You saw the arguments, you could have started out the gate trying to refute them.
So I'm just going to repost the points.
Due to the limitation of rounds, if you desire to run a part 2 to the topic, I'll set it up.
I'm going to start with this point as this is the bottom line where conflict comes into play and how I prove that there should be death penalties or obvious fatal executions.
Not even solely for crimes committed but for the safety of society. Now the truth is, the death penalty is not justice for the victims or the slain or fallen . The slain is gone. Nothing further can be justified for them.
But we can still orchestrate justice for those that it can protect and serve which are the living. This gives the basis for having prisons, right. The prisons are there to contain and restrain individuals from doing any further harm or damage to individuals undue it ok.
Now the question is, if the prison system fails and there is an escape, some type of an appeal or re-trial, whatever the factors are that enable the perpetrators to be free and the heinous crimes are committed again, what can you do if you have nothing to stop the perpetrator?
What do you do in perhaps a hostage situation when your choices are to allow the assailant to slaughter a victim or execute the assailant?
So if you're in favor of prison systems to stop individuals from committing crimes, cohesively and consistently to be without conflict you have to permit executions.
That's really the reality right there which is the truth which is the evidence.
I will say that the death penalty could be reevaluated, recalculated as to the parameters I've specified that could make a difference in expenses. However this would mean that the death penalty, fatal executions are still of reality.
Now we ought to keep in mind of probabilities such as more and more repetitive successful prison breaks and any other factors legally or illegally, technicalities that prevent people from rightfully being imprisoned or being contained therein or people that are perhaps untouchable, legally immune that perpetuate crimes of harming, the serial undue slaying of others.
So basically if the recidivism problem can only be resolved by individual case with the execution of the individual, you have to allow for a capacity of the death penalty or death row in that measure for such individuals.
A person that is not innocent and cannot be stopped unless the person is physically stopped, obviously fits the penalty, reaps the consequence of being ceased. Particularly, mortally stopped. The person has drew these ramifications upon him or her.
I don't consistently draw from films but I thought of this from the film "Lean on me". The main character's decision was to execute a ramification that is characterized as a permanent cutting off from education from the institution they've proven to be beyond redemption to receive.
So all in all, the opposing side has to reconsider that in order to push to still have prison systems in existence, it still requires a capacity for fatal execution.
I should have been more thoughtful for the opposing side. Giving this individual more days of time to consider points and making a response. Just 24 hours may enable more hasty poorly considered retorts. But again, I'm up for a part 2.
If the opposing side would like a live debate on discord, send me a message. I have recorded debates posted on this YouTube channel which you can view by going to website address:
There have been debates and topics posted recently from religion to slavery and some politics. Let me know if you have questions on those and or wish to open them up here online, explore further.
I have switched it to a day :)
I can't be sure I'll be awake 12 hours in between rounds. At least need 24 hours to respond.