Pro ~ Round 1

PLEASE HELP ME PREPARING DEBATE


"An eye for a eye will make the whole world blind"rightly said by Mahatma Gandhi.It is so true in it's sense.FOR INSTANCE WE CAN TAKE MAHABHARATA.There was a huge war between pandavas and kauravas. And what was the consequence of that???????????Neither kauravas nor pandavas were left.so revenge is not at all good.......

Con ~ Round 1

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

Pro ~ Round 2

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

Con ~ Round 2

I apologize for not posting for my 1st round. however, let's begin.

First off, on a interesting basis, no, an eye for an eye does not make the whole world blind. Why? Because that's assuming that everyone is a cyclops, i.e. a person with one eye. Thus, since we have 2 eyes, if we each take an eye for an eye we will be left with one. If it happens again, then we each get one. The criminals essentially would be left with no eyes, for the multiply crimes that commit. However, most of the innocents would end up with both eyes back or one eye. Therefore, an eye for an eye would not make the world blind. But, going to a more serious note.

Contention I: Justice is the foremost value in society.

"An eye for an eye: is taken out of context in today's society. Today, the phrase means "proportionality" not "equivalence" (like what it meant in the Code). Therefore, a criminal who kills could either get the death penalty, or life in jail without parole. The criminal has lost the maximum amount of rights as possible, just like the victim. On a smaller scale, a robber would get fined or a year in prison, to compensate for the violation against the person robbed. See, an eye for an eye means proportionate justice, which is the obligation of a justice system. Since justice is a foremost value, then proportionality must be upheld as a criterion of that. Essentially, its not making the world blind, its making a more just, fair, and equal society.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Pro ~ Round 3

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

Con ~ Round 3

Ok, extend my arguments.

Rebuttal: My opponents only argument is that revenge causes more harm then good. Ok, I have 1 response:

A) "An eye for an eye" is not revenge. Revenge is a personal want to get back mostly fueled by hate. "An eye for an eye" means proportionality, not revenge. It merely means that the law must see everyone equal, and that everyone has equal worth. Thus criminals must face the hurt that their victims felt. There must be proportionality between criminal and victim, and criminal and punishment.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.