendship with their child and his friends. They are kind to him, and he is kind to them, and everyone else.

One day, **** Prosser discovers that his girlfriend was cheating on him. He goes to investigate, and ends up having drinks with the man she is cheating with. They drink, and speak, until **** is so intoxicated that he shoots the man, and his ex-lover, and then proceeds to go and murder I believe six other people in the town. (It might have only been four other people in the town, as it's been a little while since I read the story, and only really remember that the number six is important.)

Now, here's where the debate comes in:

It is argued that **** Prosser is used to show the evil that lurks within all men. It is stated that **** Prosser is the character that showed Wolfe's changing views on racism.

Did Thomas Wolfe's views on racism change? Or, was **** Prosser not showing the darkness that all men are capable of, and instead shows that Wolfe is, in fact, racist?

Debate.

(Side note: I'd prefer to take the second view, as I've done more research on that viewpoint, and it is my personal one. However, I will take the first, if you chose to take the second.)
(Another side note: Thomas Wolfe died in 1938, I believe. Maybe late 1937. The Child by Tiger was one of his last, if not his last, publications while alive. It is difficult to say definitively, but I am interested in trying.)
(ANOTHER side note: All the **** is actually his name. Starts with a D, and makes people think of male reproductive organs. I think you can figure it out from there. >_>;;; Stupid censorship.)

Have fun! ^_^ Or, say it's too specific, and doesn't actually matter. I won't care. I just couldn't think of anything else. ;~;

~Omni~

Go ahead and debate whatever side you want to. I will join in once you make the first post, because I am not exactly sure what you are debating.

Stem cell research. Sure you may take away lives from children not born yet but its for a good cause. The process is that they get fetuses and use their cells to make replacement parts in ones body. For example you are faced with a heart disease and the doctor cannot get you a replacement heart. He says youll have to wait a year or more but your disease can kill you at any second. And lets say the doctor did have a replacement heart. Chances are your immune system might reject the heart and youll die. And lets say that even if you survived all this you are gonna have to live with drugs on you for the rest of your life. With stem cells you can just get injected with "heart cells" as we are talking about a replacement heart and BAM your healed and can lead a normal life afterwards. Sounds more pleasant with stem cells huh. Many people think taht stem cell research is unethical because you are taking away a child's life before he can have one. But think about this. Yes it may have reached a stage where it can "think for itself now" but it still knows nothing. It just knows that its crammed up inside a woman's womb. It doesnt know speech and it doesnt know the world outside of it.... yet. So that means taht its like it doesnt even think except for the fact it knows its alive. And think of this. You can save a life that a person already has and not spoil it or you can wait years and years to see if the child makes anything of itself. If I get any boos for this Im sorry but this is my opinion on the subject and I wanted to debate this. Also it has saved thousands of lives already. If you are blind you can even see again with special contact lenses made of stem cells. Wouldnt this be better than if some blind person not knowing where they walk cross teh street and some drunk comes and runs over the guy/lady. I think its better like that

A person in a position where they need help from stem cell's is probably going to die anyways. The aborted baby will probably have a long and prosperous life and you are taking away its chance to live. If you go ahead and use the stem cells to recreate the heart then the baby will most definitely die, but If you don't they might both live. If you want to use the stem cells of a fetus that died by natural causes fine, but killing fetuses to take their stem cells is not okay. Humans have no right to take the life of another human in any situation if said human has any chance of living. I place a distinction between letting someone die and killing them. They are not the same thing morally.

Think about it this way. Imagine that you are a doctor and you have 5 patients that are all going to die. One of them needs a heart, One a kidney, one a liver, etc. Basically they all need different organs. A 6th man comes in to give blood and you find out that he has the same blood type as your other 5 patients and his organs are guaranteed to save the lives of the other 5. Would you kill him to harvest his organ and save the 5? I wouldn't, because murder of innocent people is never justified in any situation. That is how I see abortion for stem cells killing innocent people.

Disclaimer: This isn't my real opinion, don't judge me.

My favorite color is orange. And yes the FSM is sexy and you should join the pastafarian group.

 

[Fuelbi]

Go ahead and debate whatever side you want to. I will join in once you make the first post, because I am not exactly sure what you are debating.



A person in a position where they need help from stem cell's is probably going to die anyways. The aborted baby will probably have a long and prosperous life and you are taking away its chance to live. If you go ahead and use the stem cells to recreate the heart then the baby will most definitely die, but If you don't they might both live. If you want to use the stem cells of a fetus that died by natural causes fine, but killing fetuses to take their stem cells is not okay. Humans have no right to take the life of another human in any situation if said human has any chance of living. I place a distinction between letting someone die and killing them. They are not the same thing morally.

Think about it this way. Imagine that you are a doctor and you have 5 patients that are all going to die. One of them needs a heart, One a kidney, one a liver, etc. Basically they all need different organs. A 6th man comes in to give blood and you find out that he has the same blood type as your other 5 patients and his organs are guaranteed to save the lives of the other 5. Would you kill him to harvest his organ and save the 5? I wouldn't, because murder of innocent people is never justified in any situation. That is how I see abortion for stem cells killing innocent people.

Disclaimer: This isn't my real opinion, don't judge me.

My favorite color is orange. And yes the FSM is sexy and you should join the pastafarian group.

Yes I would kill him for the blood. (Yes this is my honest opinion) I am one of those people that go by the phrase "Kill one to save a thousand". This can apply to stem cells. If people walk in and are gonna die soon and they all need the different organs, just like your situation, then I say kill that one fetus but it will save many more lives in the process. Btw people Im trying to find out where to find a chart for this argument on stem cells. I look on google and I cant find any stem cell charts. Alright look. I know for a fact without the chart that stem cells have saved a thousand. Now lets take this into a situation. Lets say a big shot celebrity that everybody loves and adores just got a liver disease and he'll die if he doesnt get any help soon. And lets say that he also made advancements in technology (this is a fake situation it may not be likely)They just ran out of livers and nobody is willing to donate theirs. And his only option is stem cell research. Would you rather a child who hasnt made anything of himself be born and let the celebrity who has made big achievements and is likely to make more die because they didnt want the baby. Im sure if it was that situation then of course they are going to treat him with stem cells

 

[omnicloud7strife]

I think I win the red being my favorite color contest.

I would totally try and be a moderator to have a red name. I mean, I'm vastly under qualified, which is why I'm not, but if I was qualified, oh man, I'd be all over that like white on white rice.

Go ahead and debate whatever side you want to. I will join in once you make the first post, because I am not exactly sure what you are debating.

My favorite color is orange. And yes the FSM is sexy and you should join the pastafarian group.

It's a very, very tricky subject. I propose that Thomas Wolfe, author, was racist. My reasoning is because one of his last works did not show change in his views towards blacks.

I mean, that's the really, really, really watered down version. Again, you can choose to not debate this one. It's super specific, and I did a lot of research into it, including reading several pieces by Wolfe, a section of biography of Wolfe, and wrote a paper on it. It's very much a debate that's really just there for thinking about, and is not concrete.

Because you post in read I have to scroll the screen alot so it doesnt blend in with the background. I need glasses you know and thats hard on my eyes

My BG is black. >_> So, I mean... I'm sorry?

~Omni~