The Instigator
MasterKage
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Reid
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Capital punishment in Texas is unjust

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Reid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,441 times Debate No: 19733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

MasterKage

Pro

Resolved: Capital punishment in Texas is unjust.
I affirm this resolution.

My value for this debate will be morality.

My criterion for this debate will be the amount of innocent executed, and the amount of guilty executed.

"It is becoming increasingly evident that those who are leery of the death penalty have reason for skepticism."

I will now present some definitions for clarity.
Please note all definitions will be cited from dictionary.com.
Capital punishment is defined as punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.
Unjust is defined as not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Contention 1: Texas executes the innocent.

-The death penalty is riddled with errors, leading to the execution of innocents.

Events of the past year have convinced us that the defendants have been executed on the basis of invalid evidence.
The fact that we convicted people based on faulty evidence-that we have executed the innocent.
The high number of death row prisoners eventually exonerated makes a strong case that other innocent but less fortunate prisoners have been wrongfully put to death.

-The death penalty involves a high risk of executing the innocent.

The accumulating evidence indicates that the current application of the death penalty involves an unacceptably high risk of killing innocent people.
Yet even as the evidence of false convictions and wrongful executions piles up, only the participants at the base of the criminal justice system, jury members, seem to hold nothing in correcting this issue.

Contention 2: Capital punishment does not deter crime.

-The death penalty has no deterrent effects on crime.

Death penalty support in law-enforcement comes from a deeply held conviction by police officers that it is a deterrent.
Demagogues exploit the fear of crime in the community and use their support of capital punishment as a badge of honor.
The death penalty has no deterrent effect on crime.
Capital punishment fails to deter those who commit crimes of passion.
Capital punishment also has no dissuading power over criminals who are opportunistic, calculating, or overcome by drugs.

-Capital punishment won't deter many murderers.

The majority of the justices, after reviewing the evidence, concluded, "Statistical attempts to evaluate the worth of the death penalty as a deterrent to crimes by potential offenders have occasioned a great deal of debate. The results have simply been inconclusive."
This may be because whatever deterrence factor exists for capital punishment is probable to exist equally for life imprisonment.

Contention 3: Life in prison is just.

-Life in prison is the best alternative.

An effective alternative to the death penalty exists.
Life in prison without parole is moral, practical, and much less expensive that the complicated process that leads to the death chamber.
With life imprisonment, the cold-blooded murderer is removed from society and immediately forgotten, so that all attention can turn to the victim and their needs.
Anyone can be a reactionary and demand blood; it takes enormous courage to forgive the depraved who have caused such pain and sorrow.

-Life in prison provides adequate response.

"Wrongdoers deserve to be punished."
By itself, this principle provides no defense of the death penalty, it is fully satisfied by a lesser punishment, such as imprisonment.
The proposition that "murderers deserve to die" obviously is in favor of supporting the death penalty, but it does so by essentially begging the question.
Why do murderers deserve to die when thieves do not deserved to be thieved upon?
Why do murderers deserve to die when we haven't the faintest idea what punishment traitors or embezzlers or kidnappers deserve?
Retribution considerations rightly tell us who deserve to be punished-it id the guilty.
But it does not tell us what their manner of punishment ought to be.
Relying on some version of lex talionis is of no help in building systematic and comprehensive schedule of punishments for crimes.

-Conclusion

In conclusion, I have efficiently shown why in Texas capital punishment is unjust.
Reid

Con

**I wish my opponent the best of luck, and remember, have fun!**

Resolved: Capital punishment in Texas is unjust.

My value for this round will be Societal Welfare, defined by Oxford English Dictionary as, "The well-being of the entire society. Social welfare is not the same as standard of living but is more concerned with the quality of life that includes factors such as level of crime, extent of drug abuse, availability of essential social services, etc.

To successfully measure Societal Welfare throughout this debate, I will use Safety as my Value Criterion, which again is defined by Oxford English Dictionary as:
"The state of being protected from or guarded against hurt or injury; freedom from danger."

I concede to my opponents definition of "unjust"

Introduction
Orrin Hatch, United States Senator in Utah once said, "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life." It is because I agree with Orrin Hatch, that I must negate the resolution, Resolved: Capital punishment in Texas is unjust. My value for this debate will be Justice, which is defined by Oxford English Dictionary as, "The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."To successfully measure Justice throughout this debate, I will use Safety as my Value Criterion, which again is defined by Oxford English Dictionary as, "The state of being protected from or guarded against hurt or injury; freedom from danger."

Contention 1: Capital Punishment deters crime.

**The graph below drawn by the Bureau of Criminal Justice gives a general overview of the murder rate compared to the number of executions that had taken place in the US up to the year 2000.
http://wesleylowe.com... **

Dismissing capital punishment on the basis of saying that it does NOT deter crime would require us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime.[1] During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior. The most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding. Reason, common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. The death penalty protects innocent lives. The absence of the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives. The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000.

Contention 2: Capital Punishment is cheaper then Life Sentencing and is also unjust in many cases.

Sub Point A: Capital Punishment is cheaper.
TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP (life without parole) should replace the Death Penalty (DP). Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

Sub Point B: Life Sentencing proves more unjust then Capital Punishment.
When it comes down to Texas's laws on Parole, once a person has served the "appropriate amount of years" in prison. Inmates are compensated with "good time," which is counted towards time served. For example, if an inmate served five years of a ten year prison term, and also had five years of "good time," they will have completed their sentence "on paper," obliging the state to release them. However, by keeping Capital Punishment, it removes those who are guilty of crimes being released again and receiving due punishment. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years. Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry. Within days, a naked body of a woman turned up. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field near Temple. McDuff's freedom in 1989 was interrupted briefly. Jailed after a minor racial incident, he slithered through the system and was out again in 1990.

I will know move on and address my opponents case and his flaws.

My opponents contention one is completely flawed. He provides statements with some good wording, yet he provides no statistics, or facts, or anything at all. On top of that, he provides no sources either. While Texas may execute innocent, they were found guilty by the court and it was not the courts fault, but rather the fault of the forensics within the investigation for not appropriately getting a correct answer the first time. Texas doesn't just mindlessly execute citizens, which is what my opponent tries to state.

His contention two falls because I have provided evidence to support that, in fact, Capital Punishment does deter crime from the supporting graph and statistics in my first contention. This also goes against his sub point, stating "Capital Punishment won't deter many murderers." Once again, I have provided evidence and facts to negate his statements.

Lastly, his contention three is a contradiction to my sub point B of contention two. Prisoners won't remain in prison, but in fact be released on parole to commit the same crimes as before. There is no justice in that, and even though an innocent may be wrongful executed, but could possibly save the lives of many more.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he says the following:
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it.
Debate Round No. 1
MasterKage

Pro

I thank my opponent accepting the debate and his response; I wish my opponent good luck as well.

I will refute my opponents points, and I will uphold my points.

Your first contention is Capital Punishment deters crime.

Yet this fact sheet [1] states the opposite of this contention.

" The death penalty does not make communities safer. Wisconsin, which has not had the death penalty for
150 years, has a murder rate that is half that of states like Texas and Florida that use the death penalty
frequently. "
" A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been
48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, "Absence of
Executions," New York Times, September 22, 2000"

I believe this is sufficient enough to make this contention incorrect.

Your second contention was Capital Punishment is cheaper then Life Sentencing and is also unjust in many cases.

-Sub Point A: Capital Punishment is cheaper.

The Death Penalty Information Center [2] contradicts this.

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year."

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."

This is essentially stating the death penalty gas a much higher cost than lifetime incarceration.
Using incarceration would save $125 million dollars a year.

This is sufficient enough to counter your sub point.

-Sub Point B: Life Sentencing proves more unjust then Capital Punishment.

The majority of this sub point is focusing on "good time credit."
Good time credit is earned for "good behavior" described in law as "exemplary compliance
with institutional disciplinary regulations."

So the criminal in question would have to do an exemplary act to acquire any "good time."
By the time the criminal has achieved this feat is is most probable that he/she will have no intention of further committing any more criminal acts.

I have refuted each of your sub points, thus successfully refuting your second contention.

Now I will address each of my opponents refutations.

Refutation A: My first contention.

This article, from the Death Penalty Information Center, has an in-depth analyze on how the innocent are caught in the flaws of the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... II: The Cases of Innocence

This is quite in-depth, enough to refute this point.

Refutation B: My second contention

I have clearly supported my second contention in the above statements.

Refutation C: My third contention.

I have also countered this in refutation of your Sub Point B.

Conclusion

I have refuted each of my opponents points, thus affirming the resolution.

Sources

[1]http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org...
[2]http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[3]http://www.chron.com...
[4]http://www.famm.org...
[5]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... II: The Cases of Innocence
Reid

Con

**My opponents arguments and rebuttals are italicized, my argument and rebuttals are bolded / italicized.

I shall begin by addressng my opponents arguments towards my case.



" The death penalty does not make communities safer. Wisconsin, which has not had the death penalty for
150 years, has a murder rate that is half that of states like Texas and Florida that use the death penalty
frequently. "

While this fact may seem interesting, I will explain why Wisconsin has half the murder rate.
[1] Wisconsins Population - 5,686,986
[1] Texas's Population - 25.145,561
Texas has five times the amount of people, so when you say that Wisconsin has half the murder rate, this logically explains that outcome.

" A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been
48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, "Absence of
Executions," New York Times, September 22, 2000"

I am not sure how this is correct. According to Beaura of Criminal Justice, there has been a decrease in crime after Capital Punishment was increased. While this was said in September 2000, we can see overall it does, in fact, deter crime, and is more "recent" going all the way up to the end of 2000.
http://wesleylowe.com...

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year."
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."
This is essentially stating the death penalty gas a much higher cost than lifetime incarceration.
Using incarceration would save $125 million dollars a year.
This is sufficient enough to counter your sub point.
My opponent is completely misconstruing my whole contention and avoiding the key argument within that. I will re-quote a passage from my contentn two, sub point A:
Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

"The majority of this sub point is focusing on "good time credit."
Good time credit is earned for "good behavior" described in law as "exemplary compliance
with institutional disciplinary regulations."
So the criminal in question would have to do an exemplary act to acquire any "good time."
By the time the criminal has achieved this feat is is most probable that he/she will have no intention of further committing any more criminal acts."
This whole rebuttal is flawed. If you re-read my sub point B, I specify TWO cases where this is NOT the face. The first one with James Moore, where the family spared his life for life time imprisonment was eligible for parole in a couple of years. What is so "just" about that? If we look at my second example with Kenneth McDuff, we see, again, my opponent is misleading you. Kenneth killed a 16 year old girl, and two boys and was sentenced to life in prison. He was released because of overflowing in the prisons, and then killed again. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field. He was then again released because of parole.

I will finally address my opponents source to strengthen his first contention
This article, from the Death Penalty Information Center, has an in-depth analyze on how the innocent are caught in the flaws of the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... II: The Cases of Innocence
First off, if you would be so kind as to go to that specific place he is referencing in the article. First off, lets look at the 7 cases and narrow it down to the two cases that specificy "not released" in the Texas court.

Andrew Lee Mitchell Texas Conviction 1981 Released 1993

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the murder conviction of Mitchell, within two days of execution in 1984, because the sheriff's department suppressed statements from law officers who reported seeing the victim alive two hours after the alleged murder. A key witness also recanted his testimony. The prosecutor in Mitchell's case filed an affidavit saying that Mitchell had not received a fair trial. Mitchell was freed in 1993 and no re-trial has been held.

As we can see here, an innocent man wasn't killed, but was actually let go due to the unfairness of the trial.

Kerry Max Cook Texas Conviction 1978 Not Released

Cook was originally convicted of killing Linda Jo Edwards in 1978. In 1988, he came within 11 days of execution, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Texas Court to review its decision. Cook's conviction was overturned in 1991. He was re-tried in 1992, but the trial ended in a hung jury. In 1993, a state district judge ruled that prosecutors had engaged in systematic misconduct, surpressing key evidence. In 1994, Cook was tried again, and this time found guilty and again sentenced to death. On Nov. 6, 1996, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction, saying that "prosecutorial and police misconduct has tainted this entire matter from the outset." The court ruled that key testimony from the 1994 trial could not be used in any further prosecution. It is uncertain whether he will be re-tried.

Again, my opponent doesn't show a case of a man being wronfully executed.

My opponent fails to understand the resolution were debating. We need to look at specifically Texas, and not other states that may be unjust. I have shown why Capital Punishment in Texas is the most just way with dealing with criminals.


"In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he says the following:
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it."

The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.

-poet Hyman Barshay

"Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."
~ Supreme Court of the United States of America


"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


My case still stand, I have rebuttad my opponents arguments towards my own case, and my arguments towards his still stand, flowing through the round.

Debate Round No. 2
MasterKage

Pro

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.
My opponents quotes will be in bold and italicized.

Like so.


While this fact may seem interesting, I will explain why Wisconsin has half the murder rate.

[1] Wisconsin's Population - 5,686,986
[1] Texas's Population - 25.145,561
Texas has five times the amount of people, so when you say that Wisconsin has half the murder rate, this logically explains that outcome.

I am not sure how this is correct. According to Beaura of Criminal Justice, there has been a decrease in crime after Capital Punishment was increased. While this was said in September 2000, we can see overall it does, in fact, deter crime, and is more "recent" going all the way up to the end of 2000.
http://wesleylowe.com......

I'll treat these together with another source.

[1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

This shows that from 1990 to 2010 murder rates in death penalty states are greater than murder rates in non-death penalty states.
This clearly shows that states that use the death penalty has a greater murder rate than those states who do not.

My opponent is completely misconstruing my whole contention and avoiding the key argument within that. I will re-quote a passage from my contention two, sub point A:
Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

I don't really understand this refutation.
I have already showed how Death penalty expenses are much more than the expenses of Life without parole.


This whole rebuttal is flawed. If you re-read my sub point B, I specify TWO cases where this is NOT the face. The first one with James Moore, where the family spared his life for life time imprisonment was eligible for parole in a couple of years. What is so "just" about that? If we look at my second example with Kenneth McDuff, we see, again, my opponent is misleading you. Kenneth killed a 16 year old girl, and two boys and was sentenced to life in prison. He was released because of overflowing in the prisons, and then killed again. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field. He was then again released because of parole.

James Moore: I was specifying life imprisonment with parole is a much more just punishment than the death penalty.

Kenneth McDuff: This was just a flaw in the system. I'll admit a much better solution to the "overflowing" could have been completed.
Once again, I specified life imprisonment without parole is much more just than the death penalty.

As we can see here, an innocent man wasn't killed, but was actually let go due to the unfairness of the trial.

The fact that a innocent man was nearly killed is a very strong case against the death penalty.

There have been many less fortunate innocent victims who have been wrongfully executed.

"Again, my opponent doesn't show a case of a man being wrongfully executed. "

You have only showed one potentially valid standpoint, yet there are a few more you did not reference, which I now will.


1. Muneer Deeb Texas Conviction 1985 Released 1993

Deeb was originally sentenced to death for allegedly contracting with three hitmen to kill his ex-girlfriend. The hitmen were also convicted and one was sentenced to death. Deeb consistently claimed no involvement in the crime. Deeb's conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1991 because improper evidence had been admitted at his first trial. With an experienced defense attorney, Deeb was retried and acquitted in 1993.

My opponent fails to understand the resolution were debating. We need to look at specifically Texas, and not other states that may be unjust. I have shown why Capital Punishment in Texas is the most just way with dealing with criminals.

You can compare certain other states to determine whether it is unjust ot not.

Conclusion
I have shown why, in Texas, Capital Punishment is unjust, thus affirming the resolution.

Sources

[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[2]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... II: The Cases of Innocence






Reid

Con

I will address my opponents rebuttals from round 3, and discuss key voting issus.

While this fact may seem interesting, I will explain why Wisconsin has half the murder rate.

[1] Wisconsin's Population - 5,686,986
[1] Texas's Population - 25.145,561
Texas has five times the amount of people, so when you say that Wisconsin has half the murder rate, this logically explains that outcome.

I am not sure how this is correct. According to Beaura of Criminal Justice, there has been a decrease in crime after Capital Punishment was increased. While this was said in September 2000, we can see overall it does, in fact, deter crime, and is more "recent" going all the way up to the end of 2000.
http://wesleylowe.com.........

I'll treat these together with another source.

[1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......

This shows that from 1990 to 2010 murder rates in death penalty states are greater than murder rates in non-death penalty states.
This clearly shows that states that use the death penalty has a greater murder rate than those states who do not."""""
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
While this may seem true, states with the Death Penalty have found that it has caused a deterrance in crime. While states without the death penalty may be lower, Texas is one of the most populated / largest state in the U.S, it's crime rate is extremely high and needs a way to deal with overcrowding issues effectively.


My opponent is completely misconstruing my whole contention and avoiding the key argument within that. I will re-quote a passage from my contention two, sub point A:
Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

I don't really understand this refutation.
I have already showed how Death penalty expenses are much more than the expenses of Life without parole.


While picking the Death Penalty at that time will cost more then life in prison, over time, that price will easily overcome the death penalty. And "Life without parole" isn't common. States like Texas have it, and the Death penalty avoids criminals being released into the streets with the two specific cases I mentioned. My opponent claims that life without parole is much more just than death, but we can't even guarantee that in courts when they do sentence someone to it.

"If you re-read my sub point B, I specify TWO cases where this is NOT the face. The first one with James Moore, where the family spared his life for life time imprisonment was eligible for parole in a couple of years. What is so "just" about that? If we look at my second example with Kenneth McDuff, we see, again, my opponent is misleading you. Kenneth killed a 16 year old girl, and two boys and was sentenced to life in prison. He was released because of overflowing in the prisons, and then killed again. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field. He was then again released because of parole."

My opponent cites this case;
"1. Muneer Deeb Texas Conviction 1985 Released 1993 Deeb was originally sentenced to death for allegedly contracting with three hitmen to kill his ex-girlfriend. The hitmen were also convicted and one was sentenced to death. Deeb consistently claimed no involvement in the crime. Deeb's conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1991 because improper evidence had been admitted at his first trial. With an experienced defense attorney, Deeb was retried and acquitted in 1993."

I don't understand how this supports his case. This proves at in fact Texas is just with its capital punishment, and was able to keep an innocent man alive through a fair trial.


Because I have addressed all my opponents rebuttals, I will discuss key voting issues in why I have won the debate.
  1. While my opponent said the crime rate was lower then States WITH the Death Penalty, the states with Death Penalty have had a positive effect on crime, decreasing it drastically over the years. I support this claim with this source -> http://wesleylowe.com...
  2. My opponent tended to drop his values throughout the debate, and focused on all my argument. However, my value was Societal Welfare which is the over all welfare of the society. Through Capital Punishment, societal welfare is improved because of the deterent of crime, and my value criterion of safety is upheld because the moral agents who stray from the rules of society are punished for their crimes.
  3. My opponent provides no cases of innocent people wrongfully executed, thus his death of "innocents" argument drops.
  4. My opponent says life in prison is just, however I have shown even in the most disgusting and violent crimes, the perpetrator can get free because of our system, and commit the same crimes. There is, in fact, no justice in this.
  5. My opponent strayed from the resolution, bringing in stats from other states, however, we were specifically focused on the justice within Capital Punishment in Texas, which I stuck true to.
  6. Both my contentions, and subpoints have stood throughout this debate, and because of this, I have shown Capital Punishment to provide fair and just executions, and have shown how (from a cost-benefit anaylsis,) it improves the State overall.

Once again, I thank pro for this wonderful debate!

I urge you to vote con in this debate.

Good luck!

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
Yo bro, the debate is over. Whatever you didn't post in the actual debate can't be posted here once its over. Seriously. \/ Ignore that please \/
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
I'm going to address each of your "key voting issues" here, since I did not in the actual debate.
Hopefully this will convince others of how I won the debate.

[1] Your only source to uphold the fact that Capital Punishment deters crime was http://wesleylowe.com....
I gave two sources countering this.
-http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org...
-http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[2] I did not drop my value of morality.
The whole debate

[3] I provided three cases of innocent nearly executed.

[4] I have shown how Life in prison without parole is sufficient to prevent criminals from striking again. You also specified Life in prison with parole, which I did not state.

[5] You did not stray true to the resolution of strictly Texas.
-" researchers gathered murder statistics across the COUNTRY"
-In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders.
-"... the number of annual murders in the UNITED STATES skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040..."

[6] I have shown how Life without parole is cheaper than the death penalty
-http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
"Sources also to Con, just because."

I request that you tie the source point, it's not really fair to give Con the source point "just because".
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
Thanks for the interesting debate, as short as it was.

Hopefully we will be able to debate in the future.
Posted by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
I will post my sources here, because there isn't enough text space. :(
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
MasterKageReidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted all of Pros arguments, and successfully defended his own.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
MasterKageReidTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar doesn't need explaining. But anyhow, Pro had stellar arguments first round, but later on they where taken apart and destroyed. CON had good arguments that were not refuted. PRO could have saved his arguments, but most of his fell, the rest where turned contested. CON's arguments still stood, although a few where defeated, he still had more standing in the end than PRO. Also Pro had better sources overall than con.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
MasterKageReidTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: All points tied, except arguments. I give Con arguments mainly on the cost and deterrent arguments, which were particularly strong. Pro's R1 was almost entirely unsupported statements, and his R2 was weak and almost cursory in it's brevity. In my opinion, he failed to make his point or to adequately address any of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
MasterKageReidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, Con made a few spelling errors that annoyed me. Secondly, Pro made quite a few arguments in his first round, each of which Con refuted. Con kept to the point of the argument and persisted, while Pro's objections and contentions seem to deminish in value as the debate went on. Sources also to Con, just because.