The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 40298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




This is for the Liberal DDO tournament set up by Bsh1.

Resolved : There Should Be a Death Penalty.

Debate format:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)


Let the games begin.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent, the judges, and Bsh1 for getting this tournament moving. I hope for a joyful experience.


In a society there needs to be justice. Just treatment and punishment. We shouldn’t do harm to people who are innocent. We shouldn’t cut off the hands of a child for stealing a candy bar. We should imprison a grand larcenist. Justice is a basis of a society. Consider, arguably the greatest crime, murder. Murder isn’t a finite injustice to a victim, the victim loses his life infinitely. This is unlike a stolen candy bar or credit card where the victim suffers a momentary finite loss. The victim suffers an infinite loss and the family of the victim suffers a severe finite loss. How would we respond to this maintaining justice? A finite loss in prison wouldn’t be maintaining justice. The only way to equate the infinite loss and finite pain, suffering, heartache the family suffers is by a death sentence.


Everyone has the will to survive. If death can be used as a punishment, this could potentially preemptively stop other murders. The CJIF has listed an exhausting number of studies demonstrating a deterrent effect on crime because of the death penalty [1]. They have studies published in credible peer reviewed journals and working papers. The effect and possible effect of deterrence would clearly prevent murders and thinking for the greater good of society, a death penalty should be in place.

Thanks, now to Con.




I thank my fellow debator for his arguments, I thank those who are reading the debate. As Con, as a Liberal, today I shall be opposing the death penalty. The Tournament's guidelines state that I mayn't rebut the arguments previously made by Pro - so I shall now continue with my main speech.

Firstly, execution is murder. You are killing someone. No matter what they may have done, it is wrong to kill someone, it is not justice, it is cruelty, it is not humane, it is cold-blooded. In 2012, the United States murdered 43 inmates through capital punishment, by the end of the year there were 3,000 inmates on death row. Three thousand is a familiar number. Three thousand is the number of people who died on 11th September 2001. If Al-Qaeda killed that many, and you want to kill that many, what makes you any better than them?

One of the most fundamental human rights is the right to life. All humans have a right to life. Yet you, supporters of execution, wish to take away that right from others. Removal of human rights is WRONG. Capital punishment is WRONG. I understand that in the case of a convicted murderer, they too have ended a life and there's this whole 'eye-for-an-eye' palaver, but one of my favourite quotes is from Gandhi: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. And he was completely right. We as humans should do our best to help one another so we can prosper as the family we are. Killing each other is not going to help this. Two wrongs do not makee a right. This is not justice. The right to life.

Afghanistan, Belarus, Botswana, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Vietnam, and Yemen are truly fine figures of a society aren’t they? They are among the poorest countries, the countries with some of the lowest living standards, health standards, human rights track records, life expectancy, the list goes on, and on, and on. Oh… We forgot one: The United States of America. The so-called ‘land of the free’. Free. Free from what? Death? I think NOT. Having the death penalty simply likens the US to countries such as those above. Countries that USED to have execution but no longer use it include: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and - this is my favourite - BRITAIN! Those are truly fine figures of a country: highest GDPs, highest living standards, highest life expectancies, best human rights records. This list, too, goes on and on, and on, and on.

So often, the argument about money and cost-effectiveness is brought up about capital punishment. But when people use this argument, I feel sickened. This is a person. This is a father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, granny, son, daughter, wife, husband. This is a real, living person with a real life. And you want to take away their life and take away a bit of the lives of those who love them simply because it's 'cost-effective'. This is truly horrific. This makes you the monster, not the perpetrator.
Another great saying: 'justice should punish the perpetrator, not his family'. But if imagine if your mum or dad or brother or sister was to die - killed by your very own government. How would you feel? Distraught? Wrecked? Broken? You'd feel pretty damn awful! The actions of your loved one are almost punishing you as you suffer the pain as a consequence of their actions. This is not justice.

In the case of murder, not only will one family have to grieve but TWICE that number. TWO FAMILIES will have to grieve, and you're okay with that?

The state has an obligation to fulfil its obligations in the least invasive, harmful and restrictive way possible. Execution is pretty invasive and rather harmful. Prison, however, is not so. It is still a punishment and it is not pleasant at all. But it reforms the perpetrator. Because everyone deserves a second chance, everyone has the right to a second chance. Where you committed murder, rape, treason, whatever: you deserve a second chance. So - what? You commit a crime and that's it, c'est tout, you're done, sentenced to death. The end. Nothing more. You have no second chance. You made a mistake, you made a terrible mistake. And so you shall suffer for eternity? How is this fair? How is this working to reform someone, and reforming them to have a positive impact on society?

Almost finished: studies in April 2005 showed that the amount of anaesthetic administered to a victim of the death penalty may not be enough to completely supress the pain felt during a lethal injection and that the punished person is suffering pain whilst undergoing a lethal injection.

And lastly, for the family members of the murdered victim or for the victims of rape. I offer this angle. If you want this person to suffer as you suffered then you will surely oppose the death penalty. Which is worse: being locked up in a horrible cell with people you hate for 30 years, or being slowly lowered into blissful darkness as you prepare to sleep forever..? Hm? Which sounds like more suffering? Which sounds like more of a punishment?

I'd like to second the thanks afforded to Bsh1 by my opponent for organising this whole affair.
I look forward to another round of debate!
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks. I’d like to apologize in advance, my rebuttal may seem rude, but I am not trying to be.

Con’s first argument is simply a fallacious appeal to emotion [1]. He offers no support for his claims other than an emotional appeal. Con asserts that killing is always wrong, however this has not been demonstrated. For example, if a man is trying to kill me, if I kill him in self defense, where is the wrong? He then compares the 9/11 attacks to capital punishment. This is a false analogy, because the 9/11 victims didn’t cause any injustice. Furthermore this commits another fallacy known as the guilt by association [2].

Con’s next argument says life is a right. Since life is a right, we shouldn’t take the life of someone, regardless of action. This reasoning refutes Con’s initial proposition. We all have a right to live freely in society. I shouldn’t be held in a small cell for the rest of my life because that violates my right to life and liberty. This means we can’t punish people at all. Forcing people with the threat of violence to live in a small cell and eat a certain amount of food at certain times also violates the right to life and liberty. It is reasonable to take away said rights if one harms the rights of others. Gandhi’s eye for an eye quote misses the point. It is only reasonable to take an eye if the first eye was taken unjustly. This would not make the whole world blind. Con also states that “Two wrongs do not make a right”. This commits the fallacy of begging the question. He’s assuming the death penalty is a wrong, to prove it’s wrong.

Con’s third argument is another guilt by association fallacy. Just because countries that do not have as good as a living standard as us have a death penalty, doesn’t mean we should remove it. The same goes with countries that have great living standards. It is of no significance.

Con then refutes an argument for the death penalty. However, this again is of no significance to the debate. It’s a red herring, I never made the argument and furthermore the last round is presenting arguments in favor of your position. Not refuting arguments other people have made against it. But I do agree with Con here. The cost effectiveness argument is flawed.

Con brings up that a death penalty would be harming the family of the assailant. However, prison itself causes suffering to the family too. If the murderer truly did murder, the family should be saddened by their actions. If a family member of mine committed murder and I knew it was wrong, I would accept the penalty as a just punishment. We shouldn’t not punish people because relatives won't like it.

I agree the state must do its job in the least invasive, harmful and restrictive way possible. However, sometimes it may be necessary. What is it meant by invasive? An execution doesn’t have to be by something such as an injection. Do murderers deserve a second chance? First, we would have to look at the cause of the murder. The murderer may have something chemically wrong or they did it because of some absurd reason. In the former, the murderer would never have remorse or change. If a murderer fits the case of the latter and admits he was in the wrong, then it shows they are reasonable and analytic enough to realize their wrong doing . However, if a death penalty was in place a reasonable and analytic person would have been deterred from the murder.

Con states that a study in 2005 showed that a substance used to suppress the pain may not be enough. There was no citation, however I don’t doubt the study exists. This isn’t an argument against the death penalty, it’s an argument against the logistics. It can be fixed and if this is true, a compromise can be implemented. We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Next Con argues something surprising. That a life in prison causes more suffering than the death penalty. First, a just punishment isn’t how much we can make a prisoner suffer, that’s the very opposite of a just punishment. Second, this seems contradictory, as Con himself critiqued the death penalty, claiming it was “....not justice, it is cruelty, it is not humane, it is cold-blooded”. Yet now Con is saying a life in prison is more cruel. This means, if Con wishes to be consistent, he is against a life imprisonment and for a death penalty.

Thanks and sorry for being a little late.





Thank you for your very interesting points and your slightly vehement rebuttals to my previous arguments.

Your first point was all about justice. You said that, in a murder case, the victim's loss is infinite and so the perpetrator's loss should be infinite. But the death penalty almost defeats what you're trying to say here. For if you kill the perpetrator, he does not have 'pain, suffering, [and] heartache' for eternity. Why? Well, because he's dead. If you kill him, he does not receive infinite justice. If you look up (especially in US prisons) it'll be much worse a punishment. This is a point I made at the end of my speech and which you picked up on quite severely:

'Next Con argues something surprising. That a life in prison causes more suffering than the death penalty. First, a just punishment isn’t how much we can make a prisoner suffer, that’s the very opposite of a just punishment. Second, this seems contradictory, as Con himself critiqued the death penalty, claiming it was “....not justice, it is cruelty, it is not humane, it is cold-blooded”. Yet now Con is saying a life in prison is more cruel. This means, if Con wishes to be consistent, he is against a life imprisonment and for a death penalty.'

Firstly, I never said that life imprisonment is 'more cruel' I simply said that it was a greater success of justice than the death penalty. Secondly, I didn't say I supported life imprisonment, but - in order to make a more balanced debate - it is necessary to include a wide range of different viewpoints and arguments to reach out to many different people. Your rebuttal just seems to be a desperate gasp for more to say and more to criticise.

Your second point is entitled 'Deterrence' but, really, the death penalty is often an encouragement. You start your point my saying 'Everyone has the will to survive', only this is far from true. Sandy Hook, murder-SUICIDE. Columbine, murder-SUICIDE. No, my friend, not everyone has the will to live and when people do lose that will and in the process lose their minds there can be grave consequences. The death penalty, for these suicidal idiots, is only a chance for them to be GLORIFIED by their horrific actions. The death penalty encourages these idiots to have their face seen all over the news, all over the world, by everybody. To make them famous, to make them heroic, to make them martyrs would be an incredibly foolish thing to do and I have no doubt that you would see the number of mass-shootings and other murders SOAR.

There are obviously times where self-defence is necessary and loss of life is inevitable. But in the case of the death penalty, it isn't necessary to lose that life. It is an unnecessary waste.
In your first counter-argument, you also go on about 'they haven't committed an injustice'. Well, guess what? I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT THEY'VE DONE. This is a human being, this is one of our own. This is a person to be loved, to be disciplined on their journey through the world. To take that journey from them is the worst thing you can do to human.

The right to life and the right to liberty are vital and central human rights. I understand that, by disciplining someone through prison, we are sacrificing their right to liberty. But this sacrifice is for the greater good: to give justice to the family's of the victims of murder, to give justice to the victims of other crimes, to slowly pry out the deathening feeling of guilt in the perpetrator, to reform them, to make them more human. To give them back their liberty so they may treat it as the fragile object it is.

And my invisible hippy in the sky God do you like to go on about fallacies. But you're wrong: 'Con also states that “Two wrongs do not make a right”. This commits the fallacy of begging the question. He’s assuming the death penalty is a wrong, to prove it’s wrong.' I wasn't talking of the death penalty as being wrong. I was talking of killing as being wrong - which it is, if unnecessary. Murder is killing. It is widely accepted that murder is wrong. The two wrongs are the same, identical. The two wrongs are: killing.

'Guilt by association' - sounds cool but, again, I couldn't care less. I debate, I argue. I MAKE MY POINT AND I MAKE IT STRONG. You can bring up your little fallacies, but it makes your argument no better. You succeed only in belittling yourself. And it's a no brainer that the countries I listed are most barbaric countries that you really would be guilty to associate yourself with, and it's best we distance ourselves as far away from them as is possible. The death penalty is mediaeval, it's old-fashioned, it's silly and it's got to go.

Now you're talking about the fact that 'prison causes suffering to the family too'. Yes, that's correct. But which do you think is worse, Magic? Imprisoned loved-one or DEAD loved-one? Hmm????? As an East Londoner would say: use your loaf.

Some discrepency regarding my resources. I have used only to aid me in this debate and all statistics and fact can be found on there.

Thank you for another enjoyable round of debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks. There’s a bit of a problem here. My opponent violated the debate format, he defended his arguments when he wasn’t suppose to. The last round was purely for refuting your opponents arguments in round 2. For violating the debate format, this warrants a conduct point against Con. Since Con has another round and the tournament requires 3 rounds of debating, I will have to respond to Con’s objections.


Con claims the death penalty is not a just treatment because the murderer dies and thus can’t experience suffering, pain, and heartache. However, this isn’t what justice is. Justice is just behavior or treatment [1]. The point of it isn’t to cause pain or suffering. Con has not attacked the idea that the victim suffers an infinite loss, then how is it that we can deliver justice? This is something Con has yet to answer properly, because imprisonment is only finite. Then Con attacks my rebuttal to his argument. First, it does seem I misspoke when I said Con supported a life imprisonment, he only said “30 years”, sorry please disregard that. Anyway it still seems Con still has a contradictory position. He claims he never stated it was more cruel, but this is just a semantical evasion.

The definition of cruel is [2]

1. Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it:

2. Causing pain or suffering

Con then tries to suggest imprisonment causes more suffering

“If you want this person to suffer as you suffered then you will surely oppose the death penalty. Which is worse: being locked up in a horrible cell with people you hate for 30 years, or being slowly lowered into blissful darkness as you prepare to sleep forever..? Hm? Which sounds like more suffering? Which sounds like more of a punishment?”

Yes, he never said the words “It is more cruel”, but he is suggesting it causes more suffering. Previously he argued against the death penalty because it causes suffering. This was my main point, instead of attacking it, Con attacks trivial errors and plays with semantics.

My argument remains standing


Even suicidal people have the instinct to survive. Having the will to survive doesn’t mean you can’t go against it. He brings up that the death penalty would not deter crazy suicidal murders. While this maybe true, it is only true for a certain class of people. It would still help the greater good because not every single murder is suicidal. Furthermore, a murder-suicide would also make imprisonment irrelevant. However, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t imprison murderers just because a small minority of murderers commit suicide after. Murderers committing a murder to become famous would be a problem of the news industry, not the death penalty. A widespread report of execution isn’t necessary for a death penalty to exist. Con says he has no doubt that the death penalty will increase murderers, this has not been proven, it’s an ipse dixit. Something Con completely ignored was my exhausting list of studies proving the opposite. The CJIF list demonstrates the death penalty does deter crime [3]. This was my main point, I explained what deterrence was, then give a list of studies proving it works.

My central point was undisputed and thus my argument remains standing.


Con agrees sometimes killing is necessary. Thus he concedes that killing isn't always wrong. So now the argument would be if justice by death penalty is necessary, not that killing is wrong. This means Con committed the moving goal post fallacy. Con then goes onto say he doesn’t care what someone has done, they are a human being. This is a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out why Con’s 9/11 analogy is a false analogy. Con concedes that it is reasonable to remove some rights for the greater good. However, the same is true for the death penalty. The CJIF has proven that.

Con says I like to go on about fallacies. Yes I do, a fallacy is an error in reasoning [4]. In a debate, you should point out errors in reasoning. Con says he does not commit a question begging fallacy because he’s referring to killing, not the death penalty. This is trivial, since the death penalty involves killing. Anyway the his argument assumes the death penalty is unnecessarily killing, which Con has not shown. He moved the goal post.

Next he claims that he couldn’t care less that he committed a guilt by association fallacy. He should care because a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Essentially Con here is claiming that he doesn’t care that he has an error in his reasoning, then says he makes the argument strong. I’m sorry but it doesn’t matter how strong you present your argument, it won’t make it right. This is a debate, fallacies matter. Saying you don’t care that your reasoning has an error, isn’t an argument, isn’t a rebuttal, it’s unjustified denial. He says pointing out fallacies doesn’t help my argument, but in my last round I wasn’t trying to make an argument for the penalty, I was rebutting your arguments against it. It may not help me because that’s not what it’s meant to do, but it hurts your argument.

He then asks, which is worse a dead loved one or a imprisoned one. I would say what is the worse is knowing a loved one committed a terrible crime. Anyway, my point isn’t to say a loved one being imprisoned is worse, I’m saying arguing that it causes suffering works both ways.

Con has dropped several points like cost effectiveness, the death penalty being too invasive, that murderers should get a second chance, and anaesthetic not being used properly.

I’d like to thank Con, Bsh1, and the Judges. Thanks all.









*The debate format has been broken and there are currently private discussions taking place to determine whether or not a violation of the debate rules has been made. To prevent further disruption to the debate, Con will continue with Round Four as defined in the guidelines.*

I'm not going to hype this up with confusing words, 'fallacies', or any other stupid complications that distract from the debate. I simply wish to remind everyone that this is a human, this is a life; and no matter what they may have done, they should be punished and given a second chance. This cannot happen if we kill them. Yes, some of them have killed themselves but no, we should not follow this 'eye-for-an-eye' stupidity. Everyone deserves to live. Everyone has the right to life. And the US is violating human rights by denying its citizens those rights. Their actions tear families apart; their actions cause severe distress to family members and loved ones of the victims of execution. The United States is one of a group of horrible countries who also give the death penalty. In order to move forward from the mediaeval age, to move forward from dark times: we must, together, move forward, away from the death penalty. It is a wicked and cruel punishment even if it is for a wicked and cruel crime. More justice is served with prison sentences than the death penalty, as the perpetrator is not there to experience his/her punishment. You wish to kill people rather than lock them up simply because it is more cost-effective. The pain one would experience if one's loved one was killed by one's own government. The fact that lethal injections are largely unknown ground - and that the amount of anaesthetic used has caused physical suffering in the past.

If you vote in favour of the death penalty, you vote in favour of murder, killing and abuse of human rights.
If you vote in favour of the death penalty, what makes you any worse than a murderer?
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 2 years ago
Kinda funny that I no longer think the death penalty should exist.
Posted by Beverlee 2 years ago
Personal notes:

"No rebuttals by Con"
I am aware that this rule was agreed to beforehand, but I decided that it was minor enough to be violated 'somewhat.' Rules such as this can be abused, and so I did not want to enforce it too severely. However, in addition, Con used far too many insults to be ignored - this, combined with the rule breach gave me little choice in my scoring.

"Logically Sound and Valid"
A logically sound argument must have 'true' premises, which support an also 'true' conclusion. A Valid Argument does not require 'true' premises, but the premises presented must require a conclusion. I did not see enough effort put into presenting the arguments in this way.

The moral and aphoristic descriptions against the Death Penalty were great, but not harnessed or focused into an argument. On the other hand, Pro never articulated much more than rebuttals for Con's statements. These were easy targets, but did not advance a moral or utilitarian justification for Capital Punishment.
Posted by Beverlee 2 years ago

Who did I agree with Before/After: I am a strong opponent of the death penalty, and remain so. This bias did not affect my judgement or scoring.

Conduct: Pro wins conduct, not for the rule breach (which was committed by both parties and so "offsetting," but for the use of abusive statements by Con that I felt were disrespectful and degrading.

Spelling and Grammar: Pro produced an easier to read and follow argument, with fewer notable errors.

Arguments: Con had a list of great points, but did not chain or harness them into a formal argument. As an opponent of the death penalty, I feel that we need to better articulate our opposition to this barbaric practice. Pros' argument was weak, and unconvincing, but was much closer to a formal argument. I never found it to be sound or valid, however. I could not score for arguments.

Sourcing: Pro was the only side to source properly.
Posted by Beverlee 2 years ago

Pro accuses Con of a Rules Breach, then proceeds to also break the same rule. This makes conduct scoring impossible unless we score on the order in which the rule in question was broken.

Pro sums up his arguments by rebutting much of Con's case, but does not deepen or underscore his own.

Con offers a diatribe, but again, not a formal argument. His statements that Pro's arguments were "stupidity" and "stupid complications" were clearly disrespectful. Cons strongest premises, in my view, were wasted by being connected to fallacies and logical problems. One of the best of these was the argument that CP unfairly punishes the families of the executed. I was looking for this brilliant concept to become the centerpiece of a logically sound and valid argument, but it never was. Instead, it was left as a floating aphorism, true...but unproven.
Posted by Beverlee 2 years ago


Pro -
As noted, Pro spots many of the R1 logical fallacies committed by Con. However, he also commits his own when he argues that Con's statement that "humans have a right to live" is tantamount to saying that this would prevent all societal punishment." I identified this as either "Slippery Slope" or a form of unreasonable consequence fallacy, although I also shared this interpretation of Con's argument that "prison is more painful than Capital Punishment, and CP is too painful to be humane." I felt this line was understandable (I noted the same thing) but unreasonable.

Con begins littering an already emotional argument with statements towards Pro directly rather than Pro's argument. Examples: "Your rebuttal just seems to be a desperate gasp for more to say and more to you like to go on about fallacies....You can bring up your little fallacies" etc. I felt that these were unnecessary, and lowered the intellectualism of the debate. They did not advance the argument that CP should be opposed, only that whatever Pro says should be.

Con does present a compelling premise when he states that " the case of the death penalty, it isn't necessary to lose that life. It is an unnecessary waste." However, this point is made in the context of self defense being a justified cause for killing. Con's earlier premise that "all killing is murder" diluted most of the potential with this line of reasoning.

Con also continues to avoid building a clearly articulated formal argument.
Posted by Beverlee 2 years ago
RFV: (Part One)


Pro -
The OA should represent a comprehensive overview of the argument that will be fine-tuned and tested later in the debate. In my view, Pro's R1 intro was too short and lacked necessary elements that might convince a skeptic to his case.

Pro argues that "infinite punishment is necessary for infinite crime," but he does not present a valid or sound argument to support this assertion. Why is infinite punishment necessary for infinite crime? Pro seems to say that "we should punish criminals with the same crime they commit" which begs the question: Should rapists be raped? Should thieves be fined? Pro states that the act of killing is unique, since it is "infinite," but never explains this premise or fits it into a valid or logically sound argument.

Con's argument was flawed by a chain of fallacies and emotional appeals that could be expected to annoy many of his skeptics. Statements such as "execution is murder" were problematic (it's not; "murder'" is a legal term that describes specifically illegal acts of killing. Capital Punishment, being legal, is not also the illegal act of murder). This sort of reasoning tells CP supporters that they are murderers, and is not a good example of persuasive argument. Other fallacies were picked up by Pro, including the assertion that CP makes the US too similar to underdeveloped or theocratic nations. In addition, the argument was also self-defeating, arguing both that CP is cruel, but not as cruel as prison.
Posted by LtCmdrData 2 years ago
Yo! sorry, got cut off dawgs:

Pro - 3; Con - 3.

You both needed more depth in args, and more args. Brevity killed Pro. Fallacies nearly killed Con. Neat debated.
Posted by LtCmdrData 2 years ago
RFD Continued:

R2 Summary: Tied. Surprisingly good comeback by Con
R3: Pro - I totally buy your semantics arg. Your arg defending deterrence diminished, but didn't totally defeat, Con's args. The way Con set up the burden, you gotta prove cap. pun. is necessary, that is gonna be hard for you to meet. It might be net beneficial, but "necessary" is hard to show. You needed to rebut Con's reasoning for his distinction between self-defense and cap. pun. It wasn't enough to say just that Con admits that killing is sometimes right. Con's reasoning there--probably the only point of non-fallacy riddled argumentation on Con's side--mattered.
R3: Con - Instead of insulting the U.S. and doing some weird summary you shoulda done an organized line-by-line rebuttal, dawg.
R3: Slight edge to Con.
RFD Conclusion: Pro's biggest mistake is accepting that the goal is to show that cap. pun. is necessary for the greater good of society. Good args were made on both side about deterrence, so it's kinda muddled and I'm not gonna award anyone that offense. Pro needed to hammer the sh*t out of the impact turn he made in R2 in his R3. He didn't. Con, meanwhile, has a case riddled with fallacies, but two main args do emerge: a right to life, and self-defense being necessary, whereas cap. pun. is not. So, I gotta ask, is cap. pun. necessary? I think there's some limited right to life, even for offenders, and Pro's points don't convince me we can outweigh that supposed right. Based on this, I can buy that self-defense's OK, but cap. pun. isn't. At this point, I'm going Con; despite the fact that the majority of his case was founded on fallacious reasoning, the burden's favored him. Pro couldn't overcome.


Con gets args. Pro gets sources (you actually had citations) and s/g (better formatting.) Pro - 3;
Posted by LtCmdrData 2 years ago

Yo! I'm not gonna eval the alleged rules breach because I think both of you made some good points in the PM. I will just eval s/g, args, and sources. I've got no special opinion about cap. pun. so I'll look at it with unbiased eyes.


R1: Pro - your case is WAY to short, man. I need you to expand you existing args or to add some more args.
R1: Con - very emotive, ethos style. Neat contrast w/ Pro's logos style. I liked your emphasis on rights, and I liked the idea of the death penalty being primitive. Also, the "gov. needs to act in the least invasive manner" point is a good one, but you NEED sources. Ethos and pathos are there own lack credibility when there are no sources backing 'em up...I'm more predisposed to go for a pure logos approach to a pure ethos one...
R1 Summary: Pro's logos is putting him in the lead.
R2: Pro - Con didn't say all killing was wrong; he said all murder was wrong...I'm willing to buy that life is a right. Pro's attack here was not nearly strong enough to win this point--people who kill deserve punishment, but that doesn't mean we can kill them in return. As Con says, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind..." I think we can take death to be a wrong too, even in this scenario, but we'll see what Con's response is...Man, Pro makes good point about the red herring, the non-uniqueness of harm to the family, and invasiveness. I'm not gonna eval Con's 2005 study--you need to give citations, dawg. Pro, great impact turn on Con's own arg at the end there!
R2: Con - I'm likin' the "finite justice for infinite harm" idea. You mitigate some of the damage of Pro's impact turn of your case. You needed to do that, so that's nice. OMG, you destroyed Pro's deterrence arg. Sweet. Successfully rebuilt case on the self-defense and right to life points of your core advocacy. Your rebuttal about two-wrongs not making right was weak.
R2 Sum
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Dear Liberals' DDO Tournament Approved Voters,

There is currently a dispute going on re: whether or not Henry is in breach of the rules. This conflict is being debate via PM, and I ask that you NOT vote on this debater until AFTER both Henry and Magic have had an adequate chance to air their views.

If you impartially determine that a rules violation did occur, please note that in your RFDs, and explain how that is impacting the way you are assigning points. This is up to your discretion, all I ask is that you keep and open mind as you listen to Henry's and Magic's arguments in the PMs and as you read their arguments in this debate.

Thank you--best of luck to all competitors!

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFV in comments: I could not score Arguments, since neither side presented a logically sound and valid argument.
Vote Placed by LtCmdrData 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Yo, yo, yo! See comments, dawgs! Sorry for tyin' y'all up...