Evening, evening, good evening

I am Kris from P. P. C. C.

Today we are making chocolate mille-feuille

This dessert is one of my favorites, cause it's really simple to make

First, we cut the store bought puff pastry dough into strips

Place it onto the baking tray and put it in the oven for 15 mins

Remember to preheat the oven at 180 degrees Celsius

Next, melt the chocolate over boiled water

While we're waiting for the pastry, let's talk about the death penalty

I know you wanna ask, "Kris, do you really want to talk about the death penalty, really?"

"Don't you want to keep your show running? Are you sure you want to talk about it?"

Wait, let me finish

Whether death penalty should be abolished or not is a heated issue

It's a public decision

Not only will it impact on events going on now

but it will also impact the future

Those who debate over this issue hold different opinions on death penalty

and reaching consensus through discussions, will decide the future direction of the society

So discussing about the issue today is a good thing

Today we're not setting up the debate but in hopes of you learning something

through discussing the death penalty

For example, have you thought rationally before you support or oppose an issue?

And were we using the right methods when discussing an issue?

The follwing may be complicated, so let's welcome our guest to help us clear it up

(ignore)

Let's welcome out guest to help us clear it up

(ignore)

Let's welcome our guest…

Ah! Hi everyone, I am the combination of wisdom and logic, Princess Idiot

Let's begin

About supporting or opposing death penalty

we can take a closer look at the debate

Though we can't conclude which is the definite answer

we can at least learn critical thinking

We will be standing in the shoes of the supporters and opposers

And give one possible argument from each side as examples

to demonstrate how you can analyze and understand a statement when you see one

An Eye for an Eye

First let's discuss one of the arguments from those who support death penalty

Some people support it because they believe in the idea of

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and also "a life for a life"

Does it make sense?

Sometimes people mention just one example when expressing thoughts

maybe he/ she only expressed a tip of an iceberg of their entire thought

No matter what, even if their statement isn't complete, it doesn't mean their thoughts are not as well

Just like the puff pastry in the oven are in strips now, but it doesn't mean that they came as strips when we bought it

I have no hair now, but it doesn't mean that my hair won't grow

I think… nobody cares about that

so, when seeing this kind of argument

the first step is to find the most persuasive version for it

in other words, the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

This is a very crucial step in the thinking process

because if the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

seems doubtful

then we can feel more comfortable with saying that this argument is really problematic

OK, back to the topic, what could the most persuasive version for "an eye for an eye" be

The main idea seems to be using the same method to take revenge on the perpetrators

Version 1

When A did something bad to B, we should do the same thing back to A

and if possible, B should be the one who performs it

Comparing to the saying "an eye for an eye"

Version 1 presents a more complete idea

But we can easily tell that this theory still has some problems

Not all bad things have the same effect when it's done to the bad guy

For example, sexual harassment

Ah, a pervert is touching my butt

So what? You can also touch mine

Oh! So those who said "an eye for an eye" are totally idiots!

Hehehehehehehehehehehe

Wittgenstein, what you just said isn't correct

When a version of an argument sounds awkward

it doesn't mean that the argument itself is awkward

It might only be that the version itself is not good enough

Obviously, "letting victims perform the same harm back to perpetrators" is not persuasive enough

Can we find a better version of the argument for "an eye for an eye?"

Version 2

When A did something bad to B, we should give the same degree of pain that B felt to A

Ok, this version unlike the first, it wouldn't have people touching each other's butt

But is it really more acceptable? I'll leave this to you

Can Retributive Justice: Version 2. stand for the death penalty? Or will it cause other unfavorable results?

After watching the argument from the supporters of death penalty

lets discuss one of the arguments from the opposers of death penalty

Government Kills

Some people pointed out, since citizens must not kill, governments must not kill either

The reason behind this argument might be

that when governments forbid killing, it means that governments consider killing bad

However, governments kill people themselves, isn't that a slap in the face?

This argument seems clear and simple, but is it reasonable?

If we take a further look at this argument, we will find that there's already a presumption

which is "when governments forbid citizens do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

However, as we inspect this, we can instantly smell something fishy

For example, charging tax, issuing tickets, pulling cars over, are things that citizens can't do but governments can

In fact, if we really tend to follow the idea of

"when governments forbid citizens to do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

then we'll find that under this circumstance government couldn't exist

Governments could only exist when it have more power than citizens

so they should be allowed to do things that citizens can't

If you try to argue that "citizens are forbidden to kill, so the government should also be forbidden as well"

then you should also be against jail based on believing "citizens don't have the right to imprison others"

Do you think this deduction is reasonable?

From "an eye for an eye" to "government kills", we come to two conclusions

First, we should check whether our understanding of an argument is the best version before judging it

Second, when making sure that whether a certain argument makes sense, we should try to find if it brings any unfavorable results

After discussing both arguments

can we know whether death penalty should be abolished?

Of course not, because these two arguments are only a tip of an iceberg

We believe you can come up with more reasons to support or oppose the death penalty

like deterrence, miscarriage of justice, human rights...etc.

But due to time constraints, plus our main focus today is not to discuss right or wrong

We just hope that through these discussions

We can remind ourselves to use this kind of thinking process on other issues

Maybe it will bring smoother discussions

Finally, we can take our puff pastry strips out of the oven

Dip the strips into chocolate and leave them to dry

Tasty chocolate mille-feuille are ready to be served!

Come, have a bite

You gonna feed me? How sweet