The Instigator
What50
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Taust
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gladiator matches for death row inmates

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...
What50
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 99873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

What50

Pro

I believe we should have gladiator matches for death row inmates and prisoners with either life or just bad for the prison. For death row inmates it will be a 1 v 1. They will have swords,spears,shields,but no guns.

Mondays will be 1 v 1 as I stated. Tuesday will have rabid animals while they fight. Wednesday will be 10 v 10 team fight matches. Thursday will be fighting with there bare fist. Friday 3 prisoners will have to fight 3 bears. Saturday will be a tournament. The champion will get 30 years in prison. Sundays will be a break time. 4 armed guards will be watching the match. The winner will not get death row but will go to prison for life only on Mondays. The rest of the wreaks will have different prizes for the winners.

Con will have to prove this is a bad idea.
Taust

Con

There's a good reason gladiator fights have been abolished and are now considered a barbaric method of punishment. It is immoral for a number of reasons:

The death penalty itself is immoral. Killing a criminal does nothing to protect anyone because the criminal is already in prison where they can't threaten society, so the death penalty takes a human life for nothing.
Forcing criminals to slaughter each other is not morally justifiable. No one should be forced to kill another person. This is especially bad because the criminals here already have to cope with the guilt of having killed someone before, and now they are being forced to add to that guilt by killing more people.
Current methods of capital punishment are at least quick and painless, but the methods you have described are some of the most painful deaths possible. Some gladiators would die brutal deaths of being mauled by bears or rabid animals or by being beaten to death by another person's bare fists.

There are also many practical reasons gladiator fights are not reasonable. The cost of building arenas would be very high, and they would take up space that could be used for other purposes. It would also be extremely difficult and expensive to transport dangerous wild animals, let alone rabid animals, to the arena. The weapons that the gladiators fight with would also cost money.
Another practical problem is the danger of criminals or animals escaping. If you set wild animals loose in an arena, there is a possibility that they could escape. It is also possible that the criminals could escape after you give them weapons. This would be very dangerous to the guards, who would be killed in either scenario, and to society, since escaped criminals with weapons or rabid animals could be set loose in a populated area.

This system also would only work if there was an extremely high number of death row inmates, which is definitely not something we want; we want to execute fewer criminals. On Monday, you have two inmates fighting, on Tuesday at least two, you have twenty on Wednesday, at least two on Thursday, three on Friday, and there is a tournament on Saturday, meaning there would probably be around 64 gladiators. This is at least 93 gladiators every week. Even if you count out the victors, that's 88 people killed every week (I'm assuming no one will beat the bears because, well, no one will). Do you really think we have or want to have enough death row inmates to make this a reality?

You also mentioned here that I have to prove that gladiator fights are a bad idea, and I think have done so. However, it should be noted that the burden of proof should fall on you for this, although it's fine if you want to put it on me just for the sake of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
What50

Pro

Hello thank you for accepting this debate.

The Justification?
The justification is that they are not needed in society. Look at "The Black Dahlia" a woman by the name Elizabeth Short. Her head was bashed,face slashed,body mutilated,and her torso sliced in half. Did that murderer deserved death row? Did the Sandy Hook elementary school mass who murdered his mother,killed 6 adult staff,and killed 20 children before he shot himself. Does that person deserve to be sentenced to death row?. No those people deserve death and this is what the gladiator match is for. A way for a murderer to die and realize his mistakes for killing.

Brutality?
Yes I admit it these gladiator matches can be brutal. But look at the sports people watch. Football people are tackling each other,pummeling people down risking concussions,sports injury etc. UFC we watch 2 men or woman in a 1 v 1 match punching,kicking,hurting one another while we watch. Isn't that basically gladiator matches but less severe? The violence in gladiators matches isn't always too the death.

Cost?
The cost of the arena will be a mere 80k. If all states pitch in 1600 dollars we can cover the cost of the arena. On Tuesday rabid animals would be dogs,cats,etc. There would only be 4 animals in Tuesday match. We will work with blacksmiths shops. We will be asking them to make spears,swords,and shields. We are than helping business and helping the economy.

How do we cover the cost?
We can cover the cost by selling tickets for civilians to watch the gladiator match. We will allow betting but we will take 5% of the bet. For example a ten dollar bet we will only take .50 cents. This is a way to be able to be self sufficant and not beg for money from the Federal government.

What if they escaped?
"Another practical problem is the danger of criminals or animals escaping. If you set wild animals loose in an arena, there is a possibility that they could escape. It is also possible that the criminals could escape after you give them weapons. This would be very dangerous to the guards, who would be killed in either scenario, and to society, since escaped criminals with weapons or rabid animals could be set loose in a populated area."
As my opponent stated what if they escaped. As I said there will be 4 guards in a tower. While they are watching they will be trained to shoot the animals,gladiators if they try to escape. The gates will be locked so they can't escaped. The people who chooses to watch the match for a entrance fee will watch through a one way bulletproof mirror. This problem is a solved by locking the gates,crowd will watch through a one way mirror with guards in the towers watching the match.

The Animals?
The cost of euthanasia is about 50 dollars all the way to 125 dollars. The cremation cost about 80 dollars if your dog is under 30 pounds. For dogs weighing 101 pounds or more it cost 165 dollars to cremate. Now how is this information relevant. I talked about we will use rabid animals in a arena at Tuesday. The dogs will have a area to walk,run,and fight. Once they die we bury them in a separate location for free. Once your dog has rabies they will have to be euthanized. But some people don't have the money so we send them to the arena for free. We bury them for free.

No weapons and using there fist?
"being beaten to death by another person's bare fists."
No this is merely a UFC match. In sports like boxing we watch 2 men hitting each other. This match is merely a one on one fight where the winner is decided if they are on the ground for 10 seconds or they give up. So no they aren't being savagely beaten to death.

Death row inmates gladiators?
"This system also would only work if there was an extremely high number of death row inmates, which is definitely not something we want; we want to execute fewer criminals. On Monday, you have two inmates fighting, on Tuesday at least two, you have twenty on Wednesday, at least two on Thursday, three on Friday, and there is a tournament on Saturday, meaning there would probably be around 64 gladiators. This is at least 93 gladiators every week. Even if you count out the victors, that's 88 people killed every week (I'm assuming no one will beat the bears because, well, no one will). Do you really think we have or want to have enough death row inmates to make this a reality?"
As my opponent stated we will have 88 people killed a week. We can reduce this number by counting that the Thursday fighting with there bare hands will be 86. Also the bears are a endurance match. three prisoners will fight 1 bear. If they defeat the bear they fight the second bear. This is a way so that way it will be more fair for the gladiators. Also there about 2905 death row inmates currently. So we have enough death row inmates to make this a reality.

Benefits the Inmate?
It makes the death penalty quicker and faster for the inmate. Instead of waiting 25 years like in Texas to be executed they get to wait at a slower time. Look at California for example. More death row inmates die to natural causes. Out of 900 convicted killers in California only 13 got executed. This is a problem and that is how the gladiator matches solve the problem. It lowers the time waiting so they don't die of natural causes.

Good luck to con next round.
Sources:
http://www.enki-village.com...
http://www.buildingsguide.com...
https://howcoster.com...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://criminal.lawyers.com...
http://theweek.com...
Taust

Con

Justification: You say the people are not needed in society, but that is no reason to kill them. There are many people who live in undeveloped areas that are not doing anything for our society, but we certainly shouldn't kill these people. Morality is about doing what's right to other people, not about selfishly only helping people who will help us in return.
You next say that they deserve death, but there is no actual good done in killing them. Killing them will be bad for them and won't be good or bad for other people, so there is no benefit to killing them. Being killed also will not make a murderer realize his mistakes; it will do the opposite. If a murderer is in prison, he can think about his mistakes, realize what he did wrong, and maybe even be forgiven by himself and the loved ones of the victim, but if you execute him, he doesn't have a chance to think about anything.

Brutality: The violence in sports is much less severe than that in gladiator matches. People are injured sometimes in sports, but they recover eventually, and the pain of the injury is much less than the pain of being mauled by an animal would be. Also, if you're using gladiator matches as a method of execution, then, yes, the matches are to the death (and it"s to, not too).

Cost: The cost of all those animals and weapons is still going to add up if you keep having gladiator matches, and the taxes that will be necessary to cover it will not boost the economy.
As you said, people watching the matches could pay for them, but the problem with this is that most people wouldn't want to. Many would boycott the matches for moral reasons, and many people are disturbed by seeing a person die in real life and would therefore not want to watch. If the government wants to get money from sports, starting a regular sports league would be much more lucrative.

What if they escaped?: It's true that they are unlikely to escape, but gladiator matches still increase the chances, and the gates and bulletproof glass you need is going to add to the cost of the arena, speaking of which, the source you used to determine the price of the arena is for horse arenas, not battle arenas. Also, since one of the voting categories is grammar, I feel the need to point out that you made a lot of grammatical mistakes in this section.

The Animals: The cost of shipping rabid animals to the arena is going to be higher than the cost of euthanasia, and it will be dangerous to handle the rabid animals. I think most owners of rabid pets would rather have them euthanized than have them kill people in an arena anyway.

Bare Fists: You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit here. If it was originally just supposed to be a boxing match, why were you suggesting it for death row criminals among other suggestions that were all fights to the death? Even if it is just this, what would be the point of having the criminals box each other? This would also not justify killing them every other day.

Death Row Inmates Gladiators: Actually, if you count out Thursday's fighters that only lowers the death count to 87. I only counted the loser in the weekly death count. It is unlikely that the prisoners will survive fighting the bears, but even if they all do, the weekly death count is still only reduced to 84, and the total number of people fighting is the same. With 2905 inmates, we would run out of people before 35 weeks were over, and since the rate at which new inmates are being convicted is low, we do not have a steady stream of new gladiators. Therefore we do not have enough inmates to make this a reality.

Benefits the Inmate: Gladiator matches aren't any faster than other methods of execution such as lethal injections. You also say here that dying of natural causes is a problem, but that is only true if you think it's better to execute criminals, so it is a circular argument.
I also want to take a look at one of the sources you used for your argument, http://criminal.lawyers.com..., which you claim supports your case. It actually says that the reason the death penalty takes so long is because of appeals. It's the ultimate punishment, so we have to make sure we aren't executing someone innocent. Gladiator matches would not make the appeals process any shorter. It should also be noted that these appeals don't necessarily always work, and there is always a chance of killing an innocent person. In fact, the article mentions that Teresa Lewis"s death was considered unfair by many because it was more severe than the punishment that the people who actually did the shooting got, and because Lewis had a low IQ that was very close to being mentally challenged. Her lawyer even said, "A good and decent person is about to lose her life because of a system that is badly broken."*
Finally, let's look at a quote directly from your article: "If at times it seems unfair or unjust, it's up to us to do something to prevent its use and prevent similar injustices in the future." A good way to prevent these injustices is to abolish the death penalty.

There are also many more arguments against the death penalty itself. The current cost in California is $137 million per year, and it would be only $11.5 million if we replaced the death pe penalty with lifetime sentences; in Maryland, the death penalty costs three times as much; in Tennessee, it costs 48% more; and in Kansas, it's 70% more. If we didn't have the death penalty, this money could be used for important things, such as actually preventing the crimes that the death penalty punishes and other crimes; mental health treatment, education, and rehabilitation; helping the victims" loved ones; other parts of the justice system; and other parts of the government such as emergency services, schools and libraries, public health, and transportation.**
One could morally justify the death penalty if it lowered crime rates, but it turns out that states without the death penalty actually consistently have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.*** This means abolishing the death penalty is actually likely to reduce crime.
There are also many unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory factors in the death penalty. Almost every death row inmate couldn't afford their own attorney, meaning the poor are more likely to be executed. Defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim was white than if the victim was a minority, and minority defendants are more likely to be executed than white defendants, so racism also affects who is executed. Many people who are executed are mentally ill, even though that goes against the Constitution, the United Nations, and obvious morality. Local politics also affects the death penalty; for example, people are more likely to be executed in the South.**** With all these unfair factors influencing the death penalty, it is more like a "Who dies?" lottery than justice.
There are also many innocent people who have been put on death before their innocence was discovered.***** This means that every execution risks killing an innocent person.
It is clear that the death penalty is wrong, so we should abolish it rather than working backwards by adding gladiator matches to the death row.

*http://www.nydailynews.com...
**http://www.amnestyusa.org...
***http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
****http://www.amnestyusa.org...
http://www.amnestyusa.org...
http://www.amnestyusa.org...
*****http://www.amnestyusa.org...
Debate Round No. 2
What50

Pro

" You say the people are not needed in society, but that is no reason to kill them. There are many people who live in undeveloped areas that are not doing anything for our society, but we certainly shouldn't kill these people. Morality is about doing what's right to other people, not about selfishly only helping people who will help us in return.
You next say that they deserve death, but there is no actual good done in killing them. Killing them will be bad for them and won't be good or bad for other people, so there is no benefit to killing them. Being killed also will not make a murderer realize his mistakes; it will do the opposite. If a murderer is in prison, he can think about his mistakes, realize what he did wrong, and maybe even be forgiven by himself and the loved ones of the victim, but if you execute him, he doesn't have a chance to think about anything."

The many people who live in underdeveloped ares are doing things for society. Would you rather have a man in a underdeveloped country who killed someone. Or a man in a developed country who did killed someone. I choose the man in a underdeveloped country he is doing things for society by not ending a man's life based on greed,selfishness,or for no reason at all.

My opponent than says they don't deserved death because a murderer will realize his mistakes. If only that were true. 68% of criminals released will be arrested from the span of 3 years. And 77% get arrested in a spam of 5 years. So no it seems like jail,and prison isn't helping them out. The gladiator matches will be a way to end them. The execution does give them a chance to think about anything. To think about how it feels to be killed just like what his/her victims felt.

My opponent than say why we will have a boxing match than killing them with there bare fist. When the gladiators punch each other with there fist they are both feeling what it is like to be hurt. The person who is punching them sees what they are doing. The person receiving it feels the pain.

My opponent than say why the cost of the animals and weapons will add if up if we keep having gladiator matches and the taxes that will be necessary to cover it will not boost the economy. Yes we will be using taxes. But there will be people watching the gladiator matches. Yes we are buying the weapons from blacksmith shops meaning we are giving them money,they make the weapons ,they get money to expand,and have more employees thus fueling the economy.

My opponent than says the gates,bulletproof glass will add up to the cost of the arena and said the source I used was a horse arena not a battle arena. I must ask my opponent to use his imagination. People don't buy battle arenas so we gotta use our imagination. These horse arenas are similar to battle arenas and with a little touch and the use of a indoor arena and add in the gates and bulletproof glass it will be a suitable battle arena. We will use a basic wood gate which will normally cost 100 dollars to 500 dollars. So at most 1000 dollars.
Bulletproof glass is normally 25 to 100 dollars per square feet. So 1000 dollars should be enough. Since we are facing crude weapons such as swords, and spears we shouldn't worried about the glass breaking.

My opponent than say we do not have enough death row inmates to make this into a reality. My opponent says that the tournament most likely has 64 gladiators for death row every Saturday. I must say we will not have 64 gladiators but a mere 12 gladiators. This way we can conserve gladiators. So I did the math accounting for victors only 27 gladiators will be killed each weak. Meaning for 107 weak.

"Gladiator matches aren't any faster than other methods of execution such as lethal injections. You also say here that dying of natural causes is a problem, but that is only true if you think it's better to execute criminals, so it is a circular argument."

Lethal injections take about 2 hours to fully kill the victim. Assuming a major artery is hit with the sword and spear they will bleed out in 2 mins. Much shorter than 2 hours. What I am explaining about death of natural causes is a problem is that the death penalty is suppose to be a punishment where they die quickly to show what you did is wrong.

My opponent than says we might execute a innocent person. Yes I agree we might put the person in the gladiator match and he might be innocent. Here is the thing in a Us death row study only 4 people sentenced to death row are innocent. In prison 2.5 to 5% of people in prision might be innocent. Even if just 1% are innocent in prison that is about 20 thousand.

My opponent than say that death penalty cost too much and I agree with my opponent. The gladiator match will be the death row penalty and will be much cheaper. The arena will cost at least 82k with the gates and bulletproof glass. We can use those millions of dollars to fund the gladiator matches and fun mental health treatment,education and rehabilitation.

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.costowl.com...
http://www.bulldogdirect.com...
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://topics.info.com...
https://www.theguardian.com...
www.innocenceproject.org/contact/
Taust

Con

You say not killing anyone counts as doing something for society, but someone who is incarcerated for life will not be able to kill anyone, so by your logic, they are doing something for society. The point of the analogy with people who can't do anything was to show that the value of a human life doesn't change just because that person is unable to help society. For the fact that they can't contribute to society to justify killing them, it would have to make their life have no value at all, because if their life has value, the only thing that could justify destroying it would be saving something of greater value. You haven't shown any ways in which the death penalty does anything to help anyone, so there is nothing of greater value; it takes a life for nothing.
You mentioned that a high percentage of criminals didn't change their ways, but even if most still don't realize their mistakes, the point is that they at least get a chance to reflect on their mistakes and get forgiveness. If they die in a gladiator match, even if they realize their mistake in that last moment, they don't have time to forgive themselves and have no chance to ask others for forgiveness before they die.

You once again say that people watching the gladiator matches will pay for them, but I already provided an argument in the previous round that shows that this is not true, and you haven't refuted this argument. You then justify it by saying you will boost the economy by buying weapons from blacksmith shops. However, we would buy them from factories, not blacksmiths, because blacksmith shops don't exist anymore. Factories already get lots of business, and buying a few more items from them won't have any effect on the overall economy.

You are correct that we will need to use our imagination to figure out the price of a battle arena, and choosing the cheapest possible price of a horse arena is not using our imagination. You chose the price of the smallest possible arena on the website and said that the price of the gladiator arena would be the same, but that is false.
You say that the gate will only cost one to five hundred dollars, but the source you cited for this tells us the price of a wooden fence gate, the type you would have in your yard, not the type you would use to make sure no one escapes an arena. The gate we need for the arena must be solid, strong, and at least as tall as a regular door. This will use much more wood and be much more expensive than the gates in the source you cited.
As you said, bulletproof glass cost $25-100 per ft^2, but you have miscalculated the total cost of it. Even assuming the cheapest bulletproof glass, $25/ft^2, $1K would only give us 40 square feet of glass. The glass around the arena would have to be at least ten feet tall. This means that in order for the glass to only cost 1000 dollars, the perimeter of the arena would have to be 4ft, so you have made a very large miscalculation here. The bare minimum price of the glass would be $100K, assuming that the arena is a very small 70x130 rectangle like the one you found the cost for. In reality the arena would be much bigger. The seating would be extremely expensive, even if we just used bleachers. The cost of bleachers for just 60 people is already around $4K.* We would need many more than 60 seats for this; most professional sports stadiums have seating capacities of 20-70K,** so the price of bleachers is $1.3-4.7M. Now our most conservative estimate for the cost is $1.5M (by adding the original 80K and 100K for glass to the bleacher cost). This is an extreme underestimate because we have assumed that the arena is very small, and I calculated the price of bleachers, not stadium seating. Stadium seats would be much more expensive; you need to pay for the seats themselves and the large volume of concrete they are on top of. This estimate also isn't even accounting for other parts of the arena, such as the places the animals will be stored, the gate, the parking lot, etc. We also need to continuously pay for more animals, more weapons, guards, janitors, etc, so the total cost is going to be extremely high, many millions of dollars. There is no reason to waste all this money.

Even if you only have 12 gladiators in the tournament, 107 weeks is barely more than two years. Since we don't have 27 people being sentenced to death every week, we would not be able to continue the daily gladiator fights for longer than those two years.

"Lethal injections take about 2 hours to fully kill the victim."
The source you cited says they take 5min to 2hr. Two hours was actually the longest a lethal injection has ever taken to kill a patient, not a normal amount of time. Most lethal injections have the inmate unconscious in seconds and dead in five minutes, according to your own source, and those that don't are due to using the wrong chemicals.
"Assuming a major artery is hit with the sword and spear they will bleed out in 2 mins."
But you are not justified in making that assumption. In a fight, they are more likely to hit a less important artery, since you need to hit someone in very specific places to get a major artery. The gladiators are therefore more likely to bleed out slowly and have a painful death. It is also likely that there will be injuries in the fight that do not kill a gladiator right away, but take a few days to kill them. This means even the victor could die a few days later from injuries from the battle.
"What I am explaining about death of natural causes is a problem is that the death penalty is suppose to be a punishment where they die quickly to show what you did is wrong."
This is still a circular argument. This argument relies on the assumption that it is better for the inmate to be killed via the death penalty than to die of natural causes. To agree with that assumption, I would have to already agree that the death penalty is ok.

The statistic that your source gave is 4.1 PERCENT of the people, not 4 people total. That means 119 of the people currently on death row are innocent. The estimate was also deliberately conservative, according to your own source, so in reality it is AT LEAST 4.1% and most likely more than that. A 4.1% chance is a huge risk for something as serious as killing an innocent person and not a risk that we should be taking over and over again. As your source states, "If you look at the numbers in our study, at how many errors are made, then you cannot believe that we haven"t executed any innocent person"that would be wishful thinking."
You then bring up the statistic involving people in prison, which is highly irrelevant, but you try to compare it to the death row statistics to make prison seem worse. However you do this by comparing the total number of people who are in prison on false charges to the percentage of death row inmates. Let's not compare apples to oranges here and see what the actual comparison is. As you said, 2.5-5% of prisoners are innocent. This is actually slightly smaller than 4.1%.

Gladiator matches are not cheaper than other forms of execution because the cost of the death penalty comes from how expensive the trial is, and using gladiator matches would not affect the cost of the trial. "Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs...Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes. The report estimates that between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion."***

Another problem with your idea is that the winner of Saturday's tournament is released from prison after 30yr. So we're going to release a criminal back into society after 30yr as a reward for being good enough at killing people to win a gladiator tournament. That doesn't sound like a good idea.

*https://www.howmuchisit.org...
**https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
***http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by What50 11 months ago
What50
That can be arranged.
Posted by Taust 11 months ago
Taust
Madness, you vote for madness!
I'm sorry; I'm going to have to be killed in a gladiator match for that terrible pun.
Posted by Taust 11 months ago
Taust
Luckily I was able to reduce the length by a few thousand character's without losing much.
Posted by Taust 11 months ago
Taust
The evil character limit is forcing me to shorten my argument for this round. :(
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Why have your rabid dog put down for $80 when you can get paid to give him to the arena? It's a good point.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Yes, yes. Some of these points I agree with.
Posted by What50 11 months ago
What50
Excellent idea man.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
I argued for a similar thing, but trust me people won't vote on your debate skills. People are very bias.

http://www.debate.org...

Add:
You should mix up the fights, put animals in the arena, like rabid dogs. Even have 10 vs 10 fights.

have a 10 man, last man standing, all blind folded and hands tied behind their backs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by madness 11 months ago
madness
What50TaustTied
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 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: Argument: Pro has a valid argument where he essentially sums up how criminals lose their rights and therefore we can do anything we want with them. He also makes a valid comparison between these gladiator matches and the already brutal UFC. Considering we're not paying these fighters, but rather they're fighting for their lives, I believe his points are valid, where he claims money can be made of these matches. Sources: Sources go to Pro. The sources confirm that death row in mates are expensive to house and feed. The sources always confirms Pro's claim that inmates are always criminals and will re-offend, suggesting their rights should permanently taken. Con didn't provide unreliable sources, but they failed to be sources that disproved Pro's claims. Cons final source showed how expenisve housing death row inmates was, therefore proving Pro's claim of expense. I saw no mistakes with regards to S+G. Conduct was fine.