The Instigator
ellenlyoo
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Z4RQUON
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Death penalty should be allowed

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 37309
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ellenlyoo

Con

Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.
Z4RQUON

Pro

The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the "Social Revenge System". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.
Debate Round No. 1
ellenlyoo

Con

I would like to begin round two with one argument.

First, I strongly believe that it is immoral. This argument is divided into two parts. First, how the government is actually letting themselves kill the citizens. Second, how it will be sending out the wrong message.

(1) The government is justifying themselves to kill the citizens.
In a way, the government is making a contradiction. According to the law, killing people is not justified. In other words, killing people is banned. If murdering is banned for individuals, the government should not be killing either. Of course my opponent (the proposition) may argue that people who had done serious crimes that had caused a detrimental harm to the society should be killed for the rest of the citizens' safety and happiness. For example, they may say that the family of the victim (of a murder incident, or any other violence) will become more relieved. However, then what about the murderer's family? Why is this society only respecting one side and not even thinking about the other?

In any way, I believe that the government should not have the justification to kill the citizens.

(2) Not doing the duty as a government.

Isn't the government there to protect the citizens? However, if the government starts killing people who are criminals, then it will not be fulfilling the duty as a government. The proposition, of course, can argue that murdering criminals who did crimes would be able to protect the rest of the society, but there are two points of rebuttal. First, I believe that there are better ways to treat criminals. Is the only way to deter the crime rates to kill somebody? I think that criminals can be put in prison and be limited in many different rights, but as a government, the government itself should not be violating the right to live. Second, will executing people actually deter the crime rates? The answer is a no. Just because the government executes people who do crimes doesn't mean that there would be less criminals, because there are still mentally ill people, and some psychopaths who don't know anything. Not only that, the government has to be responsible to create a policy that has a problem that is solved. However, this policy, the government executing, will not solve any problem but instead, will only give the government too much power.
Z4RQUON

Pro

Z4RQUON forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ellenlyoo

Con

So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away.

There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called "Miracle in Cell no.7" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty.
Z4RQUON

Pro

Z4RQUON forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
ellenlyooZ4RQUONTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a few S&G mistakes but he still won since Pro failed to show up.