The Instigator
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Isranaz12
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 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 44166
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

theta_pinch

Con

The death penalty should be abolished.
Isranaz12

Pro

If death penalties were to be abolished people would go violently bizarre. There is nothing wrong with the death penalty because it is almost exclusively for the offense of murder. Although, some states contain various crimes, other than those involving the death of the victim, that may be punished by death. Usually these 'other crimes' are offenses of rape. Abolishing death penalty wouldn't be such a good idea.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Con

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty because it is almost exclusively for the offense of murder.

Except when it turns out that the person executed was innocent. That has happened multiple times bringing me to my first point.

POINT 1

Death is a very final thing and sometimes people are executed and then later, evidence is found of their innocence. You can't bring a dead person back to life. So there are innocent people who are executed; if it was life in prison than when that evidence of their innocence is found they can be let out. Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

POINT 2

There are things way worse than the death penalty; namely life in prison. People who are sent to prison for life will experience large amounts of psychological trauma; if you subscribe to the Eye for an Eye philosophy or believe that they should be tortured, then life in prison would be much better than the death penalty.

POINT 3

The death penalty costs a lot more than any other form of punishment; even more than keeping them alive in prison. That's because of all the appeals they have to go through in addition to keeping them alive in prison on the death row.

POINT 4

There is evidence that states without the death penalty have consistently lower rates of murder:


Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87 5.90 5.83 5.72 5.26 5.00 4.89
Murder Rate in
Non-death
Penalty States
9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 5.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03 4.22 4.10 4.05 3.90 4.01 4.13
Percent
Difference
7%
10%
10%
17%
27%
44%
42%
41%
28%
35%
37%
36%
44%
42% 46% 40% 42% 41% 35% 25% 18%






If death penalties were to be abolished people would go violently bizarre.

The above graph and chart seems to disagree with this claim.



SOURCES:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org...




Isranaz12

Pro

No offense, but you've copied everything from online.

However, you're right that many people who are executed, end up being innocent.

But, the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes. A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue. Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions.

Prohibiting the death penalty would disqualify all those fears and oblique revenges.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Con


No offense, but you've copied everything from online.

And how is this relevant? Also I did not copy everything; the only thing I copied was the graph and chart.


But, the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes.

The numbers don't seem to agree with you.

A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue. Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions.

Revenge is never a good reason.

Prohibiting the death penalty would disqualify all those fears and oblique revenges.

Again the numbers don't agree with you.


CONCLUSION

Pro needs sources and data.
Isranaz12

Pro

Crimes like kidnapping for ransom, parricide, murder, rape, human trafficking, terrorism and other major offenses have been rapidly committed by those heartless and cold-blooded criminals. People who commit this kind of felony continue to broaden their evil activities. If this cannot be controlled the society will be filled with chaos and evil.

One of a direct solution for those individual susceptible to commit a heinous criminal act is capital punishment, and if it abolished many victims would not get a true justice. Death sentence is just appropriate and reasonable for those people whose behavior is perilous to other person, so that we can prevent the loss of another innocent life. It is in this notion that death sentencing should not be abolished and here is a few of the many reasons that it should continue to exist.

Death penalty must stay as one of the major penalty for those hardcore offenders and whose behavior is incurable. A person who commits a barbaric felony must be incarcerated at once so that other offenders would reflect the consequences of their actions.

Death sentence is fitting for people who commit grave evil doing so that the life of other individual will not be placed in imminent danger. Every human deserves respect in the highest and no one is authorized to violate it. Life is admired and valued life more than ever, but for those people who mercilessly kill an innocent man has no reason to exist or live.

Murderers deserve dying for murdering

Besides, i don't need any sources or data, because i have a very clear point.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Con


So lets recap:

pro argument 1: the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes.

My Rebuttal: I used a chart and a graph to show that the crime rates are the opposite of what pro is saying.


pro argument 2: A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue.

My rebuttal: Not peace; revenge, and there are other ways to make sure the threats don't continue.


Pro's argument 3: Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions.

My rebuttal: They wouldn't have to take any violent action even if revenge isn't taken.


Pro's argument 4: Crimes like kidnapping for ransom, parricide, murder, rape, human trafficking, terrorism and other major offenses have been rapidly committed by those heartless and cold-blooded criminals. People who commit this kind of felony continue to broaden their evil activities. If this cannot be controlled the society will be filled with chaos and evil.

My rebuttal: There are other ways to control those "cold-blooded criminals."


Pro's argument 5: One of a direct solution for those individual susceptible to commit a heinous criminal act is capital punishment, and if it abolished many victims would not get a true justice. Death sentence is just appropriate and reasonable for those people whose behavior is perilous to other person, so that we can prevent the loss of another innocent life. It is in this notion that death sentencing should not be abolished and here is a few of the many reasons that it should continue to exist.

My rebuttal: So what you want is to make them suffer; well life in prison would make them suffer far worse.


Pro's argument 6: Death penalty must stay as one of the major penalty for those hardcore offenders and whose behavior is incurable. A person who commits a barbaric felony must be incarcerated at once so that other offenders would reflect the consequences of their actions.

My rebuttal: Again life in prison would remove their threat and make them suffer way worse.

Pro's argument 7: Death sentence is fitting for people who commit grave evil doing so that the life of other individual will not be placed in imminent danger. Every human deserves respect in the highest and no one is authorized to violate it. Life is admired and valued life more than ever, but for those people who mercilessly kill an innocent man has no reason to exist or live.

My rebuttal: Death is the easy way out; life in prison causes massive psychological trauma and the prisoner still dies.

Pro's argument 8: Murderers deserve dying for murdering

My rebuttal: Life in prison ends in death; you just don't die as fast.

Pro's argument 9: Besides, i don't need any sources or data, because i have a very clear point.

My rebuttal: You may have a clear point but you need sources and data to support it.

CONCLUSION
I have successfully refuted all of pro's arguments and proved the death penalty should be abolished.

Isranaz12

Pro

Obviously, you are trying to prove me wrong, only to get more votes. Well, that's not how it works over here. You prove your own perspective right, and then penetrate my perspective. Roaming around this website, you should worry more about understanding different aspects then receiving a higher amount of votes. Furthermore, i recommend you alter your system of debating, in behalf of how offensive and bleak you sound.
MY CONCLUSION-

"I have successfully refuted all of pro's arguments and proved the death penalty should be abolished."
Please, the only element that refuted my argument was you data. The rest of your elements were absurd and futile. I didn't find any data to support my argument because my side of this debate is hardly ever taken. However, i proved enough points that my argument is viably logical.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Isranaz12 2 years ago
Isranaz12
I'm sorry, i accidentally posted my comment twice and i meant prove not rove.
Posted by Isranaz12 2 years ago
Isranaz12
I never responded to your data because i had no data to rove my point visually.

What i meant was, it seems as if your verbally attacking your opponent. You write my statement and then comment on it, in virtually, not a nice way.
Posted by Isranaz12 2 years ago
Isranaz12
I never responded to your data because i had no data to rove my point visually.

What i meant was, it seems as if your verbally attacking your opponent. You write my statement and then comment on it, in virtually, not a nice way.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
I did provide multiple points to support my case that you never responded too.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
can you explain what you mean about my debating system being offensive and bleak. Also I did prove my side rather than just refuting your arguments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
theta_pinchIsranaz12Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good arguments and both were polite in their own way but pro was stated to have copied from online.
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
Complicated_Mind
theta_pinchIsranaz12Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con. Pro repeatedly threw out accusations. He seemed particularly spiteful when Con refuted his arguments. (Which is what debating is all about); S&G was tied as far as I could see; Con not only gave out more stable and convincing arguments but his arguments were also not attacked; Sources go to Con for using them. Pro is foolish. Sources are proof and proof is critical to debate. Good job, Con!