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

Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime(s) should be executed

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 79870
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Pretty simple. I think anyone who commits any kind of violent crime against innocent people, or as part of a gang, should be killed. And to keep it "realistic," let's only talk about Canada and the US of A.

For this debate, we will not use the million-dollar death penalty procedures we have grown to love, we will use... cheaper... methods. However humane. The criminal convicted of the crime will face lethal injection the day of, or after, their hearing. They will not suffer (physically, anyway) and it will cost next to nothing, so price will not matter.

We will define violent crime as any form of physical assault/aggression toward somebody, kidnapping, murder, as well as rape and sexual assault, all except in self defense.

Pro (me) argues that it is a good idea for every criminal convicted of a violent crime to be killed via "humane" ways, such as lethal injection. Con (you) will argue that it is not a good idea to kill criminals convicted of violent crime.

And just a heads up, I won't be back to respond most likely until Monday. I'm making this now so I don't forget what it was that I wanted to debate, lol.


1. No forfeiture. Seriously. If you decide to leave halfway through the debate, you give up a full 7 points. So don't run away.

2. No semantics. I gave the definitions, I'm sure we're clear on what physical assault/aggression is. If you decide to say "well I define assault as a default butt," then get the hell outta here.

3. No trolling. This is a serious debate. We're talking about the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

4. The comments section can not be used for anything other than discussion, and anything added in (extra arguments, sources, etc) will not be counted for anything.

5. No new arguments in the final round. Solidify your points and dispute mine, but don't bring up entirely new arguments.

I think I've covered everything. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the comments or PM me.

I've set the minimum debates to 5, but if you feel that you're ready to debate this, leave a comment. Tootle-loo ;)


I would like to see Pro clearly define what is not violent but is still a crime in Round 2.

I think we agree that murder and rape should be included but is there a degree of assault that is violent and some that is not?

I will concede that Pro has the power to define this but I want to ensure that they make it crystal clear.

I also want to see Pro's reasoning behind death penalty itself; is it to remove them as a threat or simply to symbolically carry out retribution?

As Pro has the initial burden of proof it would be illogical for me to post my case since the best way for the opposing side to open a debate is with a slight rebuttal-twist to what they propose.
Debate Round No. 1


Well thanks for accepting, Tough. I've seen you more and more around this site and I'm glad you accepted. And sorry Lee :( lol

I thought I made it clear, but to make it more clear, violent crime will be defined as any unwanted physical harm inflicted on someone. This also includes stalking or threatening with serious intent to do harm to someone. Child abuse, elder abuse, sexual assault, rape, murder, theft using a weapon, domestic violence, terrorism, stalking/threatening with intent to harm, etc. [1] Anything that causes unwanted physical harm to someone, and anyone that can be proved to have malicious intent to do unwanted physical harm to someone. I believe I've covered everything, but for the sake of this debate, if you have a question like "what about euthanasia," just use your common sense. UNWANTED physical harm against someone. And no, abortion doesn't count. Completely mutual fights (including any sports fights etc.) don't count either.

Also, for the sake of this debate, we will assume that it's possible to execute anyone convicted of a violent crime the day of or after their hearing. None of this "well that would be improbable to kill everyone that quickly." This is a scenario that most likely will never happen, so the terms are what we've agreed on so far.

Okay I hope I cleared that up. Let's get on to some junk. I'll make this short and sweet as I just want to get my main points out there so I can hear what you have to say about this.

First of all, the execution of anyone convicted would save around $30,000 a year per inmate [2] [3]. There's approximately 1.325 million prisoners in America, and if you take a look at Table 11 of the source I'm about to provide, 53% of them are in prison for violent crimes [4]. So that means approximately 715,500 prisoners are currently in prison for violent crimes, and on top of that, those are all numbers taken from prisoners spending over a year in prison. So doing some simple math, that's about $30,000 a year per inmate, and about 715,500 inmates. So 30,000 multiplied by 715,000, which leaves us with about 21.5 billion. And as ridiculously crazy as that number sounds, America spends on average $40billion a year [5] on prisoners. So to cut that number in half, by $21.5billion, would save... well, a hell of a lot of money every year. Taxpayers' money would go to more important things, possibly education, healthcare, overseas aid, etc. $21.5billion is a lot of money, and a lot of good can come from saving such a large amount.

Secondly, killing people who are detrimental to society will increase the livability of that area. The chance of a criminal re-offending after being let out of prison within a mere 5 years is about 75% [6]. Keep in mind this is simply a return to prison, it doesn't account for criminals not caught by authorities or criminals who commit a crime but do not return to prison. The rate that criminals would re-offend after being executed would be... well, take a guess. Zero. That also means zero victims related to re-offenders. The rate of violent crime would go down drastically over the years, and considering the punishment would be death, the chance of anyone thinking of committing a violent crime would also decrease. The main point here is that anyone (victims) affected by violent crimes would drastically drop. For every one person in prison for violent crime, that's at least one victim either physically hurt or dead. So millions upon millions of people would no longer be physically hurt or killed in the future.

And finally, the future would look amazing. Judging by the stats we've already went over, violent crime would be at an all-time low within one year. If re-offenders make up 3/4 of the prison population in about five years, that means about one million less violent crimes would be committed by 2020. It also means more and more parents would raise their children to live by the law, so they don't end up dead. Sure, it won't work for everybody, but if the chance of their child being killed if caught is raised to 100%, the chance the parent will raise their kid poorly decreases significantly. This would lead us to a society that doesn't revolve around violence; a society that is more peaceful. Less people would be worried about walking home late at night, and less people would be worried about being robbed and having to take preventative measures to ensure their own safety, so also saving money in the long run. Society as a whole would be happier and more peaceful.

So to summarize what I've got so far: America would save over $20billion a year, cutting the money spent on prisons in half, and being able to spend that saved money on things that would significantly benefit the country, economy, well-being of citizens, etc. Recidivism rates (rate at which a criminal returns to prison) would decrease by more than three quarters, leading to a much more peaceful, less violent country in a matter of a few years. And finally, in the long run, the country would not have to worry about violent crime very much, if at all, and there would be significantly less people affected in negative ways nationwide.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume your arguments will be based on the morality of killing anyone who hurts another person, but I won't jump in to that now, as we do have five rounds to use up, so I'm looking forward to hearing your side of this.


[2] (PDF)
[4] (PDF)
[5] (PDF)
[6] (PDF)


Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend, I suppose.


Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for a non-existant thrilling debate >:0


Tough forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Thanks for the vote, lannan.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Of f*cking course, he closes his account.
Posted by Tough 1 year ago
you are pro death penalty.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Ugh...damnit, I was going to take this...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture