The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Convicts should be exiled to another planet.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,823 times Debate No: 84919
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Exile: the expulsion of a person from his native land by official decree.
Convict: a person found guilty of a criminal offense and serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Convicts who have life in prison or are on death row should be sent to another planet.
Keeping them on earth is a waste, spending tax payers dollars on their food, water, utilities, supervision, health care is a waste.
It is more ethical and would free up all those debates on the death penalty.
It would fund space exploration.

It is the more logical, educational, and ethical way. Vote Pro.


I was looking at a site ( which told me that in a survey that 40 states participated, there was a total of $39 billion spent on prisons. Now how about we say that these 40 states passed a bill where all of their prisoners were sent to another planet by using the money they already spend on prison. Now $39 billion may sound like a lot, but according to NASA it costs $450 million to only launch a shuttle mission. This would mean that you could only launch 86 shuttles into space. These shuttles can only hold a few people though. Doing the math, if we sent 3 people up per shuttle, that would be 258 people. In 2012 there were 159,000 prisoners who were spending life in prison. Obviously you can see that it would not be possible to send everyone. That is just the economical reason why we can't do it. Now for the moral reason. Some of these people are able to have parole, and sending them into space would basically eliminate the chance for that. They would no longer see any family or friends they have ever again. Also, you are sending them on a death trip since you would not be able to afford to send any food to these prisoners because you spent all of the money on getting them there. They would starve and die in the cold vacuum of space. These people who were supposed to serve only a life sentence are dead now because you sent them to space. Where would they live? Which planet? If you sent them anywhere how would they survive with the lack of oxygen, food, and shelter that they have on Earth? Simply stating, there are too many holes in your plan. Next time you decide to start a debate, maybe you should think of everything that is wrong with what you are saying. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysRight12345 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Pro could've set up a competent response to Con's arguments, but there was only 1 round and all Con's points (obviously) flowed through.
Vote Placed by OnlineMissionary197 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: We are not in the space century yet. we will eventually, and by then when space travel and colonization is more common, then that concept can be open. But not now. Of course we do need to figure out how to stop spending tax payer money on prisoners.