Thank you, Bella, for accepting this debate.
Lets just look at contents of my first round:
1. Torture and hate definitions
2. About 20% to 30% of sex offenders are children
3. Lex Talionis principle
4. Lack of free will
5. Dont do to others what you wouldnt want to be done to you or to person you love in same situation
6. Hate doesnt improve the situation
7. Torture doesnt improve situation
Lets start.
1. About definitions. Torture is usually defined as causing severe physical or mental pain. Hate is usually defined as strong dislike. If my opponent has some other definition, he is free to present it, but I think its unnecessary since these words are common knowledge.
2. About 20% to 30% of registered sex offenders are children. Children, some as young as 8 years old, being placed on sex offender's registry for some very small offenses like exposing themselves in public or hugging someone in a way some consider inappropriate. My opponent must defend that these children should be hated and tortured. I make my case that children shouldnt be hated or tortured since they cant consent, thus cannot be held responsible for things they couldnt possibly agree to do or couldnt choose to do.
3. Per Lex Talionis principle, person should only be punished by the amount of harm he caused to others. Obviously, if person didnt choose to harm others, he is not causing them harm, but harm was caused by circumstances above his control. Its like if someone else used that person's body against that person's will to hurt others. Thus, that person isnt at fault. If someone forcefully grabs your hand and hits someone else with your hand, it cannot possibly be your fault.
Further, many sex offenders didnt hate or torture someone, so it is unfair that they get tortured or hated. It is a contradiction to say that person should be punished for what he didnt do, since "punish for" already demands that person did what he is being punished for.
For example, if I never tortured anyone, torturing me means punishing me with a punishment greater than anything I have done.
Per principle of equality, person should get rewards and punishments according to his chosen actions and deeds. The opposite position, that person should be rewarded or punished not according to what he has chosen to do, cannot be justified nor has a way of determining reward and punishment.
4. Lack of free will means person shouldnt be hated or tortured for what he does, but should just be prevented from further harm. Thus, no hate or torture of person should happen.
Thus, if I prove that free will doesnt exist, I will very much prove that registered sex offenders shouldnt be hated or tortured.
Free will simply means that person has a choice irrelevant of circumstances. Thus, circumstances, under theory of free will, have no effect on choice.
Thus, the negation of free will is presented in following logic:
P1. If circumstances and conditions affect our choices, then it is false that free will (choices being independent of circumstances and conditions) exists.
P2. Circumstances and conditions affect our choices.
C. It is false that free will (choices being independent of circumstances and conditions) exists.
Premise 1 is true by tautology, since it says that if A exists, then negation of A doesnt exist.
Premise 2 is true by observation. We see that people's choices change depending on circumstances and conditions. For example, people are much more likely to choose to hurt others if they themselves were severely hurt as children. So the choice to hurt others does not exist independent of conditions, but choice to hurt others in many cases depends on a condition of if person was hurt as a child or not, which is outside of person's control.
From this, the conclusion logically follows that for some, if not for all people, free will doesnt exist.
Further, per logical law of causation:
Everything has a cause.
Thus, our choices have a cause. These causes cannot be chosen, as that would be circular then. Thus, it follows that our choices are caused by causes outside of our control.
5. I dont think its okay to hate or torture people, because I wouldnt want to be hated or tortured. I also wouldnt want for people I love to be hated or tortured, but helped to become better people.
6. Hate doesnt improve the situation, because only logical thinking can improve situation. Hate is not logical thinking, thus hate is unnecessary.
7. Torture doesnt count as logical thinking either, but it is not even a result of logical thinking.
We know that persons who are hurt are more likely to hurt others, thus arguing for torture and hurting others can only result in those others hurting people more. This is a logical outcome of data we have:
Hurting person A = person A more likely to hurt others.
Torturing person A = Hurting person A
Torturing person A = person A more likely to hurt others.
Resolution upheld!
Its fine. No rush.
Sorry for taking longer of my argument, I have two shifts everyday.
I'll be finishing it right after my first shift.
I hope you can read my debate so you hear my arguments.
I dont think its okay to hate and torture people, because I wouldnt want to be hated and tortured.
Seeing him hated and tortured is probably a feeling that I will think about a lot. Especially if it's was someone close to me that was the victim. But I think that instead ok putting my energy to hate someone. I will use it to give love to the person that live that. To help us stop that pattern.
#4 I'm not a follower of Christ, or any sort of God that follows along those beliefs. In this case, that mention is implausible.
My bad, I didn't see it at the time.
Accepting now.
I have removed the word eternally from topic and description. So see if anything else needs changing.
Well, which time do you want instead of eternally?
A week?
A month?
A year?
10 years?
Or just some torture present?
I'm not a big fan of the word eternally. If this is just a debate on either or based on the title of the debate, sure.
But if I'm here to prove both as my burden, eternally would prove to be a challenge.
But if a word "eternally" bothers people so much, which it shouldnt since they think God who tortures people forever is good, I can remove the word eternally and maybe replace it with some other time like decades or years. It doesnt affect my arguments that much.
Its a popular opinion that sex offenders are worst people on Earth, so I dont see why would anyone hold back from defending such a popular opinion.
"Mentally tortured? Yeah.
Physically tortured? Maybe"
I dont know why you want to torture people, but sure, accept the debate.
Mentally tortured? Yeah.
Physically tortured? Maybe. Eternally might be a stretch.