So, you want me to reflect on how this debate changed my views and understanding of the topic? It would be nice if I had actually participated in such a debate. Without having argued with anyone on my topic of the death penalty, and not even having seen my opponent’s write up, I can only speculate the full scope of the other side. My research was limited.
Still, I was able to learn a bit about the issue through what I did research and conclude by myself. To quote Earnest Vincent Wright,
“If Youth, throughout all history, had had a champion to stand up for it; to show a doubting world that a child can think; and, possibly, do it practically; you wouldn’t constantly run across folks today who claim that “a child don’t know anything.” A child’s brain starts functioning at birth; and has, amongst its many infant convolutions, thousands of dormant atoms, into which God has put a mystic possibility for noticing an adult’s act, and figuring out its purport.
Up to about its primary school days a child thinks, naturally, only of play. But many a form of play contains disciplinary factors. “You can’t do this,” or “that puts you out,” shows a child that it must think, practically, or fail. Now, if, throughout childhood, a brain has no opposition, it is plain that it will attain a position of “status quo,” as with our ordinary animals. Man knows not why a cow, dog or lion was not born with a brain on a par with ours; why such animals cannot add, subtract, or obtain from books and schooling, that paramount position which Man holds today.”
While your mind is working to make sense of the fact that there are no E’s in the above quote, I would like to expand on it. When I began on this topic, I genuinely did not have a stance on it, but alas, I was assigned to present one side as superior. One’s mind does not like this proposition ab ovo, but as I started to dig into this topic and peered into excuses flung from both sides, both of which claim to have the only answer, I saw that this was not much of a fact based subject, and almost solely reliant on moral opinion and presupposition. I was in control
Truly, either side can present a perfectly acceptable, logically sound and statistically enticing stance on the aforementioned, BUT, not from the same convictions. You must surrender one stance to reason from it’s parallel. It would not have been much harder for be to tackle this assignment from the opposite side. That will be all.