Art-Zuron t1_iugdva2 wrote
I am inclined to agree. Any debate about such things is likely to result in mudslinging more than any actual debate. They aren't experts on the death penalty. Hell, there's like a 50% chance any politician you pick at random isn't an expert at anything, and may not have even graduated high school.
calumin t1_iugnngw wrote
The death penalty isn’t something like theoretical physics where you need a PhD to become qualified to discuss its merits. How society chooses to punish criminals is a subject that all citizens of that society should feel qualified to have a voice.
The issue to me is more whether this subject is one that should be bound by local laws, or whether there is some more universal law at play. Branson is arguing the latter, but I have a hard time seeing how that would play well in a televised debate.
Brainsonastick t1_iugrq24 wrote
There’s a tendency among laypeople to think philosophy is simple because they have their philosophy and opinions. It’s true of lots of fields but philosophy seems to get it worse than most.
Sure, anyone can discuss the merits but to be qualified to debate it in a way that other people could learn from listening, you need some kind of exceptional skill and knowledge. Like a degree in philosophy specializing in moral philosophy. Or a specialty in the ethics of criminal Justice. Or maybe research experience on the death penalty’s effectiveness as a deterrent (though that last one would be a more limited scope discussion).
Art-Zuron t1_iuhtezv wrote
This is pretty much what I was getting at. You can believe whatever you want, but, if you are discussing or debating its merits, you have to be able to prove that your opinion is valid. That's one of the bases of philosophy. And you have to do it without logical fallacy.
The problem is that, for a significant part if the US, their capacity to utilize logic is faulty. All they have is fallacies. They rely on demagogues and grifters to do it badly for them. It's because they don't care about what's true, which makes them directly opposed to philosophy, they care about winning or being right, even if they are blatantly wrong. If critical thinking helped them, they wouldn't try so hard to expel it from school, politics, and everyday society.
l0c0dantes t1_iuhm3ip wrote
Well, its not that complicated of a question: Should the country be allowed to kill a person as punishment for crimes. You can absolutely over complicate it if you want, and even end up turning it into a entirely different question if you're really good, but its very much a thing where there isn't a right or wrong answer.
You might logic yourself into believing that there is a definitive "correct" answer, but then you'll just be annoyed when people don't inherently agree with you.
Art-Zuron t1_iuhucfg wrote
The point of debates is to provide reasoning for your own side and against the other. You have to make an argument for why you are more right. And you need to do that right for your argument to be valid.
The issue is that a significant portion of the country, and one of the two major political parties, doesn't debate in good faith. They are illogical, fallacious, and outright lying pretty much all the time. There is no way to debate fairly with them, because their base is a cult. They don't care about logic or critical thinking or truth. They care about winning and being "right" even if it means being wrong. They are contrarians.
If, during debates, every time someone makes a logical fallacy, the buzzer went off, they'd barely get to talk. Because that's all they've got, fallacies. They barely even have a platform beyond oppression.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments