No justice for the dead.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 22,220
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
For those of you not oblivious to news feed, not lazy or dishonest as if you can't see it for yourself, we have what we call murder trials and convictions.
The convicted individual is sentenced to the penalty of the law for their crime.
Often times people feel or say it's just for the murdered victim.
It is not.
There is to be no justice for the dead .
I can expound further in the debate rounds.
Questions on clarity for any detail stated here, leave a comment, send a message.
The forfeited round posted in the comments will not be considered. I will read it after my RFD.
The entire debate seems to rest on a major disagreement on the definition of "justice" between Pro and Con.
Pro insists that justice is the alleviation of suffering for parties affected by an unjust act, whether it be theft, assault, etc. Their main argument is that in the case of murder the wronged party, being dead, cannot receive justice because their suffering can no longer be alleviated.
Con never argues that the murder victim can have their suffering alleviated, instead setting up the conventional definitions of justice in his favor. Justice isn't just about correcting or ameliorating a wrong, but about punishing the wrongdoer. As a comparison to the death argument put forth by Pro, Con brings up the case of rape. The rape, like murder, cannot be undone, but justice can be served to the victim by punishing the assaulter. As such, justice isn't predicated on correcting the act, but punishing it.
Con's definitions are not directly contested by Pro, thought they do contend the assertion that justice isn't about alleviating suffering. He states "So you mean to tell me, civil rights activists weren't seeking justice in getting the relief in the brutality, dogs and hoses on folks." Although Con doesn't address this specific argument, it is covered by his other arguments comparing general violence to murder. When a protester is bit by a police dog or sprayed with a fire hose, their legal case seeking justice isn't about undoing those actions, but about holding the wrongdoers accountable for their actions and punishing them as appropriate.
Although Conduct isn't its own point here, Pro did forfeit a round.
Points to Con.
You folks still don't understand what I'm talking about like usual anyhow.
This scenario presented about an assault is different from somebody that is dead.
Of course you can still get justice alive. You're a live person. The topic was concerning the dead. Don't present a scenario about you going to court to get justice. It's the dead person that's not going, they're in the grave or wherever else .
Ok , peace and bid you great fortune on your pursuit of truth.
The U.S. justice system doesn't deal in justice almost at all, by your definition.
If I was punched in the face and broke my nose, then took the offender to court, it would take probably at least two months in my experience before I got an actual court date. By then, my nose has already healed. So any action from then on isn't about alleviating the suffering caused by my broken nose, but about punishment and culpability. I might be able to be awarded damages in a civil suit, but the expense of a lawyer would most likely make it not worth my time. Regardless if I take them to court, however, they could still be tried in a criminal case for battery, most likely in a state court. In this case, it wouldn't be Mr. Puncher vs. Mr. Punched, but Mr. Puncher vs. the State.
"It seems my opponent has misunderstood the definition of what justice is and confused it for something else regarding either morality or alleviation of suffering."
It seems you're disregarding how I'm defining it. It's how I'm defining it, how I'm defining, how I'm defining.
Many of you do this. You disregard what the other is saying instead of communicating with the other person.
"In Round 1, Pro never defines 'justice' so I did:"
You can have your own definition. It doesn't do much good because you're interested in going into my position.
My position on justice was illustrated through real life examples. Examples explains a lot about what something means.
For example of a firefighter. The fireman put out the building fire. At least we have information of what a fireman can do or does just based from a specific scenario.
So in round one . Did you disregard the examples on purpose?
"I have a chance to be treated properly which is what justice is. At least what I mean when I use the term."
So here I clearly say what I mean when I say justice.
Do you want to argue semantics because you have no refutation otherwise?
"I or a person receives a fair trial in the name of justice. In a court of law, the evidence is presented, testimonies are given for the sake of those not guilty or found innocent not to be dealt with improperly.
Those who have fought for the rights and laws to help serve better treatment, those individuals were looking for justice.
Something to be made right that would make a change, improve a situation."
I explained what I'm talking about when it comes to justice. Did you just gloss over this?
You missed this somehow I guess .
I went into real life examples that specify the meaning of justice.
Are you going to deny those , tell them they weren't out to seek justice?
Another common problem I notice are those that think they can dictate the experience of others.
If a person wants justice and it would mean that they're no longer disadvantaged, oppressed, mistreated, etc., then that's what it would mean for them.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can argue with somebody's subjective circumstances and the answers to deal with their, their,their victimhood.
So in that regard, that applies to the living, not the dead. I don't think you have refutation for that so what other move you take on the chess board, well pick at the usage of a term.
Justice, victory, fair treatment, whatever, it is that which that is only applicable TO THE LIVING.
If I say my car is fast, you may say " No it's not " or " no because it's not a car."
You say it's a vehicle. Whether you call it a vehicle or I a car, it's still it that is which is it.
That it for example does what it does which it goes fast .
The reality is still the same, valid and true. You guys fight over what you want to call something, names and labels are just the fabric of a language.
My dinero is in the bank. Another person says, no your money. I say yes, my dinero. I won't argue, we're talking about the same thing .
So believe you understand what mistreatment is. I believe you are aware of history of laws in place to sabotage or undervalue certain individuals.
Those individuals fought to change things to disrupt the mistreatment.
The dead individuals cannot fight anything. They may have died trying.
They may have put up a good fight .
Now it's left to the individuals alive left to fight.
"It is possible to mete out justice on behalf of dead individuals that were victim of crimes by punishing the wrongdoer. "
Do you concede based on how I use the term justice, there is none for the dead?
"It is also possible to to justice to the dead by helping living victims in a very similar situation to the martyr, which Pro misconstrued as me saying the living being helped is the justice. Instead, the justice is the focus on fairness and laws."
Focus on fairness and laws for who?
Are the laws to obey for dead people or living folks ?
"What Pro is arguing is that when you do justice on behalf of the dead"
This is misrepresentation. I say there is no justice for the dead .
"I agree to that, the dead individual will not consciously within themselves receive the justice if we assume there is no afterlife or soul."
Thank you for finally coming around.
Ran out of time to post this.
I would be interested to see wills and testaments brought up somehow.
The case of power of attorney for brain dead would also be interesting.
Your arguments are definitely improving. I suggest focusing a little on presentation and structure.