The Instigator
Cohen_Graham
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lstccs4
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Death Penalty

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 391 times Debate No: 61329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Cohen_Graham

Con

[This is my very first debate so please bear with me. Thank you.]

Death penalty is inhumane, wasteful and unjust. According to the rights that apply to every human being, we can live by choice. Death penalty is against that right. We have a government to maintain organization and civilization; the death penalty is not exactly the most civilized way to settle things.

We spend millions of dollars to settle these death rows when we can just use the money for a better cause like funding a better security system and to help those in need to prevent the main cause of crimes.

There are cases where the suspect is not well defended and many are wrongly sentenced to death, even mentally challenged people get executed due to lack of supporting statements.

This is not a benefit for the innocent, this is only an alternative for rejecting the blamed. Say, your child stole something from a person, would you rather ground him or would you banish him forever?

You cannot say that I cannot compare your child to a criminal because you must remember that in the eyes of his loved ones, they see the child being banished. You must not make things worse for both families who have lost so much already.

No one can decide who dies and who lives. Capital punishments do not deter crimes as there is no accurate statistics or evidence.

Source of information:

www.deathpenalty.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenalty.org...
http://www.faithstreet.com...
lstccs4

Pro

Let's say Hitler was alive today, and he was killing the jews, mass murdering people who didn't agree with his views. If we caught him, should we just put him in prison with all the other inmates? I say NO. Mass Murders deserve what they get, if they choose to murder people, then they should be just fine with what they recieve in return. DEATH. Will the families of the victims of the people who murder be content with them just going to prison? Prison inmates get three meals a day, outside time, tv, and so much more. How about the terrorists involved in terrorists groups like ISIS, who murder christians if they dont leave or convert to their extreme islamic ways? Should they just go to prison until the rest of their group continue their brutal work and maybe break them out? This is why we should have the death penalty, so we can make the world a better place, a world without all these evil people who consider it their mandate to murder us.
Debate Round No. 1
Cohen_Graham

Con

Sir, you cannot bring up Hitler or the Nazis because we are facing this generation's death penalty but now if we have that example of mass murdering, then isolation must be recognized... definitely not death because it's not humane. Even if the mass murdering is inhumane, then why are we killing him? You're saying that murdering is against humanity, why kill the murderer? It's clearly irony-- hypocritical if you look behind the wall, just rethink about it please.

Killing all the criminals don't make the world a better place because there are always sinners doing crimes. If that's the conclusion, then we would've killed everyone by now.

By the way, for consideration in the payment for the death penalty process, please read this information:
http://www.deathpenalty.org...

SOURCES:
http://usliberals.about.com...
lstccs4

Pro

lstccs4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cohen_Graham

Con

Cohen_Graham forfeited this round.
lstccs4

Pro

lstccs4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by championheart 2 years ago
championheart
What if the victims or family of the victims were given immunity for an equal crime to be perpetrated on the convicted murderer?

Then they are allowed vengeance if they choose. If they choose no, convicted person is given life with no parole.

Would that change anything?
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Con is saying that it is human right to live by choice.
"According to the rights that apply to every human being, we can live by choice"

However, what you must understand is that these people broke these rules; they killed other people or even worse. They broke the 'live by choice' Con is mentioning, so that rule doesn't apply back to them. They deserve the death penalty.
Posted by vekoma123 2 years ago
vekoma123
'Let's say Hitler was alive today'

Godwin's Law......oh christ.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Sorry, that should have been $1000.00.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
All crimes pay a price. If you steal $100.00, then the restitution would not be just if the judge just ordered him to pay back just $500.00.The payback price society puts on a crime is the value of what was stolen.If you give someone three years for murdering someone, then that is the value that judge put on the life that was taken.I hope we never lose the presciousness of life. Although babies in the womb do not get the same consideration that bleeding heart liberals give to killers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.