This is hardly your modus operandi. You do not stay on the point at hand, as evidenced by your wild forays into areas off the subject and ignoring the rules as set forth in the first post and spread out around the remainder of the thread. What matters to you is not ever having to concede anything. This in fact IS how you operate: OPTIONAL777's DEBATE STRATEGY: 1) Ignore the basic premises in order to be able to go wildly off-topic. 2) Charge ahead like a bull in a china shop. 3) If frustrated by the lack of progress, at first make subtle references to your opponent's stances on other issues, i.e. gun control, religion, abortion, etc. - this helps to make any future runs off-topic appear natural and go smoothly. 4) If again frustrated by your lack of progress, call your opponent a liar and slander him in the very forum you are debating. Accuse him/her of attempting to deceive other forum members. *NOTE: If suspicious of the facts being presented by the opponent, DO NOT under any circumstances simply say, "Hey, what are your sources of information?" Instead, proceed to make up even further falsehoods by misquoting your opponent, ignore entire posts that your opponent has made, and lie outright. 5) When your opponent responds to this onslaught, do not under any circumstances acknowledge the obvious lies he has caught you in. 6) If your opinion is in the minority, imply that the majority opinion is incorrect by using the always-useful "you will see the truth with time" strategy, which relies on dragging in incendiary subjects such as slavery as an example. 7) Again, do not under any circumstances acknowledge the obvious lies you have been caught in. Continue to go on the offensive. As a last resort, state further things that ignore or get around the rules of the thread. For example, if the rule is that the discussion refers to criminals whose guilt is not in question, skirt the rule by making preposterous statements such as DNA may be planted by corrupt law enforcement officers. 8) Your worst-case scenario is as follows: Not only does your opponent again point out these major flaws, lies, and skirting of the rules, but he is ALSO quite willing to present his sources. You are given but one opportunity to save face: If your opponent sets the price of his trump card to be your public acknowledgement of wrong-doing. Simply do not agree to do so, and imply that public acknowledgement is neither important to the audience at large or to you. Press your opponent for his proof and further trivialize his request of public acknowledgement from you. You are a coward, plain and simple. If nobody here cares what I think of you and vice-versa, it shouldn't bother you in the least to agree to my terms. I mean hey, if the opinion of ET members is so inconsequential, the obvious course of action is to do as I've asked. Such a simple request. One has to wonder why someone is not forthcoming with a simple response.
Feel free to continue with your ad hominem attacks. I am patiently waiting for the statistical data and proof of your claims. Lacking proof and evidence, what is one left to conclude of your credibility?
The problem with debating capital punishment is that the very question is simply too broad to be answered on a global level. Perhaps some areas of the country could use capital punishment and, in other areas, capital punishment would be a wrong move. Then you have to ask the question on several levels? Is it morally correct to allow the state or municipality to put someone to death? Since morals aren't global, there can be no clear-cut and precise answer to that question. If I grew up in a nice suburb and was surrounded by nice people, I was never confronted with "hard issues" such as having a man run around killing others in my neighborhood and then having to decide if we should put him to death to "send a message." If the guy took a bus into our area and shot someone at random, and our area is relatively crime free, I don't think there is a large enough audience to warrant such a message. However, if it were a crime-infested area, perhaps the message would be better received by a larger audience. Although, if you really want to send a message, you might as well march a firing squad into that neighborhood under orders from the state and string the man against the wall and shoot him publicly. Executions should be made public in my opinion -- why else have them? If you're going to kill a man to send a message and deter crime, string him up in a tree and hang him in the middle of a busy intersection. Although we are too politically correct to do that in today's "civilized society." Yet, we're still frying people in electric chairs that sometimes take a while to kill the person being electrocuted. If you strapped him to a light poll and had the electric company install a switch that would shoot 100kv at a few thousand amps through his body, that would definitely be a much more effective deterrent to future wannabe murderers. Also, if you're going to ask this question, visit your local maximum security prison and take a "tour." The people in there aren't human, they are animals. Don't make the mistake of imposing your lifeview and moral systems on others who wouldn't think twice about breaking your neck just to get spare cash for a slurpee.
I am patiently waiting for you to do that which you have admitted is inconsequential. Given your unwillingness to do so, what is one left to conclude of your reluctance? Your obsession with my sources should have you leaping at this opportunity. Instead you attempt to evade. The cracks in your armor (and ego) continue to be displayed for all. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
#49 The Last Word For some strange reason, Flame Wars often drag on because everyone wants to have the last word. This is probably a mistake, as once boredom and apathy has set in, quality can only go down. So your Last Word is left hanging, to wither on the vine. Better to spot the trend and leave quietly - not to be confused with sulking - you can always rejoin if the thread comes to life.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public again. The trend here is clearly that you lack honor and are nothing more than a coward unwilling to risk public humiliation for a situation you yourself created. As you ride off into the sunset with your tail between your legs, remember that you were given a chance to at least partially redeem your pathetic display of dishonesty and ignorance but chose not to take it despite publicly proclaiming that to do so would be inconsequential. The great Optional777 - bowed, bitch-slapped, and soundly beaten. Even the French would have put up more of a fight.
I think we should bring back le guillotine...... very visual and very effective deterrent. One good idea the French had.
Bobcathy, since you're the only woman, er, at least half a woman, I know of posting on the same threads I frequent, I would like to ask if you feel rape is deserving of capital punishment. To some it may seem as ridiculous a question as asking Optional to give a straight answer, but I have heard some women say they do not think it is deserving.
No, I do not think rape itself deserves capital punishment. Though it does deserve prison time. However, if there is more violence involved.....might be a case for life in prison.