The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

Kidnappers should be made to face capital punishment

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,412 times Debate No: 49752
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




Don't use religion or bicble


I accept.

Let's note that my opponent has the burden of proof to defend the absolutist statement that kidnappers should be made to face the death penalty. He does not say that it should be an option or a consideration, but that it should happen. By virtue of kidnapping, you deserve to be executed, says Pro.

I await his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


I will start by definition of terms which will aid me into my argument. kid""nap- /"0"4kid"0"5nap/
1. take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.
1. the action of kidnapping someone.
Kidnapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law,kidnappingis the taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will.. The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and /Kidnapping. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS TO EXECUTE ONE TO COMMITTED CRIME THAT IS LEGALLY WRONG AND FOUND WANTING IN THE SOCIETY. REASONS WHY KIDNAPPERS SHOULD FACE DEATH PENALTY 1.KIDNAPPERS TORTURE THEIR VICTIMS. Kidnappers should face death penalty because of some inhumane treatment which they impose on their victims. Many of this victims will even be starved without eating and yet they demand for money or ransom sometimes, they kidnap for killing purpose. Now tell me, will you allow someone who killed your brother to be alive and enjoying his daily meal?
2.SELFISHNESS. Kidnappers are selfish thats why they actually kidnapp people either to pay them ransom or they do it for someone who want's to kill the deceased or their victim. So since kidnappers sometimes kill their victims, why won't they be killed if caught?
My argument is based on this platform, a tooth should go for a tooth. This kidnappers can engage in other things that will even help the country's g.d.p gross domestic product instead of been security challenge. Now I read article of kidnapping in a state called Nigeria, it went thus: AS cases of kidnapping for ransom continue to spread across the country, the governors of the 36 states of the federation, on Monday, called on the Federal Government to bring the full weight of the law on culprits.
The governors, who met at the Kwara State Liaisons office in Abuja, said the time had come for the federal authorities to act decisively on the criminality in order to restore sanity and general security.
In a communiqu"" issued at the end of the meeting held under the auspices of Nigerian Governors"" Forum, a copy of which was sent by email to the Nigerian Tribune in Lagos, the leaders commended the government on the successful conclusion of the amnesty to militants in the Niger Delta.
Accordingly, they promised their support for all necessary measures aimed at consolidating the gains of the exercise, but urged the Federal Government to mete out appropriate punishments to kidnappers henceforth.
The governors noted that they decided to take a firm stand on the trend (kidnapping) after listening to the submissions of governors from the South-South zone on the amnesty deal between the Federal Government and the militants.
Some Houses of Assembly in states in the zone had passed laws, spelling out tough punitive measures, including treating kidnappers as hardened criminals deserving death sentence. Now the most annoying part is this, the government has provided amnesty and yet due to their selfish interest, they decided to be against the law and be treat to national security so why not face capital punishment? Don't you know that if atleast 5kidnappers are to be killed publicly, that others might learn a lesson? Ladies and gentlemen, kidnappers should face capital punishment. I Will due my rebuttals and more reasons in my next outing. Note: ignore my grammer, am using phone.


First, I'd like to point out my opponent's plagiarism. As you can tell by visiting this link, everything from "as cases for kidnapping" -- even including the capitalized "AS" -- has been copy and pasted: and yet he has not provided a citation.

Next, he tells us to ignore his grammar. But how can we do that? That is one of the criterions for this debate, after all. One simply cannot say, "I am on my phone, so don't vote on grammar." My opponent is attempting to move the goal post here. I strongly advise voters to take into account both his deliberate plagiarism, and his attempt to remove from the voter's discretion a key criterion of voting.

I will now issue my rebuttals since my opponent has the burden of proof. However, I will not address the plagiarized piece for obvious reasons. That argument is not unique, nor it is his, and it will not count toward his arguments.

First, my opponent argues that kidnappers torture their victims. First of all, where is his evidence that all kidnappers torture? There is no objective evidence that all kidnappers torture their victims, so this is merely an unfounded assertion his part. Not only that, but has not established why torture is a death-penalty worth offense -- why we should even be willing to take "an eye for an eye" one step further, and deal two eyes for one eye (a harsher penalty, arguably, than the crime itself). I am not defending kidnappers, as my opponent may try to rebut, and I want to punish them within the fullness of the law. But my point is, there is no reason whatsoever why act of robbery should result in execution.

Next, my opponent again tries to change the goal post. He argues that kidnapping is done for the purpose of killing -- again, without evidence -- and attempts to appeal to the sensibilities of the voters by arguing for the death penalty not for kidnapping, but for murder. The resolution does not deal with the death penalty for murder, but for kidnapping, so Pro is unlawfully changing the goal post, once again. Therefore this argument falls.

On his point about selfishness, he commits the same fallacy by invoking killing. The resolution is not on killing, nor can he prove that every single kidnapper kills his victims -- which is the only way to argue that killing and kidnapping are inseparable. Again, I'm not defending kidnapping, and in this case, I'm not even going to present a case against the death penalty in the case of murder. Simply put, my opponent is committing fallacy after fallacy and is not substantiating his arguments.

Onto selfishness itself, his point is laughable. Selfishness is a death penalty worth offense, he contends. Does anyone actually accept that? So, I took the last cookie out of the cookie jar without caring that maybe my baby brother who didn't get a cookie but loves chocolate chip really wanted one (not a true story, but bear with me). Was I selfish? Of course! But my opponent does not tell us where he draws the line. If selfishness, ipso facto, is a crime, I should be executed, says Pro. Hopefully we can all realize how utterly absurd his arguments are.

He then claims that his argument is a "tooth for a tooth." No, it's not. It's three teeth for one tooth. He tries to connect several other crimes to kidnapping and argue that execution is therefore on an equal footing, but does not tell you that the simple act of kidnapping -- which is NOT torture, NOT murder, etc. -- while a horrible crime that should be dealt with, is not on par with execution.

He then makes an even more laughable point and essentially says that kidnappers can engage in productive activities that improve society. Ok? Of course they should. Some can, while others -- perhaps those who are mentally ill -- cannot. This, however, is not an argument in favor of execution.


My opponent has plagiarized, attempted several times to move the goal post, and has made several utterly asinine arguments, all of which I have thoroughly disproven. At this point, he has no more arguments remaining on the table. On top of all this, the presentation of his argument as well as his grammar were quite poor and nearly illegible.
Debate Round No. 2


Let me start by exposing the weaknesses of my opponent. My opponent did not present any argument. So I won't be rebutting anything. My opponent did not challenge my definition which means he accepted it and like wise my argument and my opponent will not present any further argument because this is the last round. Since my opponent. I still maintain that kidnappers should face death penalty with clarification. Since my opponent did not challenge my definition, do I still need to give evidence? Certainly no and with this, I think am ahead of today's argument. Let me give instances of victims who were tortured. >Home>US. / /national/u... What other evidence do we need to prove they should face capital punishment? Some of the questions which I asked in my round two was not answered by my opponent. He just ignored them. I won't rebut anything because my opponent did not tell us reasons why they should not face death penalty.


I'd like to remind voters that my opponent seems unphased about the plagiarism charge. I would remind you that this debate is already over for that very reason, and you should award the points to me for his unoriginal argument.

As I stated in Round 1 and clarified in Round 2, my opponent has the burden of proof, so he must prove his case. All I must do is neutralize his case, which I have thoroughly done. My opponent has dropped my arguments entirely. Even though he can find instances of victims being tortured -- and simply linking me tells me nothing; voters should not be expected to follow the links for his arguments, so because he has not articulated them and drawn on those soures, they will not count toward his argument -- does not refute my argument. My argument is that kidnapping and torture or murder are separable, and he has not proven otherwise, and thus his argument falls.

Then he says that failure to refute his copy/pasted definitions means that I accept his arguments. Wrong. Those are objective definitions of "kidnapping." Notice that it nothing he has cited involves murder or torture. He is simply making things up and citing nothing to back his arguments up.

As for your round 2 questions: your post was an incomprehensible copy/pasted mess, so I didn't even see them beneath the plagiarism. You never specified anywhere in your round 1 post that I couldn't post any new arguments. I won't, because this debate is already over, but I willl address them now.

He claims the government has granted amnesty, for which he provides no evidence. Amnesty is a completely different argument than capital punishment, so he is mincing his terms.

He claims that if 5 kidnappers are killed others will learn a lesson. He cites nothing to back this argument and thus, because he has the burden of proof, his argument falls. There is plenty of evidence telling us that the death penalty is not an effective deterrant. But his logic is incomprehensible. Even if the death penalty were a deterrant, executing people for a non-comparable crime is still inherently wrong -- this is an argument I made in my last round that my opponent dropped.


My opponent has dropped all of my arguments, plagiarized, displayed horrible conduct, and failed to fulfill his burden of proof. The only option is to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Excuse me judeifanyi you have recently voted on one of my debates. You were meaning to give me the points, however you accidentaly gave them to my opponent. Please change it, I would very much appreciate such.
Posted by tyler3923 2 years ago
This debate needs more information. For instance, as most kidnappers are a relative of the victim, would you find it reasonable to execute a mother who took her kids away from an abusive father just because he filed a criminal complaint? Ignoring that point, the punishment is in no way proportionate to the crime.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Shocking conduct by Pro for plagiarism and shocking grammar, which makes sense when you read the plagiarized forum. As such points to Con for S&G as well as conduct. Regarding arguments, Pro was trying to use the argument of eye for an eye, but this was then turning into death penalty for stealing essentially. This is not eye for an eye as Con pointed out. Pro do not fulfill the BOP at all in this debate. Clear winner here.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and dropped many arguments and had atrocious spelling and grammar, misspelling such simple words as "Bible."
Vote Placed by tyler3923 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I knew from the word "bicble" who was likely to win this debate. Was not surprised pro was thoroughly defeated.