Debate Rounds (3)
When we test new chemicals and such, however, we take the innocent lives of naive creatures and do all sorts of horrendous things to them.
Well, let's take away the animals and put in the horrible criminals.
The lethal injection is made to be as painless as possible to the criminal. A lot of the time, the criminal is already terrified and horrified at the idea that they're going to die in just as much cowardly terror as the people they murdered. Why prolong that torture for some sick vengeful pleasure?
Sure, we'd save a lot of animals, but humans have ambitions, dreams, family, friends, emotions, memories....
And yes, I'm well aware that animals are much the same and I'm NOT supporting animal testing in anyway, but there is a big difference between humans and animals.
What is that difference? One is sentient, the other isn't.
Despite what they may have done, however despicable a murderer is, they're still a human being and all human beings deserve a quick death.
One can argue that a person loses their rights and get what they deserve when being tested on like that for murder, however if you were in the seat of someone who was to be tested, you'd change your tune fairly quickly. You would stop saying that those people had no rights, and you or I would most likely plead for yourself under the argument that you did have rights.
On top of that, I think that the fear experienced when on death row would be enough. The deathrow patients would get to experience the exact same fear that their victims did without the aspect of torture or pain, and the quick death ensures that they keep some of their dignity and that not as many people complain. Humans have a right to live, and that right is already taken away when a person is put on death row. I don't see the reason to torture them on top of that.
To sum up, the death penalty is already punishment enough, psychologically. We shouldn't take humans and use them as resources to help the world in a way that can already be done through easier and more moral methods.
Thanks for the argument, win or lose, I always enjoy myself a good debate.
No problem, I'm always up for a debate, even if I haven't been on this site that long.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. con makes good argument talking about how criminals already have enough punishment with the Death Penalty, but pro points out that criminals are much more immoral than innocent animals. I felt like con was arguing a rigged resolution. Obviously a man who committed felonies deserve testing more than an animal. Nevertheless, good job con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.