The Instigator
Cg09
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
imjustme
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,661 times Debate No: 4711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Cg09

Pro

Just Society: a society that is deemed just due to its moral and just actions to remain just
Punishment:a temporary penalty inflicted for an offense, fault
Ought: different from should according to David Hume's philosophy of moral judgment.

A just society is one in which the very basic principle of justice is upheld and promoted within a society, that principle is that of remaining moral. Every individual has their own interpretation of justice, but every theory of justice links back to its basic principle.

The negative has the burden of proving that use of the death penalty is either moral or just if he or she fails to do so then you must vote affirmative.

Through our moral judgment know that taking the life of any individual is immoral and wrong under any circumstance. David Hume stated that ought differentiates from that of "is", due to the fact that ought is upstanding of a moral obligation. It is then the moral obligation to enforce justice and to protect people within the just society. However this cannot happen if use of the death penalty is instilled. If the death penalty is allowed to be used as a form of punishment, we will be furthering a crime we are striving to prevent. Thus that will lead to the breakdown of moral fabric that is encompassed in all societies today.

My value for this round is justice because we must uphold a strong basis of justice but one with moral understanding. Every just society is then under a moral pretense, therefore this is the first reason why the death penalty can not be even considered as a form of punishment. Not only is the death penalty immoral, it promotes further violence in a society that we are trying to promote unity and justice within. Use of the death penalty would then advocate for Stalin and Hitler's actions, obviously which cannot be accepted. The death penalty is not used as a punishment rather as an ultimatum.

My criterion for this round is adherence to moral obligation, as I earlier defined ought is upstanding of a moral obligation. Adhering to the moral obligation to promote justice within the society is impossible if the death penalty is allowed to be used, it will degrade everything that a just society is striving to uphold and prevent growth and or a learning process for these individuals which further damages society and will eventually lead to a societal breakdown.

Contention 1: The death penalty is not a form of punishment
The death penalty is not a form of punishment for the sole reason that it promotes a purification of society which we know to be wrong not only under a moral pretense but would never promote justice. As I link back to what I stated earlier that advocates Hitler and his Nazi regime and Stalin and his Communist regime. This could and will never happen, you cannot advocate for the death penalty and state that it promotes justice in fact it does the complete opposite, the death penalty promotes the government acting Fascist it oversteps the boundaries and violates the theory of social contract.

Contention 2: Use of the Death Penalty is overstepping the boundaries of the Government.

In social contract citizens give up rights for protection from the government. It doesn't state that the government does not have boundaries or limitations to the actions that can be taken. The death penalty cannot be used because it doesn't promote justice and is allowing the government to overstep boundaries and therefore the citizens are no longer being protected but more at risk than when they originally began to maintain justice. Again the reasons that the death penalty cannot be even considered is that it is not a punishment it is a tool that promotes eradication and fascist actions, it does not promote justice, morality or peace and for these reasons you now must vote affirmative.
imjustme

Con

I would like to thank cg09 for challenging me in this debate.
As much as I am pleased with his set up or context, I am much displeased with his characterizations. On where death penalty is used and on why death penalty is even approved in status quo. So before I begin my arguments I would first rebut his points.

His Points
The death penalty is not a form of punishment
First and for most, Nazi regime and status quo is very much different.Death penalty is only given to people who have committed heinous crimes. Crimes that are so grave and the only commensurate punishment is Death penalty.
Justice must be preserved. We all agree on that, but is it really preserved when we don't give death penalty? When heinous crimes are done like rape etc and you only going to give them Life time imprisonment?

Death Penalty will equate to societal breakdown.
Obviously false, there are current countries who has death penalty. Yet no societal breakdown is happening.

Next, He hinges all his points on the idea of morality. That death penalty is not a moral action that a society and a government should not take. But the question is, Where is morality hinged on? Does the definition of morality changes when mixed under different circumstances? Of course it does.
For example, a person stole from a convenient store and he gets caught, I guess its not right for us to give him death penalty because the crime of this person is not that grave. But when it comes to rape, murder etc, is it okay for us to give them lifetime imprisonment?
Of course not, It doesn't become commensurate and then justice lost it's essence.

Next, HE says. Government overstepping their bounds.
Let's assume that we go under his logic. It's not right for a government to use death penalty.
but as you can see his argument boils down to this. The state has no right nor power to punish a person For that person has a right that the government should protect. So then, if thats the case, lifetime imprisonment should not also be applied. For it takes away the liberty of a person. Liberty is a right. So in lifetime imprisonment the state oversteps their boundaries. SO in his logic, there should be no punishment since "Punishment" does effect or over ride rights.

However, The true essence of punishment is this, The state has the right to curtail your right Since The "Crime" you did is something that curtails others right.

In this, Death penalty is one of those punishments. And it is better for it ensures that justice is commensurable.

I was able to prove that our moral obligation is to preserve justice. And in my side, it's being preserved for justice is gained when we give the right punishment.

I will argue later on the second round.

With those rebuttals, Vote con
Debate Round No. 1
Cg09

Pro

Considering the fact that my opponent has absolutely no case and simply tried to attack my case, this may be a little more difficult. However most of my opponents arguments are simply inapplicable to my case.
-Death penalty is only given to people who have committed heinous crimes. Crimes that are so grave and the only commensurate punishment is Death penalty.
Really? because executing individuals is a form of the death penalty and basing what you said on the status quo, would not all the innocent civilians in Darfur and Chad then have to be criminals in order for your statement to be true? Next, who decides which crimes or actions merit the death penalty? I never stated in my case that life time imprisonment would equal justice, however i also do not agree with the my opponent when he says that rapist can be given the death penalty.
The only way to ever even attempt to justify the death penalty is through equitable justice. Killing rapists is not equitable justice, in fact its so unreasonable that you would in theory have to "Rape the Rapist" for justice to be served.
My opponent said that there has been no proof or evidence of a societal breakdown due to division on the death penalty. Um, im pretty sure that many states in our immediate domestic areas are in the supreme court going over cases that determine whether they ought to use the death penalty on rapist as my opponent states. What is there primary division? beliefs from two separate parties. Nelson Mandela stated that without unity division will corrupt, it is obvious that in time the death penalty will lead to a form of societal breakdown. That doesn't mean the "walls of Jericho" have to fall but in that it causes individuals to separate even further, and since something that isn't united can break apart, thus my point.

The supreme court recently rejected the request for a rapist in Louisiana to be put to death. My opponent states many times in his case that the death penalty is rightly used on rapist, murderers and ETC! I would like my opponent to explain himself on which of these crimes of ETC are deserving of the death penalty.

This is what my opponent stated about my previous arguments:
The state has no right nor power to punish a person For that person has a right that the government should protect. So then, if thats the case, lifetime imprisonment should not also be applied. For it takes away the liberty of a person. Liberty is a right. So in lifetime imprisonment the state oversteps their boundaries. SO in his logic, there should be no punishment since "Punishment" does effect or over ride rights.
Again, where in my case did i say anything about lifetime imprisonment? On the punishment argument, I simply stated that since the death penalty is not a form of punishment seeing as how it is not temporary. It is instead an ultimatum.
Lastly my opponent said he proved that justice is upheld when we give the "right punishment." Who is it again who decides that? We see in all instances across the world that the "right punishment" differs in opinion. So how is it to say that the death penalty, universally accepted, is the right punishment for as my opponent states rapist, murderers ETC.

Since my opponent has failed to provide any of his own arguments and thus far failed to prove that the death penalty is under a moral pretense, you must vote Affirmative.
imjustme

Con

His POINT
Really? because executing individuals is a form of the death penalty and basing what you said on the status quo, would not all the innocent civilians in Darfur and Chad then have to be criminals in order for your statement to be true?

MY REBUTTAL
>Execution indeed is a form of death penalty. But as you can see, we are talking about governments who are capable. Not governments such as Sudan, Darfur areas where in governments have no control. So within those countries, Don't expect justice.
However, this debate lies on states and countries which has full control over their lands.

HIS POINT
Next, who decides which crimes or actions merit the death penalty? I never stated in my case that life time imprisonment would equal justice, however i also do not agree with the my opponent when he says that rapist can be given the death penalty.

MY REBUTTAL
>The State and the society decides. For these groups are the ones capable of having the meter stick and measuring the gravity of the crime done. Not all rape cases is already equitable to death penalty. Such actions has to be considered like pre-meditation of the crime, deception and etc.
I have to make clear, that i started the assumption of Lifetime imprisonment for my opponent here is not allowing death penalty. The next highest punishment available is lifetime imprisonment. So i thought that it would be his defense.
Next, it seems that in your eyes, there lifetime imprisonment and death penalty is not equal punishment to crimes like rape and murder. then again, what do you plan to give them? What is the justified punishment for you? What are you trying to defend?
>as well all know, we can't live in the perfect world that everyone desires. We should stick to reality where in Correction and Punishment must exist to ensure order.
And I don't think that order can be kept when ultimatums are taken away.

HIS POINT
The only way to ever even attempt to justify the death penalty is through equitable justice. Killing rapists is not equitable justice, in fact its so unreasonable that you would in theory have to "Rape the Rapist" for justice to be served.

MY REBUTTAL
The nature of justice is this. The more acts involved in that crime the heavier punishment you get. We are not raping the rapist if it was not pre-meditated then the jury would justify it as just lifetime imprisonment.

HIS POINT
Truth on societal breakdown
My opponent said that there has been no proof or evidence of a societal breakdown due to division on the death penalty. Um, im pretty sure that many states in our immediate domestic areas are in the supreme court going over cases that determine whether they ought to use the death penalty on rapist as my opponent states. What is there primary division? beliefs from two separate parties.

MY REBUTTAL
Ladies and gentlemen. Everyone in society is different. Everyone lives in a different point of view. Now tell me Government has the republicans and the democrats still these people can work together in congress.
There is a primary division of course But that doesn't equate that the other party would push the other to believe in them.

HIS POINT

The supreme court recently rejected the request for a rapist in Louisiana to be put to death. My opponent states many times in his case that the death penalty is rightly used on rapist, murderers and ETC! I would like my opponent to explain himself on which of these crimes of ETC are deserving of the death penalty.

MY REBUTTAL
>Then again, not all rape cases are given death penalty as justified above.

We are not doing death penalty because it is the universally accepted punishment. Rather we are doing penalty if the crime is so grave and the only applicable punishment is death penalty.

MY CASE
Death penalty is a good deterrence to crime.
Everyone fears death. Who doesn't? Maybe the irrational people. But as statistics show, Most of the crimes in this human life are pre-meditated. Meaning planned. If you can plot, plan or pre-meditate an act, your mind should be rational in able to do such things. Rational people would also be afraid of death. For death is something irreversible and life cannot be raised up.

Deterrence statistics
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Therefore if there is deterrence, we can be protected and be ensured.

With this, You must vote con. (of course after the debate) :D
Debate Round No. 2
Cg09

Pro

Execution indeed is a form of death penalty. But as you can see, we are talking about governments who are capable.

My opponent conceded this point and argument based on the fact that he accepted that execution is a form of the death penalty as he stated above. Also, I'm sorry but i don't see that we're only talking about governments that are capable. Last time I checked the resolution does not state that, neither did either of us in preceding rounds, so since that distinction was not made earlier by you or the resolution, that statement is not true. We are debating on societies, not only governments who are capable.

Next point:The State and the society decides.
I thought it was 12 peoples opinions, but thats just me.

My opponent:Next, it seems that in your eyes, there lifetime imprisonment and death penalty is not equal punishment to crimes like rape and murder. then again, what do you plan to give them? What is the justified punishment for you? What are you trying to defend?
The affirmative or Pro, doesn't have any burden to provide the negative with an alternative form of punishment. Simply I have to uphold the resolution, which I have done and am continuing to do.

My opponent:as well all know, we can't live in the perfect world that everyone desires. We should stick to reality where in Correction and Punishment must exist to ensure order.

I completely agree! We need punishment and correction in order to have a just society, that is exactly why the death penalty can never be used as a form of punishment, because as I stated in my case, Punishment is a temporary affliction. Which my opponent also failed to rebut.

My opponent:The nature of justice is this. The more acts involved in that crime the heavier punishment you get. We are not raping the rapist if it was not pre-meditated then the jury would justify it as just lifetime imprisonment.

Um......WHAT!? I'm not even going to answer that, because of how absurd your logic is on that point.

My opponent:Now tell me Government has the republicans and the democrats still these people can work together in congress.
There is a primary division of course But that doesn't equate that the other party would push the other to believe in them.

I'm sorry but if you could find one person who actually thinks that Congress achieves anything! in a timely manner than I will concede that point to you.

You didn't give a sufficient rebuttal to my point on the man from Louisiana, and you failed to justify your point.

My opponent:We are not doing death penalty because it is the universally accepted punishment. Rather we are doing penalty if the crime is so grave and the only applicable punishment is death penalty.

The death penalty is never an applicable punishment, because I've proven it false that the death penalty could even be considered a form of punishment.

My opponent:Death penalty is a good deterrence to crime.

Definitions of Good according to Dictionary.com: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious
The death penalty is and can in no way be tied to anything that is considered, "good."

In summation, my opponent has completely conceded the point of morality, considering he never attacked it. In my cases and arguments I have proven why the Death Penalty can never be excepted as a form of punishment, not only on the basis of morality, but as well as through true justice. I agree with my opponent when he says that death is irreversible, that is another reason for which the death penalty cannot be considered just, as my opponent offers the solution to continue the vicious cycle of murder.
To conclude my side of the debate, as I have already refuted all my opponents arguments, accept one, I wish to do so now. My opponent says that the death penalty is a deterrence, however the source he provides says contrary:

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

This is the headline of the article that my opponent tried to use to prove that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. As my opponent has no grounds and has failed that the death penalty is in anyway just, i urge you to vote affirmative, again for the preceding reasons provided. Thank you
imjustme

Con

imjustme forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Thank you. This honestly was an old case from last year and im just warming up for when school starts back. I know most of my arguments were flawed but i thougt they tore his case ,or lack there of, apart.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I'm voting pro here because Con failed to make his case.

1. execution is not a form of death penalty as it applies to a discussion on punishments for crime- it is a military move to provide an unpopular government with fewer political adversaries. When the common goal of the government is to deny any form of justice, then the actions of that government can not be the determinant in choosing if those actions are just in any situation. This can not be generalized by the statement that any time the government executes someone it is in an attempt to mete out a just death sentence. Obviously it is not always the case.

2. Supreme court rulings are not proof against 'just' or 'right; see the Dred Scott ruling.

3. Under what definition of punishment is the word 'temporary' a fundamental part of said definition?

4. Going to court to determine right and wrong in opinions is not a sign of societal break down, rather it is a good sign of a healthy civilization that they can resolve conflicts of morality in such a manner. Disagreements =/= societal breakdown.

CON had plenty to work with in his arguing, he just chose not to. Pro wins hands down.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 8 years ago
Greendonut
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Karoz 8 years ago
Karoz
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Cg09imjustmeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30