I don't mind getting into friendly debates, discussions, arguments, whatever you want to call them. But, I only find it lively and interesting if new thoughts and ideas are being shared. I find it dull and annoying when I share my perspective and another person rebuts that with a two- or three- word sentence. I find this to be most common when discussing the death penalty.
About three years ago or so, I dated a gal for about a month. In that very month, we got along pretty well and had no fights, arguments or anything of the sort. Then, one evening, we got to discussing political issues. Abortion came up and I can understand both sides of the issue there, so there were no big arguments with that. Then, the death penalty came up and I spoke for about five minutes on why I was against it.
She came back with just this, "I say, just fry the b******s!"
That was it. That was her logic, her reasoning, why she supports death penalty.
But, she then went on, saying, "You think you know everything. I don't think we can see each other anymore."
It wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, so I had no problem with that, but just because I had done more reading, deep thinking and research than she had on the topic, that meant I was a know-it-all? It was obvious she didn't know much when it came to the history of capital punishment and her statement proved that, but that was still no need to lash out against me.
The topic was brought up again last night and a friend of mine asked if I was for the death penalty. I said no. She didn't really leave much room for discussion either, as right after I said no, she started to talk.
Her eloquent response was, "Well, you either let them live or get rid of them, so I say get rid of them. They're a waste of space."
Then, she started listing people she thinks should be executed. She isn't much of a conversationalist when it comes to such topics, so I just kind of let it go.
Those are two responses that would get a person kicked off a debate team: "Just fry the b******s" and "They're a waste of space."
To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard many good debating points by those whom support the death penalty. The majority of times, it all has to do with revenge and "an eye for an eye." Some claim that it deters crime. Others complain that they don't want their tax dollars spent on murderers spending their lives in prison. But, it should be seen clearly by now that capital punishment does not deter crime. Countries who've had it abolished in the not-too-distant past, such as Canada and France, have seen their crime numbers drop since the abolishment. States in the U.S. who use the death penalty have a higher crime rate than those who do not. Historically, the crime rate has increased in the following months of areas where a state execution (death penalty) was performed. The United States would also be saving at least $10 million annually if they were to abolish the death penalty. There have been many documented cases of innocents who've been killed by way of capital punishment and there are other cases which are still up in the air, of individuals that may have very well been innocent. There's also been a history of racism with the death penalty. The only debating point that might be worth arguing is the biblical reference to "an eye for an eye." Even that reference can be countered by the new testament passage, "turn the other cheek." I am still waiting to hear a good logical argument from the pro-death penalty side that is not filled with anger and rage, like the before mentioned "Fry the b******s!" I love to use Gandhi's quote when discussing this issue, "An eye for an eye will only make the world go blind."
About three years ago or so, I dated a gal for about a month. In that very month, we got along pretty well and had no fights, arguments or anything of the sort. Then, one evening, we got to discussing political issues. Abortion came up and I can understand both sides of the issue there, so there were no big arguments with that. Then, the death penalty came up and I spoke for about five minutes on why I was against it.
She came back with just this, "I say, just fry the b******s!"
That was it. That was her logic, her reasoning, why she supports death penalty.
But, she then went on, saying, "You think you know everything. I don't think we can see each other anymore."
It wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, so I had no problem with that, but just because I had done more reading, deep thinking and research than she had on the topic, that meant I was a know-it-all? It was obvious she didn't know much when it came to the history of capital punishment and her statement proved that, but that was still no need to lash out against me.
The topic was brought up again last night and a friend of mine asked if I was for the death penalty. I said no. She didn't really leave much room for discussion either, as right after I said no, she started to talk.
Her eloquent response was, "Well, you either let them live or get rid of them, so I say get rid of them. They're a waste of space."
Then, she started listing people she thinks should be executed. She isn't much of a conversationalist when it comes to such topics, so I just kind of let it go.
Those are two responses that would get a person kicked off a debate team: "Just fry the b******s" and "They're a waste of space."
To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard many good debating points by those whom support the death penalty. The majority of times, it all has to do with revenge and "an eye for an eye." Some claim that it deters crime. Others complain that they don't want their tax dollars spent on murderers spending their lives in prison. But, it should be seen clearly by now that capital punishment does not deter crime. Countries who've had it abolished in the not-too-distant past, such as Canada and France, have seen their crime numbers drop since the abolishment. States in the U.S. who use the death penalty have a higher crime rate than those who do not. Historically, the crime rate has increased in the following months of areas where a state execution (death penalty) was performed. The United States would also be saving at least $10 million annually if they were to abolish the death penalty. There have been many documented cases of innocents who've been killed by way of capital punishment and there are other cases which are still up in the air, of individuals that may have very well been innocent. There's also been a history of racism with the death penalty. The only debating point that might be worth arguing is the biblical reference to "an eye for an eye." Even that reference can be countered by the new testament passage, "turn the other cheek." I am still waiting to hear a good logical argument from the pro-death penalty side that is not filled with anger and rage, like the before mentioned "Fry the b******s!" I love to use Gandhi's quote when discussing this issue, "An eye for an eye will only make the world go blind."
Comments
Post a Comment