The Instigator
Zealotical
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
dvhoose
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points

Giving Murderers the Death Sentence should be illegal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 8487
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (12)

 

Zealotical

Pro

I think that the police giving murderers the death sentence should be illegal because by killing them, are the police really any better then the murderers. I think that it is really hypocritical because that's like saying "You killed a person/people, now we're gonna kill you." This would make the police murderers themselves.

Murder - taking someone's life.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

May not be a good source however, its a source none the less...
dvhoose

Con

I stand in negation of the topic and believe that murderers should be given the death penalty. I assume by murderer that there is undeniable proof that the person on trial for murder is guilty.

Look only at the price of housing an inmate (life sentence being the alternative in my mind) and look to the economy today. We don't need extra burdens. It's not that police are above everyone else, it's that the law frowns on murder.

With 5 min and 500 char. that's all I've got time for. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
"studentathletechristian8", it is a known fact that life imprisonment is cheaper...3 to 5 times cheaper in fact.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
(continuation of cut off comment).....Pro posted a source and Con didn't, Pro managed to misquote the source and posit an incorrect definition of murder.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
Clearly a Con win.

Better presented and better argued, although I disagree with his reasons.

Pro would have had a better use of source(s) as Con used none (and Con would need a source to support the financial claim) except Pro managed to misquote his own source! Murder is not the taking of a human life!

Since Pro didn't give himself a chance to rebutt Con's argument, the argument stands unrebutted.

Also, Pro mis-difined murder. Con never took issue with that definition. Pro's definition, if accepted, would defate Con's claim that a murderer is someone guilty of mruder. But again, Pro only offered one round and deprived himself of this argument.

Before: Pro
After: Pro
Conduct: Con
Language: Tie
Argument: Con
Sources: Tie (although
Posted by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
I do. The site freezes up when i'm on this computer posting an argument.
Posted by dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
@ Cavil:

1) I agree, but it was only one round with 500 characters... Each round was only 5 min...
2) There wasn't a lot of space at all, I had to pick what I thought was the strongest argument for the death penalty and run with it...
3) In a longer debate, with more rounds, more time, and more characters, I'd have had a better argument, there just weren't very many resources at my disposal.
4) I completely agree with this point, however there was no space for explanations... I had 6 characters remaining (And for some reason, when I had four characters left, it cut out the last part of "Vote CON." Anyone else have problems like this?)
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
CON wins cuz 1 round debate no time for aff to refute arguements
Posted by Cavil 7 years ago
Cavil
1: This debate was way to short to be very interesting.
2: The pro effectively proved that the death penalty qualifies as murder and that using it on murders is hypocritical. The con never made any argument to the contrary.
3: The pro had a very poorly chosen definition. The con should've turned that because if a murder is simply taking someone's life, then it would be illegal to kill murders in self-defense. Then the con would be protecting innocent victims.
4: The final problem is that neither side explained why their arguments should matter more. Should we be more concerned with the hypocrisy (which the pro argued) or the cost of keeping a murder in prison (which is what the con argued).
This is just an objective evaluation of what could've been better.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Police do not give the death penalty. They kill people sometimes but I do not think this is what pro meant. I am very much opposed to the death penalty, but Pro did a poor job, 5 min debate or not. Con wins.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"I believe this is false. It appears you are only looking at the upfront cost it takes to kill someone, probably from lethal injection."

You need to take a look at the cost of appeals that those on death row go through.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
The debate was open, but before I took it I saw I only had 5 minutes. So I didn't take it and went and made my argument on Word. I came back to accept, and it was already taken.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 7 years ago
Zealotical
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
ZealoticaldvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06