LarrySun:
@Timidelaw, thank you for your argument. However, do you agree that a corrupt individual whose action has not led to the death of another should be sentenced to death?

The answer remains yes. Corruption in the context used here, the Nigerian situation has no two answers to that. Meanwhile every corrupt act leads to the death of someone, either directly or indirectly. It can always be traced. From the topic, placing corruption along side Crime and terrorism i believe was intentional and not in any way an error, this proves to the effect that the corruption referred to is not the "small corruption" but those which are of serious effect to both the Nation and Individuals. The sort of Arms deal corruption, the corruption of diverting funds for internally displaced persons to private pocket, the corruption of sharing loot, that of wrecking the countries treasury in the name of election campaign, and its like....

@horlapelumi, a nice argument you have presented herewithal. The following line of conclusion gets me inquisitive though:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image”._
Genesis 9:6.

1. I'm going to ask the same question I threw to your partner. Going by the above biblical verse, does the convicted individual who didn't spill any blood deserve a slap on the wrist?

2. Still going by the biblical citation above, I think there is an ironical paradox here (or a paradoxical irony); isn't it against the 'law' of the Bible to shed the blood of someone who shed another's blood? I sincerely hope you get my confused perspective.

Timidelaw:


The answer remains yes. Corruption in the context used here, the Nigerian situation has no two answers to that. Meanwhile every corrupt act leads to the death of someone, either directly or indirectly. It can always be traced. From the topic, placing corruption along side Crime and terrorism i believe was intentional and not in any way an error, this proves to the effect that the corruption referred to is not the "small corruption" but those which are of serious effect to both the Nation and Individuals. The sort of Arms deal corruption, the corruption of diverting funds for internally displaced persons to private pocket, the corruption of sharing loot, that of wrecking the countries treasury in the name of election campaign, and its like....

Thank you.

I can feel great the students of lasu.the point stated clear with a good points and reference.

I think the topic is too broad?
You should not lump up two different offence together.
On corruption, paying back the sum involved, plus an interest compounded on the sum and a jail term should suffice.
Terrorism as you can see in the definition is also of a broad scope, demonstrations and threats issued towards the government by disgruntled public servants who have not been paid for months, or the strike actions of TUC and NLC, can easily be classified as terrorism going with those definitions, but I dont think that is what we had in mind when we talked of death penalty.
Terrorism needs to be redefined first, to reflect what we know of it. Where kidnapping, murder or genocide is involved, then the statute regarding those can be invoked.
Nice work all the same. Guys carry on!

LarrySun:
@horlapelumi, a nice argument you have presented herewithal. The following line of conclusion gets me inquisitive though:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image”._
Genesis 9:6.

1. I'm going to ask the same question I threw to your partner. Going by the above biblical verse, does the convicted individual who didn't spill any blood deserve a slap on the wrist?

2. Still going by the biblical citation above, I think there is an ironical paradox here (or a paradoxical irony); isn't it against the 'law' of the Bible to shed the blood of someone who shed another's blood? I sincerely hope you get my confused perspective.

Thank you for the question

For the first, quite simple and clear, the answer still remains yes like my co debater has said.
In this part of the world, the very effect of any of this things are seen and felt. As such, crime is no crime if it has cost no injury to another neither is terrorism if it has cost an individual or society anything and the same goes to corruption (imagine a police officer who has collected bribe for drugs to be shipped into a particular location, he has not spill any blood right? Oh No he has,for the drugs itself is not a life saver.

On the second note
It is also ironical Paradox that the Bible says "Give what belongs to ceasar to ceasar *smile.
On a lighter note the New Testament adds important context to the topic but doesn’t clearly instruct us one way or the other regarding the death penalty. The apostle Paul acknowledges that wielding “the sword” is a legitimate exercise of government authority—presumably he is referring to its duty to punish criminals, with violence. I so decided to use that to support my claim. Even the issue of death penalty is debatable in the Bible.


Thanks

horlapelumi:






Thank you for the question

For the first, quite simple and clear, the answer still remains yes like my co debater has said.
In this part of the world, the very effect of any of this things are seen and felt. As such, crime is no crime if it has cost no injury to another neither is terrorism if it has cost an individual or society anything and the same goes to corruption (imagine a police officer who has collected bribe for drugs to be shipped into a particular location, he has not spill any blood right? Oh No he has,for the drugs itself is not a life saver.

On the second note
It is also ironical Paradox that the Bible says "Give what belongs to ceasar to ceasar *smile.
On a lighter note the New Testament adds important context to the topic but doesn’t clearly instruct us one way or the other regarding the death penalty. The apostle Paul acknowledges that wielding “the sword” is a legitimate exercise of government authority—presumably he is referring to its duty to punish criminals, with violence. I so decided to use that to support my claim. Even the issue of death penalty is debatable in the Bible.


Thanks

Thank you.

We still await the contributions of the opposing team.

LarrySun:
We still await the contributions of the opposing team.

So painful sir, The opposing team didn't prepare for this exercise sir... However, you can help send the result of the supporting team to Nairalandinterschooldebate@gmail.com.


Thanks...

Audience any show?

Judges please read through and give us your verdict.



Jarus
Isacolukay



Any questions?

following

Thank you all for your time..

Adeaks boss any questions?





Congratulations to TEAM LASU....

My question goes to the two debaters arguing in favor of the death penalty. You both support it as it spells finality for the convict but several times, it has been discovered long after the occurrence of the crime that the person accused, tried and convicted was actually innocent of the said crime. This may be due to awry circumstantial evidence or flaws in the legal system or maybe simple human error. In a case like this, if the convict has already been executed before the discovery of his or her innocence, how would society be able to correct this injustice? @ horlapelumi, Temidelaw

gemale:
My question goes to the two debaters arguing in favor of the death penalty. You both support it as it spells finality for the convict but several times, it has been discovered long after the occurrence of the crime that the person accused, tried and convicted was actually innocent of the said crime. This may be due to awry circumstantial evidence or flaws in the legal system or maybe simple human error. In a case like this, if the convict has already been executed before the discovery of his or her innocence, how would society be able to correct this injustice? @ horlapelumi, Temidelaw

Very well sir, as much as that is likely to happen it's shouldn't be a reason to differ from the use of capital punishment but rather efforts should be made into sensitising the system to ensure that such errors are avoided and that is why a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a person can be convicted.

horlapelumi:


Very well sir, as much as that is likely to happen it's shouldn't be a reason to differ from the use of capital punishment but rather efforts should be made into sensitising the system to ensure that such errors are avoided and that is why a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a person can be convicted.

I do not find your answer sufficiently satisfying. The law is a human creation and is subject to the frailties and imperfections of human nature. No matter the efforts expended, there would be moments where things like this happen. So how does one undo an already executed death sentence of a convict who was later found to be innocent of the crime he was convicted for? Do you understand that were that to happen, murder has been committed. Who bears the brunt? The accuser/prosecution (state), judiciary (judge) or who? Because someone has to pay for that death in the interest of justice and fairness.

gemale:

I do not find your answer sufficiently satisfying. The law is a human creation and is subject to the frailties and imperfections of human nature. No matter the efforts expended, there would be moments where things like this happen. So how does one undo an already executed death sentence of a convict who was later found to be innocent of the crime he was convicted for? Do you understand that were that to happen, murder has been committed. Who bears the brunt? The accuser/prosecution (state), judiciary (judge) or who? Because someone has to pay for that death in the interest of justice and fairness.

Let's hear from my colleague. Thanks

gemale:
My question goes to the two debaters arguing in favor of the death penalty. You both support it as it spells finality for the convict but several times, it has been discovered long after the occurrence of the crime that the person accused, tried and convicted was actually innocent of the said crime. This may be due to awry circumstantial evidence or flaws in the legal system or maybe simple human error. In a case like this, if the convict has already been executed before the discovery of his or her innocence, how would society be able to correct this injustice? @ horlapelumi, Timidelaw

Great question i must say.

Not in any way being ignorant of the point you aim to put forward. This is the reason for my carefully selected opener in the introduction of my debate, Yet again in the words of one time United States President George Walker Bush my position has been communicatively phrased, “I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives." And also in my concluding paragraph, Not in any way should this be exercised with wild abandon. All levels of government, from the Federal, State and local officials must see to it that the implementation rigorously upholds constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection of the law.

All the above simply arose from an envisaged misapplication of the punishment canvassed today. It is also necessary to debunk the use of the phrase several times, as such only occurs rarely. My supporting speaker has also laid down the proof of criminal offences, which is, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, unlike the civil cases which is on a balance of probability. This amounts for the reason why the criminal cases takes longer time. It would also be a very rare case as, even after a person is sentenced to death from the high court, there is an allowance for a stay of execution until the case is decided in appeals, court of appeal and supreme court. All this consumes time, and if no prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused is not convicted.

Lastly, if we accept the position of the 0.1% occurrence of such cases then it means we are saying a no to all death penalty offences in the country, the effect of this is simply a geometrical progression recorded growth rate of all sort of offences since the least to be done is imprisonment. Hard to take, sympathy if the senerio painted occurs, but on a long run is not even a reason to look bad for death penalty as a panacea for crime, corruption and terrorism.

Timidelaw:


Great question i must say.

Not in any way being ignorant of the point you aim to put forward. This is the reason for my carefully selected opener in the introduction of my debate, Yet again in the words of one time United States President George Walker Bush my position has been communicatively phrased, “I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives." And also in my concluding paragraph, Not in any way should this be exercised with wild abandon. All levels of government, from the Federal, State and local officials must see to it that the implementation rigorously upholds constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection of the law.

All the above simply arose from an envisaged misapplication of the punishment canvassed today. It is also necessary to debunk the use of the phrase several times, as such only occurs rarely. My supporting speaker has also laid down the proof of criminal offences, which is, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, unlike the civil cases which is on a balance of probability. This amounts for the reason why the criminal cases takes longer time. It would also be a very rare case as, even after a person is sentenced to death from the high court, there is an allowance for a stay of execution until the case is decided in appeals, court of appeal and supreme court. All this consumes time, and if no prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused is not convicted.

Lastly, if we accept the position of the 0.1% occurrence of such cases then it means we are saying a no to all death penalty offences in the country, the effect of this is simply a geometrical progression recorded growth rate of all sort of offences since the least to be done is imprisonment. Hard to take, sympathy if the senerio painted occurs, but on a long run is not even a reason to look bad for death penalty as a panacea for crime, corruption and terrorism.

Your notion that death penalty serves as a deterrent 4 crime is only plausible to the Uninformed. Research carried out by numerous criminologists & social scientists. http://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-that-death-penalty-is-a-deterrent-against-crime-43227
You proffer the death penalty 4 d crime of terrorism. How does it deter terrorism in Nigeria where members of the Bokoharam sect engage in suicide bombings? These are individuals so deeply radicalized and brainwashed that they are ready to die for what they stand for. You are only giving them their desire and making them martyrs in the eyes of their fellow terrorists. Tell me how does it deter them? You prescribed capital punishment for people found guilty of corruption connecting it to murder. If that were to be so, why isn't death penalty prescribed for cases like manslaughter, provocation and temporary insanity? These three lead to the death of individuals and yet those who are found guilty are not given the death penalty. Why prescribe something that obviously does not serve its purpose? D answer is anger and vengeance. That is the reason why you prescribe death penalty. No wonder you are willing to gloss over the tendency of innocent people sometimes paying with their lives. We must learn to distinguish and dissociate these two vices from the virtue of justice. These two vices serve to awkwardly tip the scales of justice out of balance. Use of the death penalty is just attempting to use a quick fix to lasting problems plaguing us instead of brainstorming on lasting solutions. It is cosmetic. Rather than fixating on how to kill criminals, would it not be better to think of ways to prevent the occurrence of crime? Studies have shown lesser frequency of a crime in countries where there is a lesser probability of getting away with that crime than countries with death penalty for that crime. We must evolve beyond the mentality of "an eye for an eye" and focus on what truly benefits us in the long run and death penalty for terrorism and corruption does not.

Timidelaw:

Great question i must say.
Not in any way being ignorant of the point you aim to put forward. This is the reason for my carefully selected opener in the introduction of my debate, Yet again in the words of one time United States President George Walker Bush my position has been communicatively phrased, “I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives." And also in my concluding paragraph, Not in any way should this be exercised with wild abandon. All levels of government, from the Federal, State and local officials must see to it that the implementation rigorously upholds constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection of the law.
All the above simply arose from an envisaged misapplication of the punishment canvassed today. It is also necessary to debunk the use of the phrase several times, as such only occurs rarely. My supporting speaker has also laid down the proof of criminal offences, which is, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, unlike the civil cases which is on a balance of probability. This amounts for the reason why the criminal cases takes longer time. It would also be a very rare case as, even after a person is sentenced to death from the high court, there is an allowance for a stay of execution until the case is decided in appeals, court of appeal and supreme court. All this consumes time, and if no prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused is not convicted.
Lastly, if we accept the position of the 0.1% occurrence of such cases then it means we are saying a no to all death penalty offences in the country, the effect of this is simply a geometrical progression recorded growth rate of all sort of offences since the least to be done is imprisonment. Hard to take, sympathy if the senerio painted occurs, but on a long run is not even a reason to look bad for death penalty as a panacea for crime, corruption and terrorism.

@Timidelaw on point I must say....it's as simple as saying no punishment should be given to any crime...cos death ranges as wide as name, reputation and life.

gemale:

Your notion that death penalty serves as a deterrent 4 crime is only plausible to the Uninformed. Research carried out by numerous criminologists & social scientists. http://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-that-death-penalty-is-a-deterrent-against-crime-43227
You proffer the death penalty 4 d crime of terrorism. How does it deter terrorism in Nigeria where members of the Bokoharam sect engage in suicide bombings? These are individuals so deeply radicalized and brainwashed that they are ready to die for what they stand for. You are only giving them their desire and making them martyrs in the eyes of their fellow terrorists. Tell me how does it deter them? You prescribed capital punishment for people found guilty of corruption connecting it to murder. If that were to be so, why isn't death penalty prescribed for cases like manslaughter, provocation and temporary insanity? These three lead to the death of individuals and yet those who are found guilty are not given the death penalty. Why prescribe something that obviously does not serve its purpose? D answer is anger and vengeance. That is the reason why you prescribe death penalty. No wonder you are willing to gloss over the tendency of innocent people sometimes paying with their lives. We must learn to distinguish and dissociate these two vices from the virtue of justice. These two vices serve to awkwardly tip the scales of justice out of balance. Use of the death penalty is just attempting to use a quick fix to lasting problems plaguing us instead of brainstorming on lasting solutions. It is cosmetic. Rather than fixating on how to kill criminals, would it not be better to think of ways to prevent the occurrence of crime? Studies have shown lesser frequency of a crime in countries where there is a lesser probability of getting away with that crime than countries with death penalty for that crime. We must evolve beyond the mentality of "an eye for an eye" and focus on what truly benefits us in the long run and death penalty for terrorism and corruption does not.

I must correct that the effect of death penalty on countries is not settled, as even research is inconclusive to that effect, you may choose to do your research better. Please use Nigeria our great country as a case study, please apply the lesser punishment for crimes and let's see the effect. Look at offences with lesser punishments in Nigeria and check the frequency. A better question would be, why is an offence levied with a punishment in the first place? If you claim countries with lesser or no punishment for certain offences are more peaceful.

idi0tic thread

Sooo.. when do we get the winner??

I apologize on behalf of my team for our absence. Personally, i had prepared my arguments but I couldn't connect my other team mates. Thus, my Presence alone would have been a disqualification. Secondly I apologize to Fynestboi for not contacting him on time. I'm really sorry and I appreciate the fact that you still called despite the schedule. Thank you very much.

tommytim:
Sooo.. when do we get the winner??

LASU is the winner.

LarrySun



Sir your result sir?



Nairalandinterschooldebate@gmail.com

Fynestboi:


LASU is the winner.

GREATEST LASUITE OOO!!!!

Fynestboi:



LASU is the winner.

Good day fynestboi, please I can see a trend for best debate of the just concluded round based on score.Unfortunately for team lasu, we did not even get the opportunity of seeing our score. Please relate both sir.

Timidelaw:


Good day fynestboi, please I can see a trend for best debate of the just concluded round based on score.Unfortunately for team lasu, we did not even get the opportunity of seeing our score. Please relate both sir.

Don't you know that if your opponent team Do not show up, it presupposes that such match didn't hold, we do ask you to post your argument to prevent discouragement.... So we are sorry, I tried to get the score from the judges but they failed to send any only one did...

Fynestboi:



Don't you know that if your opponent team Do not show up, it presupposes that such match didn't hold, we do ask you to post your argument to prevent discouragement.... So we are sorry, I tried to get the score from the judges but they failed to send any only one did...

hmmm, discouraging reply on its own. If i need to post my argument then i expect to be rated as well. I personally feel not having an opponent to show up should not put an hold on scoring. All taken in any case.