The Instigator
noahkgfx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Pro (for)
Winning
29 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 6 votes the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 62532
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

noahkgfx

Con

The death penalty should be abolished. It is unconstitutional because it violates mans basic rights. No cruel punishment (5th Amendment) so what is your guys say on this?
funnycn

Pro

I accept. Con, I will let you argue first.
Debate Round No. 1
noahkgfx

Con

I believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. It violates human rights, and me being a Christian, it goes against the ten commandments but that's just my say.
funnycn

Pro

Sorry I was late. Here we go...

"It is unconstitutional" Stop right there!

In the constitution it states this

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

This means you can lose your life, libert and/or property through the due process of law; therefore, saying it's unconstitutional is not correct. It's completely constitutional. The due process says fair treatment through judicial process. Let's look into this as well...

What is fair? Fair is defined as this

":agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable

:treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

:not too harsh or critical" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

According to these definitions one can ask "Is death too harsh?"

Is it? The way people die now is through lethal injection. It works like this.

Injection, 3 seconds later you're dead. That's not painful at all. So is the process harsh? No it's actually the most humane way to die. It's "fair".

Prisoners don't actually have all of their consitutional rights either. They're only protected by ONE amendment. The fifth, cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty isn't cruel, as mentioned it's humane and it isn't unusual either. This means the prisoner has no rights in prison, including his life when he's on death row. So your statement "it's unconstitutional" is incorrect and false as proven.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu...]


What about closure? Wouldn't it be nice to know that the killer that murdered your family died? He won't get out and kill more people, that's a nice thought isn't it?

It's also the ultimate warning. While it isn't great, it does warn some people "don't kill, or you'll end up like him".

Prisoners often commit suicide in their cells too, so wouldn't they prefer the death penalty over sitting in a cell all day? Why not grant them one request because there are prisoners who would rather die than sit in a cell for life.

Debate Round No. 2
noahkgfx

Con

"not deprived of life" the death penalty is going straight up against that
funnycn

Pro

"'not deprived of life' the death penalty is going straight up against that"

How so? I just explained your freedoms are taken as you go through the due process of law. Prisoner's rights only include limited speech and religion. You forfeit every other right to the government, including your life. So it's not going against it. It's suspending it until you get out of prison. After you die, you have no life, and you wouldn't need rights so the dead have no rights. Only the right to not be robbed while they're in a coffin of course, but regardless. Once you go to prison and you commit a crime, you forfeit almost every right.

What if you went against your country? That's worthy of death right? I think so. If you give away America's greatest secrets and plans you deserve to be silenced forever. By leaking information, you could cause the death of hundreds of people. Pointing out America's weak spots and it's flaws could cause big problems where lives could be at stake! So if you're willing to take lives, you should be willing to give your life. If not, you already forfeit them by committing a crime correct? Prisoner's rights AND the constitution state this.
Debate Round No. 3
noahkgfx

Con

noahkgfx forfeited this round.
funnycn

Pro

Forfeiture? I will wait for Con to post.
Debate Round No. 4
noahkgfx

Con

noahkgfx forfeited this round.
funnycn

Pro

Com forfeit the debate
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
If you kill 100s of innocent people with an assault rifle, you dont deserve to live in a 5 star prison cell (which happens in norway i guess) his prison cell actually looks much more better than his former place. Now he has internet, tv, food, no bills to pay etc. Looks like he is rewarded. Not punished.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
@Julia4Christ01317 Could you cite any verses that show that?
Posted by julia4Christ01317 2 years ago
julia4Christ01317
I do not believe the death penalty is ok in every situation, but I do believe it should be used in some circumstances. In the Bible it talks about killing murders, people who commit adultery, and people who are homosexual.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
The waiting on death row is extremely emotionally and psychologically damaging. Knowing the moment of death is coming for up to 25 years is a horrible way to live, and certainly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Posted by high_school_student 2 years ago
high_school_student
Think of it this way, if a loved one of yours was murdered by say "John Doe" wouldn't you want to see him dead? Thinking about this I either would want them to suffer in jail making sure all their freedom is gone and there is no way for parole or anything special. If there is the slightest bit of chance that this "John Doe" could walk out in the public I would want the death penalty for him.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
It isn't really cruel punishment. It is quick and not as painfull as it could be.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
@wallrider, that really is just an emotional argument (lol what an oxymoron)
Posted by wallrider 2 years ago
wallrider
what the heck is wrong with people arguing about human rights for the people who are not even human,people who commit a worthy enough crime like murder,rape exploitation or any crime that destroys the life of any other human being should be punished so severely that an example should be made out of him,and that everybody will think a billion times before committing a crime,there should be zero tolerance towards criminals cause it is not the evil of the bad men that corrupt the soety but the silence of the good men that does
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am against the death penalty also, but the way noahkgfx defended himself was unstable.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, con used better arguments and actually had sources.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
noahkgfxfunnycnTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. As to arguments, it at least seems that once Pro pointed out the problems in Con's constitutional argument, Con had no more arguments to make. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.