The Instigator
DATXDUDE
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
awes1357
Con (against)
Losing
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 1 vote the winner is...
DATXDUDE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 88418
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

DATXDUDE

Pro

I don't have much time for formalities/rules. That being said, no semantics, the BOP is shared, and the debate is closed until I find someone who accepts it. Let me know in the comments.

Imagine this situation.
A man is walking home from work, and he happens to have a gun. 5 minutes away from his home in a secluded part of his town, he is approached by two armed criminals. Unbeknownst to him, they followed him from his workplace. They say that they are going to take his money and then kill him. The man shoots the two criminals in their heads, and calls the police.

I want whoever is reading this to ask themselves whether the man was justified in his action. If you do, then ask yourself if all lives have the same value. If you answer yes to both questions, your views are inconsistent.

We do not need killers in our society. They are a danger, and do not deserve to live if they are not willing to let others live.
awes1357

Con

More death is not the answer.
Debate Round No. 1
DATXDUDE

Pro

Why not? If you can determine that the value of life is not the same, then you can determine that people who endanger society should be killed. Serial killers do not belong here.
awes1357

Con

awes1357 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DATXDUDE

Pro

Vote Pro.
awes1357

Con

awes1357 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rami 8 months ago
Rami
I know what racial profiling. As much as I'm for civil rights, the thing is, blacks do commit more crimes. It not their fault. It's simply because they weren't able to get decent jobs. Still, they do commit more crimes.
Posted by DATXDUDE 8 months ago
DATXDUDE
Lol. I Checked out your profile. Do you know what racial profiling is? If so, how can you support it?
Posted by Rami 8 months ago
Rami
I mean, in this case, the gun owner did the right thing.
Posted by DATXDUDE 8 months ago
DATXDUDE
Sorry, turns out that I forgot to close the debate. If anyone is interested, I might re instate it.
Posted by Yesi_kitty 8 months ago
Yesi_kitty
So what is your view? It is not very clear, once you have cleared it up I would be more than happy to debate against you.
Posted by Rami 8 months ago
Rami
I liked how this person rightfully excerised the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure what you're arguing for, though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
DATXDUDEawes1357Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It is very tough to frame a resolution from a more generic topic phrase such as "death penalty," but I shall interpret the topic as "the death penalty is desirable," since being "for" or "against" the death penalty is essentially considering the death penalty desirable, or undesirable. In such a scenario, the resolution is a normative one, since it seeks to identify whether something "should" happen. The burden of persuasion in such an instance is split evenly. Simply, Pro wins because he/she ~ to some extent ~ fulfills his/her burden, where Con fails to. Pro's argument is essentially that we should not let murderers/serial killers live in society since they are willing to kill. The argument is vague and could have further explanation, but I am essentially able to get two impacts: (1) they will kill more people, and (2) retribution. #2 is unwarranted, but #1 is an impact in default impact analysis. On the contrary, Con makes no arguments except restating their position. Pro wins.