The Instigator
DebateGirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,467 times Debate No: 15437
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

DebateGirl

Pro

I am challenging you to a debate about the death penalty. I am pro. Let's have a respectful debate
socialpinko

Con

Good luck to you. I await your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateGirl

Pro

Thanks you too.
I believe that some laws that are broken (ex murder!) should be punished by death. If you kill, you get killed. If you steal, you get your hand stolen. Kind of an eye for an eye type thing. I believe that this would make people thing twice before braking laws.
socialpinko

Con

You claim that murderers should be murdered but this is simply an assertion without evidence. You believe that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing because they don't want to die. Of course you have brought forth this claim with no statistics, citations, or sources so we may either drop this argument completely or you can bring some evidence to the table. As instigator you have the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateGirl

Pro

Let's forget proof for a second and use reasoning.

Say you were going to kill someone; if the consequence was living in a warm jail receiving clothes, hot meals, baths, even education you might not be as scared as the consequence of death (since you are a murderer ultimately the consequence of hell) Therefore you would be rethinking your decision to kill.
socialpinko

Con

It is alright to use abstract arguments depending on the subject matter but when you are making an assertion that if is true should be backed up by evidence, that assertion may be discarded. If the death penalty deters violence then we should see lower rates of violence in countries that employ the death penalty. It's not enough for something to make sense in theory. You also have to bring statistical evidence. You have not alloted me enough space to dismantle your other arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateGirl

Pro

Why would having a lesser consequence be better?
Why should tax payees have to pay for a murderers food, shelter, etc?

This isn't just about whether or not the death penalty would lower murders; keeping these low-lifes in a prison is simply a waste of money.
Here are the expenses: employees of the prison, electricity of the prison, food for the prisoners, amo, health care, and so many more all coming from the tax payer's pocket.

Also, I haven't heard you defend your reasoning.
socialpinko

Con

You have still not brought any statistics to show why it costs more money to keep a person in person in prison for life then to murder them. As you had the BOP it was your responsiblity to back up all of your claims with evidence. You did not do this even one time. Therefore all of your arguments may be discarded. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Other modern thinkers do believe a state has the right to take a life though.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
THEBOMB, that is simply expressing a view supported by other views. Some modern thinkers believe a state doesn't have a right to take a life, so there are two opposing views, therefore there is no 'logic' involved in that statement. If we want to get logical, we can put the pro death penalty argument into logic symbolism, "Either it is wrong to take a life (P) or it isn't wrong to take a life (Q). It IS wrong to take a life (P), therefore it isn't wrong for us to take a life (Q)". P or Q, P therefore Q. is NOT logically sound I am afraid.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Well if you really want to argue logically for the death penalty you can say that over centuries philosophers have agreed that human beings all have natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, other philosophers agree that if a person is to violate any of these natural rights they give up their own natural right. Ex. a person kills another person. They are depriving them of life. Therefore, their own life is given up.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
Evidence goes against the death penalty being a deterrent. In 2009, the states without the death penalty had a 3.90% murder rate, whereas those with it had a 5.26%. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Figures from different nations have shown the same trends, so let's dispel the myth once and for all- the death penalty does NOT deter people from murder.
Your reasoning also goes that: 'it is wrong to take a life, therefore we should take a life'. Now, that isn't reasoning at all, that is making an assertion based on opinion and ignoring reason.
So now that your 'reasoning' has been destroyed, what else have you got?
Posted by DebateGirl 5 years ago
DebateGirl
I want to hear your reasoning; not stupid "facts" you got off the Internet.
Posted by DebateGirl 5 years ago
DebateGirl
I want to hear your reasoning; not stupid "facts" you got off the Internet.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
DebateGirlsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to back up all claims made, even after Con asked for evidence.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
DebateGirlsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: The Pro did not back up any of her arguments with any kind of warrant. be it empirical or logical. therefore the vote goes by default to the Con. I also give the spelling point to the Con as the Pro made many misspellings.