The Instigator
Kingjames
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,971 times Debate No: 13800
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Kingjames

Pro

I let my opponent start this debate
dinokiller

Con

I wish us both good luck xD

Sadly, you cant get away this time by not providing the first argument.
You are the PRO, so you should start the starting arguments as this represents how this debate will end.
For example now, the subject is "Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane".
You have to chose which side you're on as you are the creator of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Kingjames

Pro

I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends which is not fair and smart
dinokiller

Con

Uhh pampering prisoners means you give alot of freedom toward prisoners and your argument seems to be against it.
Give me a proper argument this time.
Debate Round No. 2
Kingjames

Pro

My opponent therefore has no clue what he is talking about because in my previous statement I stated that prisoners are given alot of freedom and are allowed to smoke and play cards, make friends and participate in events in the cell. THIS MEANS THEY ARE BEING ALLOWED ALOT OF FREEDOM. If I were talking as if I was against it, I wouldve said that no the prisoners are not allowed to do anything or participate in anything. The only thing they could do is stay in their cell the whole day without doing a single thing. My opponent has not responded to my claim, therefore I should be declared the winner
dinokiller

Con

No, you are wrong and you seem to overlook your own argument. Im gonna point it out for you now just to be nice.

I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends "which is not fair and smart"

Note the cited section above this sentence. You clearly say here that its not smart to allow them to have fun, smoke, play cards and make friends. How is it then that you are siding for the pamping?
Clear all those doubt up and i make sure i refute every last of your argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Kingjames

Pro

My opponent obviously doesnt understand his own topic. The topic is "Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat the inhumane. Then my opponent says that how do I then side with pampering. The question is not "Do u think we should pamper prisoners or treat them badly" its do u think we do that or not. I defended my case by saying that we do pamper tham and how we do it, my opponent needs to read his statement more clearly and his topic because otherwise this is a landslide win for me
dinokiller

Con

I already pointed your flaw but it seems your hard headed head is too ignorant to listen to my conclusions, very well if this is the only way to get your attention, i just bash your arguments.

"I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends which is not fair and smart"

I say we should not pamper them at all. We should make them work for their crime. If we make the prison look like a paradise, it would raise the amount of crimes as everyone would want to get in this "paradise". We shouldn't pamper the prison as most criminals in the prison will then finally feel guilty about his crimes and will think twice before committing another crime. Also, allowing them to play cards and all that things should be reduced to only sport at breaks as allowing card games would make the prisoners feel home.

Mind i remind you, prison is a building where all criminals are stored. Criminals should be punished because of their crimes, not to enjoy their prison sentence.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Con still has no idea what the debate was about. As for Korashk, I am relatively new here, and was being slightly sarcastic.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
/// Worst debate ever. ///

You must be relatively new here.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
How is it now my fault? If he is chosing one side and arguing about the other side while at the same time attacking his own side, i should be pointed his flaw, how is it wrong then?
Posted by UrbanEagle 6 years ago
UrbanEagle
to bad a good topic put to waste. Con really made this debate impossible....
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Worst debate ever. Con never even understood what he was arguing for, and both had poor conduct.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
I think you guys misunderstood.

Pro was supposed to say we pamper prisoners too much.

Con was suppose to argue that we treat them inhumanely.

You guys formed a misconception which lasted the whole debate; I'd just start a new one tbh imo tbh.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
By the way, i dont like being insulted you know?
Posted by Kingjames 6 years ago
Kingjames
i would chang the time if i knew how
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
This is gonna end bad, the time given is only 3 hours.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by UrbanEagle 6 years ago
UrbanEagle
KingjamesdinokillerTied
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 gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
KingjamesdinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40