The Instigator
Matthew3.14
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
xzcxzcasdasd
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 4 votes the winner is...
Matthew3.14
Started: 4/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,011 times Debate No: 23180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Matthew3.14

Con

This is a debate about Death Penalty legalization. Con will be against legalization and Pro, for the death penalty. Parameters are to be set to be for California law, society, and culture.

Death penalty is applicable in this debate only for legal death through court proceedings.

First round is acceptance.
xzcxzcasdasd

Pro

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew3.14

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate. There are 2 points that strongly support my debate:

1. First and foremost, the Death penalty is an extraneous situation in which long and complex judical court processes proceed. There are other means to kill a person which would be much simpler than the death penalty.

2. The death penalty costs around $137 million every year with around $90,000 for each prisoner destined for death. This is exorbitant compared to other methods such as life-term prisoner condition (costs $11.5 million) or even putting a bullet through one's head (to put in straight terms). Therefore, it is a waste of important resources.

Sources:
http://tiny.cc...
http://tiny.cc...
http://tiny.cc...
xzcxzcasdasd

Pro

There are many reasons why the death penalty is a much easier, cheaper, and overall, smarter way to deal with those criminals who, as an undisputed fact, need something harsher than a simple decade or two in jail.

1) First, the death penalty, contrary to the believe of some, is actually a relatively humane way to carry out an execution. We can all agree that the death penalty (like a lethal shot) is much more humane than a public hanging, or even a private hanging for that matter.

2) Also, the death penalty is a much less costly way to deal with criminals than a life sentence. A life sentence costs on average $1.5 mil while the death penalty costs $90000 per person. So, the death penalty is 17 times cheaper than a life sentence.
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew3.14

Con

Pro has supported my position (Con). His argument contains several flaws:

Rebuttal 1: The word "humane" is a subjective term and justified only in one's belief. There is no definition for how "humane" something is. In addition, modern society does not include hangings which make the argument obsolete.

Rebuttal and Support 2: Pro has supported my argument in that death penalty is overly expensive by interpreting statistics incorrectly. Although each penalty costs over $8 thousand, there are usually only 150 deaths resulting from 22,000 homicides. Pro compares a SINGLE penalty cost to an ENTIRE YEAR of life imprisonment costs! $1 billion could be saved over 5 years if life sentence replaced the death penalty.

Sources: http://tiny.cc...
xzcxzcasdasd

Pro

Con has several logical flaws:

ReRebuttal 1:The word humane is indeed, subjective, but the range of its interpretations is not very large. A standard definition would be "minimizing pain" and getting a lethal shot does indeed do so. Also, if Con states that death penalty is not the easiest way to kill some one, than what is?

ReRebuttal 2:The amounts that I stated were of a single person. One person, on death penalty, costs 90000 while life in prison would be 1.5 mil. So, it is actually Con who has interpreted incorrectly. Also, Con says than 150 deaths result from 22000 homicides. This is impossible. Homicides are killing of people, so how, from 22000 killings, there are only 150 deaths? This is incorrect.

Both my arguments remain valid.
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew3.14

Con

As a conclusion I would like to clarify the debate:

1) Pro obviously doesn't know what homicides (murder cases) are. He thinks suspects sentenced to death penalty are equal to total deaths which is absurd. 150 people were sentenced out of 22,000 total deaths.
2) Pro ignored previous rounds where my sources clearly stated that $11.5 million is for an entire year of life sentences.
3) Again, Pro's defense has showed the subjective view of "minimizing pain" which isn't given specific boundaries.
4) Pro has NO sources which questions the validity of his statistics and "definitions" including the supposed "1.5 mil" life in prison.
5) Pro has only defended his argument but ignored Con's supports thus conceding to them.

Given these, vote Pro!
xzcxzcasdasd

Pro

1)In defense to my misunderstanding, Con stated "150 deaths", implying 150 dead.
2)Con's arguments were the complexity and cost of the death penalty. For the complexity, no source is cited, so is invalid. Also, the cost of life sentence (average: 50 years) is undisputedly more than the death penalty (average: very quick). So, this argument is also invalid.
3)Minimizing pain is self-explanatory; its boundaries are common sense.
4)I am sorry for the late links, here they are
http://www.heartsandminds.org...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
5)I have nullified Con's arguments above.

Thank you everybody! Now, when voting, vote Pro, and I am very happy that my opponent, Con, agrees with me in voting for myself!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Matthew3.14 1 year ago
Matthew3.14
Lol! That's so funny. Nope, all sane voters should vote Con *cough* not Pro because of the arguments given, not the tiny little spelling errors. :P

Nice debate xzcxzcasdasd this was the one I had the most fun with besides the first debate I've done.
Posted by xzcxzcasdasd 1 year ago
xzcxzcasdasd
All sane voters who would have originally voted for Con should follow his wishes and vote for Pro as Con said himself
Posted by xzcxzcasdasd 1 year ago
xzcxzcasdasd
Joe! *cough*
Posted by Joe1234 1 year ago
Joe1234
Yeah, I agree. Typo's are just a small error. They don't reflect the real debating. Just as long as the main points are pointed out, then that's all.
Posted by Jacket123 1 year ago
Jacket123
Oh hahah, that's funny I think Con meant "vote Con!" not vote Pro. Simple mistake though. If I could vote, I'd disregard that because its the debate that counts not small errors unrelated to the true debating skills.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 1 year ago
frozen_eclipse
Matthew3.14xzcxzcasdasdTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con has better sources and better arguments
Vote Placed by Asp111 1 year ago
Asp111
Matthew3.14xzcxzcasdasdTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows that the death penalty is important for many different reasos. But when con says these guys can just get a bullet through their heads, I have to agree, ammo is less expensive than a needle and that pro has only defended his case. Nevertheless, they both had verry convincing arguements.
Vote Placed by Jacket123 1 year ago
Jacket123
Matthew3.14xzcxzcasdasdTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a hard time following the debate. His arguments were flawed.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
1dustpelt
Matthew3.14xzcxzcasdasdTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has refuted most of Pro's points. Pro dropped several arguments and Con had more sources.
Research this debate: New Hampshire