The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
Kingjames
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 13801
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

Koopin

Pro

Resolved: Proved American murderers should be sent to villages in poor countries to be eaten by the citizens living there.

I hope my opponent will accept.

Thank you.
Kingjames

Con

No that is not right. Yes they are murderers but eaten by cannibals will not do the pain and justice. Death penalty is enugh to secure the deal. They will be electricuted and will feel the pain through every electricution, this will make the person feel the pain in which he or she has put on someones life. Cannibals will probably destroy the person, but the destroying will be quick so therefore the person might not feel the pain enough, you want the person to feel every bit of pain, so cannibals would not be the answer
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response. My opponent claims that the prisoner would not feel as much pain as they would in the electric chair. This is in fact, false. The electric chair happens very quick, and very fast. It is said by some that the person is dead before they can even feel anything. Also, the electric chair is not always what murderers get. Usually they get the lethal injection, or simply life in prison.

On the other hand, you have no proof that the cannibals would not bring them any pain. But even if they did not, it would be a very good mental punishment. How would you feel if you knew you were going to be eaten in a few days. There would probably be less murders.

Lastly, it is not only about revenge for the victims family. It would help the hungry people who cannot afford food. Millions of people die each year from starvation. It would be a charity to give them free meat.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources:
(1). http://www.helium.com...
(2). http://library.thinkquest.org...
Kingjames

Con

I never said that the death penalty is what all murderers get, I said that it would be the best way to show the murderer the pain he has put on someone else. My opponent thus said that "how would you feel if you heard you are going to be eaten", good point, I would feel horrible and scared. However how would you feel if you heard you are going to be sentenced to electricution or be hung. I would feel even more scared because just hearing the word hung or electric frightens a person. Plus the poor people who have not eaten, just because they eat a human being, that can cause them to get even sicker, the only time that would help them is if they know they are going to die in the next couple of seconds and they need something to keep them alive.

http://www.newscientist.com...

Lastly, cannabalism is just putting the poor person in a higher percent of dying. How many people do you know that has eaten a human being and survived a long time.
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for responding.

My opponent has failed to refute my points about pain. He then uses my argument in saying "...how would you feel if you heard you are going to be sentenced to electricution or be hung." There are a few problems with this. First of all, like I stated above not all murderers get the death penalty. Secondly, most murderers do not get the electric chair, I am pretty sure no one gets hung anymore. In most cases today the judges simply give the murderer life in prison. Although the electric chair and life in prison are frightening, it is nowhere near as frightening as being shipped to another country to be eaten. My opponent says that the word 'electric' scares people more than the word 'eaten'. I really doubt that statement, especially since most people know the electric chair does not really hurt.

As I briefly stated above, many people do not get the death penalty these days. Instead, they are put in clean prisons, fed well, participate in sports, watch television, write letters, ect... All these things are being paid for by working Americans via taxes. This system is extremely flawed, seeing as they murdered an innocent person. If they were instead shipped to the poor to be eaten, the amount it cost to deal with the murderers would go down. The extra money could be used to build park, schools, or even feed our people.

My opponent says that people shouldn't eat other people unless they have to. If my opponent looks at my source, he will see that it states how many people die from hunger. Sending these murderers to poor villages would in the end save peoples lives. Even though there may be side effects, it is better then letting them simply die. My opponent's source proves nothing to the public. There is a fee (which I am not willing to pay) to read the article he provides. The little preview is not enough proof needed for his argument. I will say however that most meats have things in them that are not healthy. Men who eat red meat as a main dish five or more times a week have four times the risk of colon cancer of men who eat red meats less than once a month. (1).

My opponent asks me how many people I know that have lived a long time after eating human meat. Well, I have never met a cannibal, seeing as to they are rare in the USA. But this does not prove anything. I could say "How many people do you know who have climbed Mount Everest and lived?" Just because one does not know any does not mean that they don't exist.

My points remain un-refuted.

This is my last argument, so lets recap.

Sending proved American murderers to villages in poor countries to be eaten by the citizens living there would:

1. Punish the criminals properly.
2. Satisfy the family and friends of the victims in knowing that the offender came to justice.
3. Feed hungry people/lower the death rate.
4. Save money on taxes.
5. Give the USA more money to build park, schools, roads, ect...

I would like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. I urge the audience not to vote bomb.

Sources:
(1). http://www.detox.net.au...
Kingjames

Con

I would like to greatfully thank my opponent for this great debate, I have really enjoyed it. Nevertheless:
My opponent has done nothing but constantly contradict himself. He says one, that sending them to cannibals will save money. This is off topic which points should be taken off for becuase money is not a point in this debate. Secondly my opponent states that electricuting people do not hurt. He never stated that he has been electricuted before so therefore again he cant make that statement based on other people. Everyone has a different feel for things. Thirdly my opponenet states that sending the criminals to cannibals will serve them the right punishment. Being eaten is not a punishment, on paper it seems like a punishment but if you think about it, its just you being eaten by another person. One of my classmates bit me badly on my neck and it did not hurt at all, so this shows being eaten doesnt really affect you alot. Fourthly, my opponent states that this can lower the hungry peoples death rate. ABSOLUTELY NOT, all this is doing is increasing it, my opponent even stated that he has never met a cannibal and most of them usually gets colon disease so he just proved me right there. Then lastly my opponent talks about when I said has he ever seen anyone who has eaten another human being and lived and then he says "How many people do you know who have climbed Mount Everest and lived", this makes no sense because him and I are talking about two things, eaten people and electricution not ways in which you can die so my opponent does not have a legitimate response to this debate. I believe I should be the winner because of false details and being unable to answer my responses and defend his own. Thanks for this great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SoSilly 6 years ago
SoSilly
Shows how barbaric Americans are.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Sounds like a pretty good idea. I mean we might as well use their bodies for something!
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I say we should just shoot them besides I don't think that torture should be approved unless necessary.
Posted by vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
I respect cannibalism but... sending someone to be eaten is the cruelest way to execute someone!
HOW HORRIBLE!! Kingjames I highly doubt that you REALLY think that being eaten is not painful and that you were bitten by your friend and it did not hurt. Even Charlie knows that's not true.

Oh and it's "being hanged", not "hung". :)
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@kingjames:
please dont make your sources ones we have to pay money to read. thats worse than sourcing wikipedia as proof of something.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
In one debate, it is "proper procedure" to send humans to cannibals. In another, it is amoral for humans to to consume swine or cattle... Interesting.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Kingjames actually failed in giving a proper rebuttal...
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"One of my classmates bit me badly on my neck and it did not hurt at all, so this shows being eaten doesnt really affect you alot."

*Sigh* See kids? This is what reading "Twilight" does to you.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
lawl
Posted by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
I agree with annhasle, definately quote of the decade; I spilled my drink when I read that. Lmfao.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
KoopinKingjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
KoopinKingjamesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
KoopinKingjamesTied
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 Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
KoopinKingjamesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
KoopinKingjamesTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Deku 6 years ago
Deku
KoopinKingjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:60 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
KoopinKingjamesTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
KoopinKingjamesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
KoopinKingjamesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60