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

Death Penalty should their be one?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 586 times Debate No: 78889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




My name is Cory and I'll be defending the side of supporting the death penalty.

My reasons

If one is willing to committing a horrifying crime like killing someone, then they should be able to match their crime like a sentence in other words, if your willing to do the crime, then you should pay for it. Cause letting one go for killing someone shows how mentally deranged we are as a society, we all are responsible for what we do. Would you want to be justified if someone killed one of your loved ones.


I accept your friendly competition, Cory. I believe in the Death Penalty too, but for the sake of the debate, I will oppose the Death Penalty as best as I can.

It is highly believed if we allow the Death Penalty to exist, it would ultimately show how demented our society is. This is because we are showing that we are allowing the judicial system execute a member of our own kind. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Exodus 21:24. Revenge does not heal anyone; not forgiving only harms oneself. If theses psychological rules count for society, the Death Penalty should not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1


The death penalty is to show that harming others is wrong because karma could come back and hit you. That will teach future killers to keep them on thin ice. And if your for the death penalty, then therefore you agree with me that killing other people's loved ones is wrong. If you were put in that position I think your philosophy would change.


When a person commits a crime they do not think about punishment for thee reasons, (1) - The murder or action is a crime of passion, which refers to a violent crime, especially murder, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage rather than as a premeditated crime (Can also include drugs, alcohol, and mental illnesses). (2) - The crime perpetrator believes that he/ she will not be caught and will get away. (3) - Social Conditioning, the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. (The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies.)
For evidence I will link a site here - With these three important facts, people will not think about the Death Penalty, nor prison or jail, during the crime. This is especially the case in point 1 & 2.

"Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the "duty" is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime" - Robert T Muller Ph.D
Not only that, what about the executioner? Is he still killing? Is it any different on a battle, to kill a foe? No, it is not different; it is still murder. Soldiers suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War just from killing another individual. If the Death Penalty exists, someone must execute the perpetrator. For a soldier, or executioner, and even the common human suffers psychological trauma by killing his own kin.

Anyone who kills a person either has been suffering from a mental disorder, or (most cases) suffered psychological trauma. Psychological trauma, it is, in basic terms, a type of damage to the psyche that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event.
People who commit crimes of passion usually suffer from psychological trauma from killing their spouse, and loved ones.
I found another site supporting my claim -
Debate Round No. 2


Not all of the murders are mentally unstabled. In some cases they know what they are doing to hurt people. In other words, your defending their actions and want me to feel sorry for the murder and not for the victims. If you had children in school and I'm sure you do and you got phone call from the school saying that your kid got shot what would you do. I'm sure you would take action and yes I'm referring to the sandy hook elementary school. And another thing, the shooters go to the weakest places that makes them feel dominate. I think that's just stupidity. I don't know why people should feel sorry for people who hurt innocent children.


I agree with you that not all murderers are mentally unstable; but I never made that claim. I would also take action to protect myself, my family, and friends.

The Death Penalty is not the answer, it is not positive in morality, nor does it deter crime. The countries that do have it, such as Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, and the U.S.A (There are other countries like Yemen and Pakistan.) have high crime rates. If The Death Penalty exists in these countries, why is crime higher than other places? In my previous argument I mentioned Crime of Passion, Drugs, Alcohol, and Mental Instability. Criminals are not thinking about the bad long term.

In some of the countries, people are killed because they are homosexual, or do not fit in the conservative norm.
And what about the 2.5%-5% of prison inmates who are found innocent after imprisoned. That is a potential threat to more than 20,000 innocent people's lives.

My opponent has failed to look past revenge in the argument, failed to bring evidence why it is needed, and hasn't managed to bring a point that isn't emotionally based. I thank you for your time in this debate, Cory. And I give thanks to whoever read this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Richardsonalj 1 year ago
Cjnair, please stop using 'your' when it should be 'you're'. I don't mean to be rude, but on this site, grammar matters, it can and will help you win a debate. On the topic, don't only focus on emotional points. This is a controversial topic, and it demands research and facts. And because of this, I can use it against you viciously. Try to avoid this while debating a certain topic you have emotions for.FYI, on the last round you made a false call, I am not a Father, in fact I am a minor who attends a High School, so yes I have feelings about this topic. I never spoke about defending murderers, but the domination thing probably could of been explained better, or not involved. But, as the emotional side, you could use quotes from highly moral persons and explored farther than revenge. Try to fix your mistakes, I hope you get better.

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con concidering that he's the only one who used sources in the debate. Spelling and Grammar also goes to Con as Pro had several grammatical errors and misuse of words like your instead of you are. Arguments to Con as well as Pro never actually gotten around to Con's points and it was dropped by Pro. For that reason the debate itself could have easily been won by Con alone, but that wasn't the only argument that he missed as well. Since Pro had dropped arguments we have to see that the resolution here is negated and the win goes to Con.