The Instigator
Islam_Forever
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
LlamaMan
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

DEATH PENALTY is better than NO PENALTY

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 6 votes the winner is...
Islam_Forever
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,492 times Debate No: 21528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (6)

 

Islam_Forever

Pro

1 Acceptance
2 Argument
3 Rebuttal
LlamaMan

Con

I'm Catholic the death penalty is never chill with me.
Debate Round No. 1
Islam_Forever

Pro

1. The death penalty acts as a deterrent of crime.
Most people fear death and strive to avoid it; death is the consequence of heinous crimes; therefore, most people would refrain from heinous crimes.
This saves innocent lives and decreases crime.




2. The death penalty accelerates criminal cases.
The threat of using the death penalty quickly can help solve cases.


3. More people support the death penalty than oppose it.
A majority of the people supports capital punishment and vote for those politicians that take a strong stand against crime.

Four. The death penalty is just.
Our moral status as human beings allows us to deliberate about moral significant actions and consequences. When someone steals an old lady's purse, for example, we feel a moral outrage at the incident. This is called, "moral aggression." Our moral aggression obligates us to use retributive justice in response to heinous, violent crimes. Therefore, the concept of justice is achieved and upheld by sustaining the death penalty.

Five. Without penalties for crime, misconduct, and rule breaking chaos would occur.
My opponent will have to argue that anarchism is okay, and that people would be incapable of retaliatory tactics when they are raped, their family is murdered, and when their chattle is thieved away. If the car you desperately wanted was sitting in a parking lot running without an occupant, and there was no penalty for stealing it, would you steal it? Most likely, yes.
For most actions, there is a risk and a reward. If I want to rape a young boy, my reward is sex and the risk is many years in prison. Depriving the natural order of justice in this manner results in chaos: absolutely obliterated economic systems; skyrocketing theft, murder, rape, and rights infringement; starvation, die-offs, and environmental mayhem; sports would cease to function properly; violence would escalate; family relations and social relations would deteriorate. Therefore, instituting a death penalty is better than instituting no penalties.


Any sane person reading this debate will likely agree with my side.
Thank you, masha'Allah!


LlamaMan

Con

Good arguments.
I will argue that it is unethical to kill anyone even if they commited a heinous crime.
Lets run through the major religions of the world to see what they think:
Christian/Jewish: In the hebrew scriptures (also known as the old testament) Moses comes down from a mountain with the ten commandments for his people that he rescued from Eygpt. One of the ten states, "Thou Shall Not Kill."
Muslim: The Quran states, "Do Not Take Life, Which The Allah Has Made Sacred..."
Hindu: The Veda states, "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures,
whether they are human, animal or whatever."
Buddhist: The Dhammpada states, "Do not kill or cause kill."
Just those five top religions in the world make up seventy-four percent of the world and none of those promote killing any humans. In fact I don't know any religion that promotes killing humans. Only 16 percent of the world is atheist meaning that there is only 16 percent of the world that MIGHT promote killing other humans.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Islam_Forever

Pro

D.P. is Ethical
1. The Doctrine of Double Effect holds that an action that causes a harm is ethically justified in doing so, if it brings about a good result. If a morally sound human were to endure the death penalty to bring about saving the lives of 50 morally sound humans, the execution could be performed morally and ethically. However, the people who endure the death penalty in our prison systems are not morally and ethically sound; they are murderers, rapists, torturers, and the most abject cretins on our planet. If their execution saves lives, it is not only morally and ethically justified, but morally obligated, because our moral status demands it.
2. When self-defense is used by an individual moral agent against any justified or unjustified attack, that individual’s self defense is morally and ethically justified. Similarly, when one criminal commits a crime against society (e.g. murder, arson, rape, theft), he must be punished by that society in the manner the court deems legitimate. If a woman drowns all seven of her children in a bathtub, then murders and dissects her husband, then kills and eats the first two police who knock on her door, she has committed multiple crimes against society in an abject and morally outrageous manner. If sentenced to life in prison, she may kill inmates without proper justice being levied on her. She may be placed in a high-security prison where she would make the lives of the guards there a living hell. People who may commit murder think, “the worst that would happen to me is life in prison with better amenities than I have at home: television, three meals a day, and no bills to pay.” The death penalty justly punishes abject crimes against society, because they punish in the self-defense of society while simultaneously discouraging more heinous crimes.
3. Justice demands that the death penalty be used. Human moral agents have moral status. That means we are worthy of moral consideration and moral rights. Humans have moral status, because they can objectively analyze actions to determine what is and what should be right or wrong, moral or immoral, thus indicating self-government and therefore: rights. When we violate our moral status by committing heinous and immoral crimes, we no longer are privileged to natural protection of our right to life. That is the reason why we all secretly wish for extraordinarily evil people to die: our moral status gives us moral aggression toward wrong action of people through retributive justice. This moral norm was discovered in light of an unchanging and objective set of moral principles that find their source in the realities of human existence.

CHRISTIANITY
The consequence for disobeying the other commandments is death:

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:9-10
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. Exodus 22:19

ISLAM
The Qur’an states "Spreading mischief in the land" is deserving of the death penalty, these crimes:
Treason
Apostasy
Terrorism
Land, sea, or air piracy
Rape
Adultery
Homosexual behavior
Intentional murder



HINDUISM
In the Bhagavad Gita, there is the command to righteously destroy the wicked:
"According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) a poison giver, 2) one who sets fire to the house, 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, 4) one who plunders riches, 5) one who occupies another's land, and 6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting for any ordinary man,..." (Chapter 1, text 36)

BUDDHISM
Tomoko Sasaki, "A basic teaching Buddhism is retribution. If someone evil does something bad, he has to atone with his own life. If you take a life, you have to give your own."



Con hasn’t negated the resolution. Vote Pro!

THANKS :D


SPELLING ERROR: committed*
LlamaMan

Con

Rebuttals to her original argument:
1: Although it is true that when there are more executions less murder occurs, the number of deaths stays roughly the same throughout all of the years, so your allah would still have the same number of MURDERED people to terrorize.
2: Really the death penalty solves criminal cases? That is a sad argument, the death penalty kills a person. It does not prove that someone is guilty of a crime.
3. Ok??? It's irrelevant whether people support it or not that does nothing to prove that the death penalty is better than no penalty.
4. Once again it is irrelevant whether it is just or not, just because some people think that it's just doesn't make it any better.
5. You're simply presenting information that you think will happen if there is no penalty. In your argument you present no proof, no examples and no expert study that has been going on for decades. You have given the viewers and I no reason to believe anything that you said in this statement will actually happen. May someone also inform me on what a chattle is, I can't find it in the dictionary.
Rebuttal to my oppponents rebuttal:
1. As most religions would agree, having to kill someone is far from a "Good Result." You act like every inmate that we have is a serial killer who is going to kill fifty people. The truth is that less than one percent of the murderers in the U.S. are serial killers. (Source: http://www.fbi.gov...)
2. Please inform me if a woman actually does that. I would like to also inform you that in an anarchy people could still use self-defense without killing each other. In an anarchy nothing is under control, so the people could easily 'defy' government law and make their own penalty. Like nailing her to cross. As we learned from Jesus it's hard to escape off of a cross.
3. Who's this Justice? Justice is not a living thing so therefore, like most inanimate ideas, it cannot demand anything. Our moral status is a matter of opinion and is not set in stone, like the ten commandments. One persons moral status can be far different from anothers so therefore generalising the moral status of a species is impossible to do so effectively. Many people in Nazi Germany strongly believed that Hitler was a good person and thought that he was doing a good deed to everybody in killing millions of people.
Religion:
I thank you for dissecting the holy books of the top four religions in the world to find a phrase or two that you can misinterpret to make it sound like these religions promote killing people.
Christianity: First of all, Lectivus is not god, he is not the person who made ten commandments. It is not my fault that he let his beliefs get in the way of gods beliefs when he was writing this statement. To reiterate myself, god clearly wrote on a stone tablet, "Thou Shall Not Kill." Your quote from Exodus is not even mentioning the death penalty. It is referencing that this sorry individual will likely spend an eternity with satan.
Islam: I question the credibility of my opponents statement when she only quotes the words, "Spreading mischief in the land" from the Quran. I also question whether the Islamic people were technologically advanced enough so that they could commit "Air piracy" at the time the Quran was created.
Hinduism: You are saying that the people who burn themselves alive to promote peace and not war, support killing people. You are a sad sad person.
Buddhism: You are once again misinterpreting a holy book of the world. "You have to give your own" is NOT a statement that supports the death penalty. It rather promotes a dedication of serving the family of the one that you have commited this crime to.

I once again thank you for attempting to (inappropriate word) on the holy books of the world. I hope that you feel great about yourself for offending nearly the entire world by misinterpreting their core beliefs of their existence and thinking that they support killng people.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Islam_Forever 5 years ago
Islam_Forever
It was an online debate... Get over it.
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
This is attempted torture just report me
F-U-C-K
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
If i deactivate my own account I can still log in FML FML FML
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
You posted new arguments in the last round. Everyone else agrees with this statement.

I am not going to report you for your childish antics. If you want, you an PM innomen and ask him to ban you or you can deactivate your own account.
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
Anyone know the fastest way to get your account permanentely deleted?
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
AND I DIDN't POST AN ARGUMENT IN THE LAST ROUND
ROUND THREE IS THE LAST ROUND IS EVERYONE BLIND
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
No... It is for the better
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Do not give up, LlamaMan. Some of your arguments can be good, and now that you know about not posting new arguments in the last round, I can only expect your debates to get better.
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
This website has done nothing but make me rage.
I quit.
Posted by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
ughh.....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Better argument and sourced by pro.
Vote Placed by PlanetTutTutTurtle 5 years ago
PlanetTutTutTurtle
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm convinced.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Actually, llamaman was only following pro's structure. I'm going to counter one of the conduct votes therefore. In terms of arguments, pro put forward a somewhat broad case, con put forward a moral-religious case. Let us grant all of pro's case. This still does not prove no penalty is superior - death could be the lesser of two evils. Pro's broad case was mostly countered with sweeping assertions, but I still felt they met their BOP; the assertions were not with reference to con's model. Aff win
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was really bad. Pro made coherent arguments which actually were good. Con, on the other hand, references Christianity in such a narrow minded approach it is laughable. Same goes to Islam and Hinduism. (Buddhism is really their only point).
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: con was more focused on the ethics of the death penalty than arguing the resolution so he failed to meeet his BOP. Arguments go to Pro, pro used graphs very well so sources go to the Pro, con was a complete a**hole at the end of round 3 so conduct goes to Pro
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Islam_ForeverLlamaManTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never touched the Pro's arguments about deterrancy. That was the strongest point IMO. Conduct to Pro because Con also misinterpreted several religious sources and made new points in the last round after dropping the entire Pro case in his first rebuttal, which is unfair.