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

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 12/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 42296
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hello! Today i am challenging anyone who wishes to discuss the topic of the Death Penalty (whether we should encourage it or not) The first round is for acceptance only. to my opponent, good luck, and may the mass x acceleration be with you!


I accept the Con position.
Debate Round No. 1


evandudeguy forfeited this round.


Seeing as this debate is for five rounds, I will pass on posting debates for this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I sincerely apologize for the delay, a relative of mine had passed, and I was traveling.


-Fair Punishment
We have all been children at one time, and I'm sure we have all heard our mothers say "You made the mess, you're going to clean it up!" it is simply the fairest solution to the problem, it is a punishment equal to the "crime" that was committed. So if you kill someone, or worse, don't you deserve death? I say yes, because a killer of people should not be on the earth, imprisoned or not.

-Humane Executions
Throughout the various ways that prisoners are executed, all of them are painless. The following is a list of active execution techniques, and the number of people killed by each technique after 1976






All of the current legal execution methods are completely pain free. Most states also allow the prisoner to choose his preferred execution method. The bodies of prisoners are cared for, and a funeral is prepared and the prisoner is cremated or buried.

Again I apologize for the delay behind this round, and for the lack of much information, but I'm afraid I have been, and still am, terribly busy. But I await my opponents response eagerly! Thank you



I'm sorry for your loss Pro.

There are three things that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to employ the death penalty. I shall discuss all three, in order from least important to most important.

Financial Cost

Simply put, it is not cost-efficient to use the death sentence over life without parole, which is the alternative to the death penalty and vice versa. It costs 1.25 million dollars more per death penalty case than the average life without parole case[1]. I can't think of anything else to say for this portion of my argument, as it is very straightforward.


The death penalty adheres to the idea of an eye for an eye. Many people who look at the death penalty see it at as a no-brainer, a simple solution, equal to the crime. And it is equal to the crime, which is what's wrong with the death penalty. If a punishment is considered equal to the crime, then how can it be considered any better than the crime itself? It can't be! Imagine if the punishment for a rapist was rape, or the murderer of a family--to have his family murdered. Most civilized people would say that's going too far. And yet they are able to turn around and make an exception for the death penalty. Bottom line is that the death penalty stoops down to the level of the murderer, and such a thing is immoral.

Ability to Deter

Many people have defended against the death penalty with the point that it deters crime. Before I entered this debate I did extensive research on the death penalty's ability to deter, and I have found overwhelming statistics and statements from professionals that show the death penalty as an ineffective method for deterring crime. Almost 90% of criminologists agree that the death penalty does not deter the crimes it punishes[2]. The main reason for this being that most homicides are committed without forethought--acting out of emotion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, preventing their ability to think about the consequences. Anybody who does think ahead about murdering somebody (like a professional hitman) will likely make preparations and plans to evade capture, and would not go ahead with their kill if they did not feel secure in their ability to evade capture. My opponent may bring up some statistical studies that support the idea that the death penalty does deter homicide, but as I said earlier, almost 90% of their colleagues would disagree. As for the why they disagree, I'll just quote an expert's opinion on that:

Jeffrey A. Fagan, PhD, Professor of Law and Epidemiology at Columbia University, said in his Feb. 1, 2006 testimony "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: Risk, Uncertainty, and Public Policy Choices" published on the website of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights:

"Recent studies claiming that executions reduce crime... fall apart under close scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all the relevant factors that drive crime rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, statistical confounding of murder rates with death sentences, failure to consider the general performance of the criminal justice system... and the absence of any direct test of deterrence.

These studies fail to reach the demanding standards of social science to make such strong claims... Social scientists have failed to replicate several of these studies, and in some cases have produced contradictory results with the same data, suggesting that the original findings are unstable, unreliable and perhaps inaccurate. This evidence, together with some simple examples and contrasts... suggest that there is little evidence that the death penalty deters crime."[2]

So I conclude that the Death Penalty is not cost-effective, immoral, and has failed to satisfactorily prove that it is a deterrent to the crime it punishes.

Debate Round No. 3


evandudeguy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


evandudeguy forfeited this round.


End debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by independentthought 4 years ago
I say this; hang them criminals up high for all to see(used to be the case lol). I want to see a much quicker death penalty process; within months of getting convicted the person should be electrecuted. It would save us time and money plus benefit the victims families.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments backed up with more reliable sources. Pro forfeited, so he didn't refute those arguments.