The Instigator
anna0128
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Normerican
Pro (for)
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...
anna0128
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 262 times Debate No: 92883
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

anna0128

Con

Just debate all rounds, even the first one.

We are killing a person! What if that person was innocent? There are many cases of innocents. It shows that there are 148 cases of this, and 4.1 percent are innocents!

https://www.aclu.org...

https://www.theguardian.com...

This is a lot of people! If we kill any of these innocent people, we cannot return them. We should rather but these people in jail, not killing them. This is because the death penalty costs a lot, look at this.

"Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

This is a lot of money!!! We can just put them in jail, it saves a lot, and if they are innocent, we can take them out of jail, put we can't take them out of their grave!!!

So death penalty should not be allowed!!!
Normerican

Pro

Well, we are more than likely killing a guilty person. The fact that we won't ever have to risk that inmate escaping prison, terrorizing other inmates, or roaming the streets again is satisfying. People should pay the consequences for their crime, and especially when their crime is serial murder.

You've taken the lives of people, several people usually, and ruined the live's of those people's families. What about the costs of the funeral, what about life insurance, what about the student loans that never got paid back? Someone needs to pay, and they need to pay hard.

Not only that, a capital case is usually more expensive, but it's after the case. Your tax dollars for the rest of that criminals days goes to housing him. You're basically paying(I think yearly), for a place to stay for the guy who raped sally sues 4 year old daughter.

Also, there's usually several years of time before murderers get their rightful judgement. Sometimes even 20 years, before an inmate receives the death penalty. That's plenty of time for an innocent man to appeal to the court, but if he doesn't get those appeals accepted, then it wouldn't matter. He wouldn't leave jail anyway...just like he wouldn't live.

Unfortunately, mistakes happen, but theirs plenty of good to come from the death penalty.
Debate Round No. 1
anna0128

Con

I will post my rebuttals this round.

Pro says that we are most likely going to kill a guilty person. As I said, guilty person, innocent person, all people have the right of life. Death penalty violates this rule. Pro says that we have to make them pay for killing, and murder. We should rather just make them to a full-life prison, it will cost less. And anyways, there isn't much difference to a full-life of prison and to die. The cost is different, as I showed, really different, so we should just setence them to a full-life prison, because we don't kill anyone, and we can always bring them back if innocent.

Pro says that a capital case is more expensive. You are literally arguing my side!!! More expensive means bad, and you concede that, so please vote for me!!!

Pro says that there are many years for the judgement, and the innocents can appeal. Well, then why are these cases? They won't believe them. Pro says, "He wouldn't leave jail anyway..."

This is false, as I showed that they can leave jail, but they it is impossible to leave from life.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

There are at least many people who will be alive if there was not death penalty, so we should ban it.

Pro says that mistakes happen, and there are good things about death penalty. I have shown that the death penalty is bad, it has no good effects. Also, mistakes happen. A terror attack. Mistakes happen. Breaking the Mona Lisa. Mistakes happen. Breaking the eiffel tower. Mistakes happen. Light a house in fire. Mistakes happen. Killing the entire human race. Mistakes happen. Mistakes should not happen, therefore we should ban the death penalty.

As a result, vote Con.
Normerican

Pro

Apologies, con. No, I meant that during a case that capital punishment is more expensive. But for life in prison the case is 740,000, and then an added 90,000 for every year that prisoner is left to rot. Meaning that after 10-15 years, the one person is executed at the same cost as someone spending life in prison, with the person still alive having most likely many years more.

Also, the constitution says that once you're imprisoned some rights get taken away. Similar to how you took away the rights to someone else. Why if someone else gets their right to life taken away, why shouldn't they get their life taken away.
Debate Round No. 2
anna0128

Con

My opponent does not refute my case at all. Extend it. I will refute my opponent's round 2.

My opponent shows the cost of the death penalty. However, this is a bare assertion, as my opponent provides no source. I provided a source, and my opponent seems to disagree on this, and provides statistics, but he provides no sources, making it a bare assertion, so there is no reason to buy his, buy mine.

Pro says that some laws get taken away if you are imprisoned. Again, this is a bare assertion. Also, the right of life will not we taken away, as everyone has the right of life.

In the end, my opponent fails to refute my innocent argument, only saying mistake happen, and I refuted that. He says my cost argument is false, and gives statistics, but it is a bare assertion, when mine are sourced, so vote for Con. Also, my plan was to just put them in jail for the whole time, and Pro fails to refute that. As a result, please vote Con!


Normerican

Pro

Normerican forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 546372819 5 months ago
546372819
Death Penalty is actually pointless. Everyone deserves a second chance, and it is unlikely for someone to escape again. 0.5%! http://www.slate.com...
Posted by 546372819 5 months ago
546372819
Death Penalty violates the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As the Declaration says, life is an "unalienable" right. They are taking life away from so many innocent people. 1 in 25 people sentenced to Death are innocent!!!
Posted by Normerican 5 months ago
Normerican
Death Penalty isn't painless, in fact the needle is excruciatingly painful because it's pure potassium getting shot right into your heart. WIth nitrate I think. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
Posted by TheGrumpyPotato 5 months ago
TheGrumpyPotato
Think about it like this. Your mass murderer is killed immediately and is now dead. Or, your mass murderer sits in a prison for the rest of his/her life before finally dying in the prison. It depends on whether you want your mass murderer to die quickly a painless death while his victims probably didn't or you can allow the mass murderer to sit in his/her prison looking at his/her cell knowing they'll be stuck there forever and that they'll die there anyways.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
anna0128NormericanTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was cost, and innocents. Pro says that it is expensive, but more effective, but this is a bare assertion. Pro says accidents happen, but that isn't a good rebuttal, and Con defends by saying a lists of accidents, and they aren't accidents. Pro provides that you will most likely kill a guilty person, but fails to know if it is a innocent one, so this is rebutted. So, Con wins. Pro forfeited a round too.