The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 65439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I feel that the death penalty should be used in all states. Not for all crimes, but for the serious felonies. For instance, if someone were to murder, the death penalty should be the automatic punishment. An eye for an eye, if you take a life, then yours shall be taken as well.


The role of a criminal justice system is to reform the guilty and protect society from the guilty until they are reformed.
Reforming cannot be achieved by the death penalty and it is not needed to protect society, because prisons exist.
To support the death penalty out of a desire for revenge is a degenerate attitude to hold in society.

Also, the courts are not 100% correct in their verdict all the time. Out of 1000s of convicted murderers, there is bound to be at least 10 who were convicted wrongly. According to your proposition, these 10 innocent people would be murdered.

The death penalty also does not function as a valid deterrent as people who commit murder either do not plan on getting caught, or have lost their desire to live. Threatening to kill them will have no effect on their decision whether or not to kill someone.

Finally, the death penalty reeks of hypocrisy. By punishing murderers we are saying, as a society, that murder is wrong. We completely contradict ourselves by then murdering the murderers. In the words of St. John Paul II, 'how can we teach that killing is wrong by killing?'
Debate Round No. 1


The death penalty is a useful and fair punishment. It shouldn't be used just to get rid of someone, but to repay what they did to someone else. If you murder, death penalty. Breaking and entering along with grand larceny, death penalty.


Asides from a bloated sense of vengeance, you don't really make any case for allowing the death penalty.
In what way does 'repaying what they did' serve society? It seems to me that you look to the courts for revenge, not their actual purpose of maintaining civil law.
Finally, you contradict yourself. In round 1 you say 'an eye for an eye' but that would only justify the death penalty for murderers. Yet now in round 2 you allow it for grand larceny?
Debate Round No. 2


savannah.greene241 forfeited this round.


Thanks for the debate! :)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Exmortus 3 years ago
lol already know who I'm voting for, CON ALL THE WAY
Posted by Vesero 3 years ago
The Bet
by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

You should read it, death penalty is never the right option. Then look up Dennis Shepard courtroom speech. If you can't forgive, then you're a sick man that is no better than a million murders.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to con. Con pointed out contradictions in pro's arguments, so arguments to con