Capital Punishment, a.k.a. the Death Penalty

[Sapphiredragon929]

Well that's not suspicious....

I posted at around 11:00pm 3/17/09 MST (last night).... a rather lengthy post that destroyed Babylons Contentions. rather quickly too. just took 15 min of research....

and surprise, surprise... it has mysteriously vanished...

I must nice to be able to obliterate any post that makes you look like an idiot child...

its not like the post just decided to leave on its own fruition...

EDIT: When is our 1v1 Babylon?

There's something that all 17 year olds go to called school or college. I'm not sure which Babylon attends but he's probably there right now cringing at the fact that someone is getting an infraction, but I'm not srue what your post will fall under. Pure stupidity and impatience isn't infractible.

JoshYEAH probably doesn't care about the debate section, let alone browse it.

Grumpy Old Man, comes rather sparingly, and I haven't seen him post in the debate for a while.

Kirby probably hasn't been on, considering she has a job and college.

Profesco has been on, but I don't think he goes to the debate much.

Little Pikachu visists the debates, but the Death Penalty isn't something she would be interested not to mention she mostly closes threads.

Hey, if you look at this, this is like an apathetic version of Clue. Who killed Stockholm's post? Hey remember the apathetic in the previous sentence?

 

[BigLutz]

Uh, we didn't get to the battle of egos until the end of the post, and even then, surely you can agree i didn't say anything remotely worthy of deletion...

You have been flaunting around a over sized ego since your second post. As for worth deletion, I agree but then again we do not know what happened to it. As far as we know you deleted it yourself so that you could attack Babylon. At this point I and everyone else has no idea as to what happened.

I did however Define Deterrence using 3 credible dictionaries, followed by Citing directly from Wests Encyclopedia of American law, all of which contrasted with his made up definition, and being his sole contention relied on his definition...

Congratulations you cited definitions, that...puts you on par with every single other debater here.

well, take off the head and the body will die..

Umm no, your posts as I have said are poor at best, yes you cited definition but so far you have done a very poor defense in backing up your points. Infact right now from the looks of it Babylon is winning.

oh yeah, I didn't concede stats, i said i would concede statistics if he could show National statistics concerning cost. i only said i would concede cost effectiveness, nothing more....

If I remember you said you would concede if he could show stats for all 300 million Americans. Which is pathetically stupid, as it discounts every poll known to man, because a poll, or any other kind of statistic that relies on a large source is based on a small sampling of diverse people usually around 1,000 or 2,000.

In the case of Babylon he provided a statistic for one of the largest counties in America, a county who's population already surpasses 4 million, with a incredibly diverse population. It is a fair sampling, and a fair statistic. You just didn't like it and like much of your post you made up a absurd rebuttal about people asking to be executed.

In the end Babylon provided a statistic, you weakly rebutted it with one you could not back up, and Babylon won.

 

[Stockholm]

Congratulations you cited definitions, that...puts you on par with every single other debater here.

Cited more than mere definitions, I cited the definitions acknowledged in the real world, which refuted his fundamental contention "Dead criminals cannot commit crimes." I ask for a proper resolution in the future to prevent definiton battles...

Umm no, your posts as I have said are poor at best, yes you cited definition but so far you have done a very poor defense in backing up your points. Infact right now from the looks of it Babylon is winning.

what is your criteria for judgment? do your paradigms include: must be spoken by a good buddy of mine? spare me your subjective B.S.

If I remember you said you would concede if he could show stats for all 300 million Americans. Which is pathetically stupid, as it discounts every poll known to man, because a poll, or any other kind of statistic that relies on a large source is based on a small sampling of diverse people usually around 1,000 or 2,000.

ON THE ARGUMENT OF COST EFFECTIVENESS... we were debating deterrence

In the case of Babylon he provided a statistic for one of the largest counties in America, a county who's population already surpasses 4 million, with a incredibly diverse population. It is a fair sampling, and a fair statistic. You just didn't like it and like much of your post you made up a absurd rebuttal about people asking to be executed.

Cite the demographics. i want to see it all. the problem is my arguments burden of proof is rhetoric, the only way to refute rhetoric is with facts, and every fact concerning Deterrence (As every study ever has concluded) is entirely subjective. thus we function off of logical dialogue. as stated, i attacked his principle contention, and eliminated it. if he disagrees, he's simply being abusive for not acknowledging Real world definitions... and thus automatically lose, being there is no possible way to debate when reality itself is ignored...

In the end Babylon provided a statistic, you weakly rebutted it with one you could not back up, and Babylon won.

He even said himself that his own statistics proved that Life sentence and execution cost, if anything the same...

So, even if it doesn't cost more, it costs the SAME. Either way effectively invalidating your point about life in prison being grossly cheaper

this is why i even considered conceding that point, not because i was wrong, but the point is too broad for debate. Read the whole argument in the future...

P.S.----> OWNED

EDIT: I STILL WANT A 1V1 BABYLON, against your resolution:

I believe the death penalty is sound punishment for murderers and there is no moral grounds for which it should be abolished.

 

[BigLutz]

Cited more than mere definitions, I cited the definitions acknowledged in the real world, which refuted his fundamental contention "Dead criminals cannot commit crimes." I ask for a proper resolution in the future to prevent definiton battles...

Problem is in the end all you have done was cite definitions, you have provided no other evidence than that of a dictionary. Nothing more. While he has backed up his argument with statistic after statistic.

what is your criteria for judgment? do your paradigms include: must be spoken by a good buddy of mine? spare me your subjective B.S.

My judgment is by looking at both of your arguments, the lack of proof you have provided in your rebuttals, your over active ego, and your poorly written posts.

ON THE ARGUMENT OF COST EFFECTIVENESS... we were debating deterrence

I believe his Harris County numbers WERE on Deterrence.

Cite the demographics. i want to see it all.

Its funny how you demand these things, yet you have not provided any facts beyond simple definitions. Anyway.

Harris County, third largest County in the US behind only Cook and Los Angeles

Population: 3.935 Million

Whites: 36.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 38.6%
Black: 18.9%

A diverse make up I assume you would agree? No one race is heavily skewed to throw off such a statistic.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48201.html

the problem is my arguments burden of proof is rhetoric, the only way to refute rhetoric is with facts, and every fact concerning Deterrence (As every study ever has concluded) is entirely subjective.

That is true, then again your argument is so poor that you cannot even find a single fact to back it up.

thus we function off of logical dialogue. as stated, i attacked his principle contention, and eliminated it.

Even that is debatable, seeing how he hasn't wrote his rebuttal.

if he disagrees, he's simply being abusive for not acknowledging Real world definitions...

As you are being abusive for not acknowledging his real world facts.

and thus automatically lose, being there is no possible way to debate when reality itself is ignored...

Which is ironic seeing how you have been ignoring reality for quite some time.

He even said himself that his own statistics proved that Life sentence and execution cost, if anything the same...

Reason for that being is that Executions automatically provide for multiple retrials which run up the costs. It is not the execution themselves or even the incarceration that runs up the cost, but a outside influence in the absurd amount of retrials.

Seeing how both Life in prison and a Execution are both death sentences, except because one is more urgent there are retrials are more heavily skewed toward the Execution. If you place the same amount of retrials and appeals on a Life in Prison case, you would find that Life in Prison costs a lot more than a simple Execution.

this is why i even considered conceding that point, not because i was wrong, but the point is too broad for debate. Read the whole argument in the future...

P.S.----> OWNED

If you have noticed I did not want to get into the debate before hand, if I wanted to I would have posted earlier. I came in originally because of your over ego and paranoia. You really should get yourself checked out some time.

By the way, the additional comment, only goes to show how childish, and pathetic you actually are, but then again your childishness has been on full display in this thread.

EDIT: I STILL WANT A 1V1 BABYLON, against your resolution:

I would suggest posting in the Debate Challenge thread, even then you will have to wait your turn.

Also I assumed by your last post you were going to shut your mouth, should I add memory loss onto the various other traits you seem to have?

 

[Desert_Rose]

I think the death penalty is a good idea. We shouldn't get rid of it. It would be a lot smarter to just kill off some of our country's worst criminals instead of letting them sit in prisons where we pay with our tax dollars for them to live there.

An alternate idea: Let criminals be test subjects. Like for various drugs, make-up, perfumes and such. If they did the crime, then they should pay the punishment by being a test subject in a lab. If they die from a chemical or something that they come in contact with in the testing area, or are permanently damaged for the rest of their life (blind/deaf/etc), then they shouldn't have done the crime in the first place, because they wouldn't be there.

 

[pocketmunster]

An alternate idea: Let criminals be test subjects. Like for various drugs, make-up, perfumes and such. If they did the crime, then they should pay the punishment by being a test subject in a lab. If they die from a chemical or something that they come in contact with in the testing area, or are permanently damaged for the rest of their life (blind/deaf/etc), then they shouldn't have done the crime in the first place, because they wouldn't be there.
__________________

Jeez man, thats just wrong...you do know a certain percentage of people in prison are not guilty right?

 

[Kate]

Regarding studies on deterrence, there have been many in academia.

Babylon brought the paper written by Isaac Ehrlich, which did help influence the supreme courts decision, although it was not soley based on his essay as Stockholm fairly pointed out. Though I think Babylon just got confused, because it was specifically the Lousiana supreme court that used the document.

As seen here.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/325/case.html

Most law enforcement agencies and criminologists are increasingly in favor from my experience, studying as a prosecutor. There are many studies and articles that do show an effective deterrence.

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

My main prospect for the death penalty is mainly that punishment should only be proportionate to the crime. You may argue that the death penalty is "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." when you kill a man, that killed another man. However, what if said person kills more men? Women? Children? If one man takes the life of ten people, why should we relenquish the death penalty on the basis that it's too harsh? It would still be ten times less proportionate to the crime in question.

Then again I'm studying to be a prosecutor, I am biased when it comes to the situation. Pretty much all of us are for the death penalty...

 

[Stockholm]

Alas Poor Yorick...

Problem is in the end all you have done was cite definitions, you have provided no other evidence than that of a dictionary. Nothing more. While he has backed up his argument with statistic after statistic.

What trailer park did you grow up in? Oh yeah.... Texas... anyways, he literally presented statistic after statistic: both of them, read the posts you convoluted frog.

Furthermore, what else would i do in a DEFINITION battle? clearly your are not familiar with Lincoln-Douglass style debate... aside from philosophy, one frequently encounters challenges pertaining to the definition of the actual resolution, we debated what constitutes Deterrence...

My judgment is by looking at both of your arguments, the lack of proof you have provided in your rebuttals, your over active ego, and your poorly written posts.

Poorly written? just because you do not understand Multi-syllabic words doesn't mean its poorly written, it simply means public education has failed you... I.E. Texas...

I believe his Harris County numbers WERE on Deterrence.

no, they showed a 63% reduction in violent crime, in order to prove deterrence, you must show correlating numbers pertaining to Capital crimes, in particular malicious felonies... you might as well state, "we have statistics that show that banning spaceflight has reduced the efficiency of leprechaun labor" one would naturally respond... "wtf?"

Its funny how you demand these things, yet you have not provided any facts beyond simple definitions. Anyway.

Harris County, third largest County in the US behind only Cook and Los Angeles

Population: 3.935 Million

Whites: 36.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 38.6%
Black: 18.9%

A diverse make up I assume you would agree? No one race is heavily skewed to throw off such a statistic.

That's were your wrong... in the U.S. the Majority of violent crimes per capita are perpetuated by minorities (see dept. of Justice), Blacks and Hispanics constitute 60% of the counties populous, as such, far too many sociological variables to take into account... Congress forms Committees that investigate these very situations, do you have a congressional committee report?

That is true, then again your argument is so poor that you cannot even find a single fact to back it up.

Apparently they don't teach you about the importance of logical rhetoric in any form of dialogue, most Facts are speculative, thus enter: RHETORIC...

As you are being abusive for not acknowledging his real world facts.

?????? i acknowledge and point out Fallacies of treating them as canon! read even slower than you probably already do because your missing key points, Especially the mysteriously Obliterated post....

Which is ironic seeing how you have been ignoring reality for quite some time.

Elaborate... you Troll.... Babylon has yet to question the reality of my points, and simply combats with proper rhetoric... i believe you're simply attempting to justify your own lack of understanding. being your alone in questioning the reality of my logic...

Reason for that being is that Executions automatically provide for multiple retrials which run up the costs. It is not the execution themselves or even the incarceration that runs up the cost, but a outside influence in the absurd amount of retrials. Seeing how both Life in prison and a Execution are both death sentences, except because one is more urgent there are retrials are more heavily skewed toward the Execution. If you place the same amount of retrials and appeals on a Life in Prison case, you would find that Life in Prison costs a lot more than a simple Execution.

why spend a whole paragraph pointing out possibilities? there is little consistency concerning overall Cost Effectiveness, any stats would only fuel Speculation...

If you have noticed I did not want to get into the debate before hand, if I wanted to I would have posted earlier. I came in originally because of your over ego and paranoia. You really should get yourself checked out some time.

By the way, the additional comment, only goes to show how childish, and pathetic you actually are, but then again your childishness has been on full display in this thread.

OWNED? Pardon me Mr. Biglutz... I was unaware i wasn't in front of Trailer Trash...

I would suggest posting in the Debate Challenge thread, even then you will have to wait your turn.

Already did, Babylon accepted, but have yet to see a Date and time... Now would you kindly smash you keyboard with a Hammer so that i may resume a real debate? I bet that when i mentioned the National Forensics League, you thought i was talking about CSI...

Also I assumed by your last post you were going to shut your mouth, should I add memory loss onto the various other traits you seem to have?

and Last and Least, you all might be freaking out about my Liberal use of Ad Hominems (it means, "to the man" biglutz... like hell you would know an ounce of latin) and i am simply retaliating in kind to his own personal attacks... anyways, I'm opening my big Mouth because Babylon Clarified the problem...

 

[Desert_Rose]

Jeez man, thats just wrong...you do know a certain percentage of people in prison are not guilty right?

Yeah. And I'm not saying use every person in jails as test subjects. I think just the ones that have committed the worst crimes, and where there is irrefutible proof behind it. OR the people who have pled guilty to there crime(s). But still, if you used prisoners a test subjects, that idea might scare more people into not committing crimes period, thus less people in jail.

 

[Stockholm]

PArty likes the Hammurabi Code of Ethics is still enforced!!!!

Yeah. And I'm not saying use every person in jails as test subjects. I think just the ones that have committed the worst crimes, and where there is irrefutible proof behind it. OR the people who have pled guilty to there crime(s). But still, if you used prisoners a test subjects, that idea might scare more people into not committing crimes period, thus less people in jail.

While i might not necessarily disagree with your intentions, the fact of the matter is that constitutional violations are a downward slope, if we redefine who and who isn't protected fromm Cruel and Unusual punishment, its only a matter of time before we abolish the executive branch, and have the judiciary branch enforce law on the streets, lets just get rid of due process while were at it... hell, we already got rid of Habeus Corpus in the real world! in for a penny, IN FOR A POUND!! HERE HERE!!!

 

[Desert_Rose]

Ah yes, Amendment 8. No cruel and unusual punishments. But wouldn't you consider death a cruel punishment? Or prison? Living in a small cell with an uncomfortable bed, being confined with most of your natural born freedoms taken away.. Is that not already a cruel punishment? People tend to overlook or avoid things they don't want to think about for too long. We've already loopoled our way around most of the amendments as it is. So I don't think lab testing would such a bad thing. Clean out some of the people in the prisons. Give people back their tax money, or use it towards more productive things.

 

[Stockholm]

Ah yes, Amendment 8. No cruel and unusual punishments. But wouldn't you consider death a cruel punishment? Or prison? Living in a small cell with an uncomfortable bed, being confined with most of your natural born freedoms taken away.. Is that not already a cruel punishment? People tend to overlook or avoid things they don't want to think about for too long. We've already loopoled our way around most of the amendments as it is. So I don't think lab testing would such a bad thing. Clean out some of the people in the prisons. Give people back their tax money, or use it towards more productive things.

Well, this is why we have the supreme court. Constitutional Interpretation is extensive, and does tend to vary with societal acceptance, condemnation, etc.etc.

but when we apply the 8 fundamentals of constitutional interpretation, you have a clear answer as to the original intention of the 8th... these are Textual, functional, doctrinal, prudential, equitable, natural, and historical... each defining acknowledged intention...

 

[Desert_Rose]

Correct. And that's we have prisons and the death penalty. Because people decided that they're okay in the face of the Constitution. Which, of course goes back to the original topic. The death penalty is fine. People have been killing other people for THOUSANDS of years for their crimes. (Hanging, guillotine, etc.) I'm not saying every killing was just or right, because there's always a case where things didn't work out quite right, but you can't make everyone happy. That's inevitable.

On the note of my lab rat suggestion, it would be up to people once again as to whether or not that would be put into effect. There would be people who view that as horribly cruel and wrong, and others, like myself, who view it as a fairly just way of sorting things out.

 

[Stockholm]

Correct. And that's we have prisons and the death penalty. Because people decided that they're okay in the face of the Constitution. Which, of course goes back to the original topic. The death penalty is fine. People have been killing other people for THOUSANDS of years for their crimes. (Hanging, guillotine, etc.) I'm not saying every killing was just or right, because there's always a case where things didn't work out quite right, but you can't make everyone happy. That's inevitable.

On the note of my lab rat suggestion, it would be up to people once again as to whether or not that would be put into effect. There would be people who view that as horribly cruel and wrong, and others, like myself, who view it as a fairly just way of sorting things out.

Who knows, maybe blatant torture will one day be acceptable; pursuant to a new interpretation of the 8th of course. Its not impossible. Perceived justice is likely to be one of the most inconsistent mores (sociological term) in society than anything. and the constitution was built to accommodate for this simple truth, so it all works out.

Depending on who your talking to, Capital punish may or may not be Cruel and unusual... but the current interpretation (Circa 1974?) states that it isnt...

i'm very glad, that when it gets down to it all-- we choose.

 

[Dr. Ste]

It was a nice time anyway, Babylon. My part in this thread is pretty much finished, unless something else pops up. I'll try to be objective here. Theoretical stuff.

The feelings felt by the murderer is one of pleasure, the joy of controlling the death of his victim, which is the ultimate control over some one. The family cannot decide when or if a murderer will die, instead they feel relief, in that this dark chapter can be closed in their life.

How do you know? I mean, isn't it too stretched to claim to know exactly what's on a murderer's mind, the exact emotions? After all, I recall Babylon saying:

We are talking about premeditated murder.

Sounds like a death-penalty eligible murderer's motives are more rational, not the momentary emotions that happen to erupt at some time. I think that unless you have qualifications, experience, research etc, it's not right to describe the exact background behind an extreme act that is death-penalty eligible murder.

As the loss still remains, the dark chapter is never closed. The hate towards the murderer is a reaction of the pain the great loss caused.

To move on, I highly disagree with the whole "costs less" issue. Is profit a good enough factor to influence life and justice? Like, "Sorry, we have to kill you, because it would cost us more to keep you alive". Or, to get to the other side, if it finally is proved that death penalty is the one and only correct choice, would we avoid what is lawful because death penalty is more expensive?

Deterrence. Think this along with my first point. Furthermore, even if it is proved that the death penalty does not deter crime, it does not provide enough reason as to why it should be abolished. It should be used in conjuction with at least one other argument. Let's not focus on the death penalty alone, what we should do is compare a state with fully enforced death penalty to one with the death penalty abolished.

The issue of capital punishment is way larger than plain deterrence, it communicates with other social-political-ethical factors. I'm not degrading the importance of deterrence, it's a topic that must be debated.

The whole experiment/torure/eye for an eye thing is outrageous. I've made my point to this. We should start caffeine to suppress our hormones. As Babylon said:

We don't rape rapists, we don't kill them in the same horrific ways they killed their victims. If you don't think theres a moral difference between removing someone from society in a painless way so they don't kill anyone anymore, and stabbing them in the stomach watching them slowly die, you need to get checked out.

PS: Seriously, respect one another. Personal comments get in the way of the scientific method. Plus, this is a pokemon forum.

Sony PS2: I have some questions that I want all pro-death penalt-ies to answer. They are not part of the debate or an argument and have an explanatory nature. Though they might provoke discussion:

-Are you asking for more death penalty, more executions?
-At this point, I feel I must ask you, to clear things up, to which crimes do you think death penalty should apply? General and specific.
-What's your opinion on junevile offenders, or offenders who due to one reason or another (mental, psychological, or other reasons) were unable to judge and realize the criminal of their action 100%, or are permanently unable?
-From three different societies, one that is just like now, a second with a more efficient prison system and the death penalty, and a third with a more efficent prison system without the death penalty, which one do you choose? An efficient prison system is one that effectively keeps the society safe from the inmates (they can't be criminals anymore). On second grade, it effectively reforms, whenever possible.

 

[BigLutz]

I am only going to address three things in your post, I could do more, I want to do more, but I would rather avoid a infraction while dealing which such intellectual stupidity.

What trailer park did you grow up in? Oh yeah.... Texas... anyways,

Pardon me Mr. Biglutz... I was unaware i wasn't in front of Trailer Trash...

See these kinds of comments are why you look so pathetic. Where I was brought up has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Although I do demand that you present the facts you gathered that show my current location, and where I grew up, that led you to make such a statement.

But seeing how you seem unable or unwilling to actually provide a fact or source for well, anything, I guess it will be a long wait.

That's were your wrong... in the U.S. the Majority of violent crimes per capita are perpetuated by minorities (see dept. of Justice), Blacks and Hispanics constitute 60% of the counties populous, as such, far too many sociological variables to take into account... Congress forms Committees that investigate these very situations, do you have a congressional committee report?

Well first off it is your job to provide the committee report, as it is your own facts that need to be backed up. I assume you would know that being such a master of debate.

Second while those numbers may be true, there is no genetic traits that Hispanics or Blacks have that make them inherently violent or likely to comit a crime over a White. By even suggesting such a thing as you seem to be doing is racist.

Third as I showed in the break down, the racial make up of the county does not skew toward one specific race. Thus providing for a fair statistic that isn't offset by it being heavily leaning toward one race.

Also after a quick search I cannot find any report saying a Majority of Violent Crimes Per Capita are perpetuated by minorities. I assume you can list that link as well?

Anyway you have lost this debate, it is fun to laugh at you and your ego, paranoia, and temper, but Babylon is back and I never wanted to get into this debate anyway so meh.

 

[Ethan]

Enough of the flaming and putdowns. I'd continue the debate but your arrogance and condescending treatment of your opponents Stockholm really just drags the whole thing down. Consider it "Running away from you" or whatever your mind will interpret it as.

 

[Sapphiredragon929]

Furthermore, what else would i do in a DEFINITION battle? clearly your are not familiar with Lincoln-Douglass style debate... aside from philosophy, one frequently encounters challenges pertaining to the definition of the actual resolution, we debated what constitutes Deterrence

LOL! And you, obviously are not familiar from where Law came from. The first main set of laws came from emproer Hammaraubi, the king of Babylon (Lol, it's a small world). His series of law, included the Death Penalty as well, and another 182 rules basically reinistating an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

What happened is that the Jewish adopted these laws, and then others began to follow suit. The kings of Europe (shocker there actually were kings in Europe, you learn something new everyday) then borrowed Hammaruabi's code as their spine of their law system, including the Death Penalty as well, though it included other crimes; Witchcraft, Rape, and even Thievery. There methods were much more crueler.

Then the Puritan's became fed up, and BORROWED England's law (Which included the Death Penalty) as they left for North America. From their the Death Penalty has been accepted as a norm of severe punishment in society, and is remaining to today.

 

[Stockholm]

Ad Bufo

Although I do demand that you present the facts you gathered that show my current location, and where I grew up, that led you to make such a statement.

you told me you Slack-jawed yokel, in your public profile. Additionally, you would only ask such a question If it was was all Accurate... being you don't question where i got the information that led me to conclude, that you are in fact A frog, or perhaps a toad... yes, you're a Toad...

Well first off it is your job to provide the committee report, as it is your own facts that need to be backed up. I assume you would know that being such a master of debate.

where did this whole 'master of debate' thing come from?. do i really give off the Vibe that I am a MASTER! AWESOME!

Second while those numbers may be true, there is no genetic traits that Hispanics or Blacks have that make them inherently violent or likely to comit a crime over a White. By even suggesting such a thing as you seem to be doing is racist.

What? Genetics? when did i bring up Genet...oh wait, i forgot....Texas... anyways, here you go you Toad... I hope you Understand words with more that two syllables...

Third as I showed in the break down, the racial make up of the county does not skew toward one specific race. Thus providing for a fair statistic that isn't offset by it being heavily leaning toward one race.

Look at the stats toad

Also after a quick search I cannot find any report saying a Majority of Violent Crimes Per Capita are perpetuated by minorities. I assume you can list that link as well?

look at the stats toad

Anyway you have lost this debate, it is fun to laugh at you and your ego, paranoia, and temper, but Babylon is back and I never wanted to get into this debate anyway so meh.

Yes yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Toad has reached a conclusion, and in the land of Pond-scum and warts, I apparently have lost... I guess Ill have to settle for the Human World... Ad Bufo...

Enough of the flaming and putdowns. I'd continue the debate but your arrogance and condescending treatment of your opponents Stockholm really just drags the whole thing down. Consider it "Running away from you" or whatever your mind will interpret it as.

Im done, but I have a right to retaliate in kind to any sort of flaming pursuant to the 'rules.' Anyways, I was done with this whole Toad Issue yesterday, and needed to respond to closing arguments...

by the way, when is our 1v1, concerning the morality of Capital Punisment...

 

[Sapphiredragon929]

^Um, you know making fun of where a person comes from only degrades you? And it does a horrifying impact to your character and reputation.