Pedophiles should be murdered on sight
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Before writing this description, I hope people understand the difference between explanation and justification. Pedophilia is objectively "wrong" in every case because the victim obviously never benefits. My idea is that pedophilia is a mental illness with no known cure which twists the sexual attraction of a person, typically a man, to children. By adulthood, sexual orientation is often affirmed and is very difficult, or even impossible to change. If I told a heterosexual man that liking women is wrong and he should stop liking women (ignoring other factors), that would not stop him. I can't imagine ever being "rehabilitated" out of heterosexuality. Locking them up in jail is a waste of time, money and space. They will only repeat offend once they are released. Those who don't likely don't get caught. The best thing to do is to use them for manual labour away from society or sentence them to death.
I view it in a very similar way to homosexuality, in the sense that the sexual orientation is twisted away from the norm. The main difference being that in homosexuality, both parties benefit but only one party benefits in pedophilia.
1: to kill (a person) unlawfully and unjustifiably with premeditated malice2: to slaughter mercilessly : Slay
on sight
- The pedophile is running in the middle of the Time Square at 5PM. In this scenario, attepting to kill on sight not only is prone to damage civilian infrastructure and lives, but even if a perfect military aimbot is applied properly, a corpse laying on the ground on a bustling street would still cause massive panic for the civilians and still be difficult for the police, say, to retrieve the body. The better thing to do is just to intercept and arrest the criminal, put handcuffs on and bring him to the police station and eventually prison via police vehicles.
- The pedophile's heart rate monitor is linked to bombs on some children held hostage. In this case, rashly killing the criminal would cause unnecessary deaths of innocent hostages, which is a bad thing. The superior alternative is be patient, transfer said criminal to another location and disable the mechanism until trialing him and ending his life, instead of just using the "on sight" rule without proper thinking.
- The pedophile is actually a politician in a party. Although the death of such a wrongdoer is with gratitude for us lot in general probably, ruining the party of more with blood will definitely cause more negative ramifications than if he is just arrested and taken care somewhere else.
- The pedophile is a trained and skilled construction worker operating a crucial step that requires constant focus and adjustments. You shot him down, and congratulations congratulations you made a building topple over. Even if his position deserve to be replaced with someone less misaligned, is this really the best way to enact stuff? Nah.
- Legally, murdering any criminal is unlawful and is thus suboptimal.
- While pedophiles do deserve death penalty, in many cases it is better to arrest them first instead of hastily ending their life without regards of what settings they are currently in.
- Pedophiles should not be "murdered on sight". Vote CON.
- In numerous classes of cases, killing a criminal(or anyone at all) on sight causes more inconveniences than conveniences compared to if said criminal is arrested and put in appropriate facility(such as prison/jail) first.
Yeah sorry forgot about this but your main argument about "murdering them on sight" was already addressed in my first argument. I clarified that the title was misleading (which I apologise for) and confirmed that the idea is to sentence them to death legally.
IntroductionSo just to make it clear, the title of the debate is a bit misleading - I don't think pedophiles should be murdered brutally out of malice or something - more that they should be sentenced to death. Then this debate may turn into "should the death sentence be brought back?", but perhaps we should assume this to be true to focus on whether pedophiles should be sentenced to death the moment they are discovered? There may even be the topic of how they should die? Feel free to bring any of these up. I should also make it clear that I am not well researched on this topic, this is more of a gut feeling.
I don't think pedophiles should be murdered brutally out of malice or something
Pedophiles should be murdered on sight
Pedophiles should be murdered on sight
especially since such a change has not been clarified in either the short description section or the description section.
The best thing to do is to use them for manual labour away from society or sentence them to death
To respond to con's arguments, they're pretty obviously correct. Advocating to literally murder someone in cold blood in a public space on the first thought that they may be a pedophile is plain stupid.
The best thing to do is to use them for manual labour away from society or sentence them to death.
I wrote a "clickbaity" topic since it sounds more controversial, hoping someone would accept the debate faster, and clarified in the description.
1: to impose a sentence(noun) on2: to cause to suffer something
2(noun)aspecifically : one formally pronounced by a court or judge in a criminal proceeding and specifying the punishment to be inflicted upon the convictb: the punishment so imposed
Am I wrong to assume that the grounds of the debate are composed of both topic + description?
- Pro's implicit change in the description is not explicit, and because of that it either does nothing to the topic or it makes Pro's case a concession due to it arguing not the topic if a death sentence and an immediate huntdown of a criminal are incompatible.
- If the topic is still the topic we see now, Pro admits that Con is correct in his case.
- Therefore, it is rational to vote Con at this stage of the debate.
- Pro's implicit change in the description is not explicit, and because of that it either does nothing to the topic or it makes Pro's case a concession due to it arguing not the topic if a death sentence and an immediate huntdown of a criminal are incompatible.
- If the topic is still the topic we see now, Pro admits that Con is correct in his case.
- Therefore, it is rational to vote Con at this stage of the debate.
Are you interested to have a debate "In most cases, pedophiles should get death penalty"? I would be Con. I dont do word play, so we would be discussing legal death penalty for pedophiles who acted on their urges.
I completely agree with con here. Wish I could vote but I sadly can't yet.
The debate topic cannot be changed once the debate starts.
So if topic says "illegally killed", then that means illegally killed. It cannot be changed to opposite in the arguments.
I suggest you make a new topic on this.
Something like "In most cases, pedophiles should get death penalty".
The resolution contradicts itself.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Killed on sight implies a universal duty, which in it means of itself implies it would be legally ok.
Ergo, no murders.
Plus, self defense laws apply to protecting others.
Yeah sorry forgot about this but your main argument about "murdering them on sight" was already addressed in my first argument. I clarified that the title was misleading (which I apologise for) and confirmed that the idea is to sentence them to death legally.
Who asked you?
Ur gay this is not unusual for our ancestors to be pedos they only lived until 20 years and had the responsibility to make a child raise him long enough to alleast make him able to be by himself ,aybe 10 years and then most probably they would die