The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 7 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,078 times Debate No: 24902
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (71)
Votes (7)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

Justification through economical, moral, political and/or legal are all legitimate, regardless of if both opponents argue differently (I may argue through legal and moral while my opponent justifies through economical and political for example). Thus both parties involved may choose what they will justify through what means.

Death penalty: "Capital punishment, the death penalty, death sentence, or execution is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." [1]

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Round 1 my opponent states her case, she has BOP. Due to me not being able to post in round one (due to laying out conditions within debate) she may only post a 1-3 line rhetorical statement within round 4 with a goodbye of her choosing (will not count as a line against her)
No semantics, or ad hominem.

Goodluck!
thett3

Con

Thanks, Hitch.


Framework


Observation 1: The primary purpose of punishment prima facieis retribution; rehabilitation is a secondary concern. Crimes are, after all, acts of aggression against victims where as rehabilitation is an act of restoration towards the criminal; it must thus be regarded as fundamentally unjust to put the benefits of the criminal (IE rehabilitation) above the benefits to the victim (IE compensation and retribution). As Michael Moore put it: “We are justified in punishing because and only because offenders deserve it.” Retribution needs to be valued above restoration.

Observation 2: Consider only the effects that the implementation of Capital punishment has on the deserving--victims and law abiding citizens (civil socety).

Observation 3: Abolish means to do away with entirely. If there's one forseeable case in which Capital Punishment in needed, you negate.

Observation 4: Ignore all objections the CP that address issues with the current system (can be reformed).

C1: Capital Punishment deters crime

Methodology: We need to apply ceteris paribus when looking at the Death Penalty. We can't compare Texas to New York, or New Jersey to Louisiana for obvious reasons; consider only the relationships between crime and capital punishment in specific places.

Empirics: Westley Lowe observed that between 1991 and 1999 there was a 700% increase in the number of executions, along with a drop of 33% in the murder rate. More specifically, in Texas the resumption of executions in 1982 resulted in a 60% drop in the murder rate; within Texas, the Houston area (Harris county, where the polunsky execution unit is housed) the area with the most aggressive death penalty prosecuters reside, experienced a 72% decrease in the murder rate between '91-99[1]. This is significant, because it shows not only that nationwide murder decreased but as we get into areas that aggressively impost capital punishment (Texas executes more people than any other state, and Harris county more than any other county) the results are even more substantial! I could bring in more empirical evidence for this, but I don't think it's needed.

Academics: Lowes findings on deterrence have been supported in at least three major academic studies, namely:



Studies from Emory University stating that each execution prevents between three and eighteen murders. [2]

A 2006 study from the University of Houston, stating that the Illinois moratorium on the Death Penalty led to 150 additional homicides [3]

A University of Colorado at Denver study showing that for each execution five muders were prevented.[4].


Logic: Of course, not all of the observed decrease in the murder rate is the result of Capital punishment, but there can be little doubt that a just society and "tough on crime" laws discourage criminal behavior. A study from the Criminal Justice Statistics Center found that a decrease in violent crime resulted from harsher penalties[5] (specifically defined as "Increase in, higher probability of, and longer duration of incarceration.").

The result is you negate since the lives of vicious murderers can't outweigh the lives of innocent civilians.

C2: Recidivism

Capital Punishment carries with it one incredible advantage, and that is that no executed murderer has ever harmed another individual again. As a matter of fact, of Death Row inmates held in 2009 over 5% committed their capital crime while in prison or on escape, and an amazing 2/3rds were previously convicted of a felony[6]. The last time Capital Punishment was abolished in the United States (1972), dozens of inmates were given sentences of life imprisonment and were later paroled, many of whom killed again, over 25 known victims are the result of these post-furman cases, along with dozens more from escaped or paroled murderers[7]. Two things must be drawn from this: 1. Laws change, parole boards change, rulings change, and people forget the past. The only way to forever ensure that a a murderer doesn't strike again is to kill him. 2. An immediate abolition (as the resolution calls for) would lead to more disasters. To use Texas as an example, life without parole was not implement until late 2005, so all inmates who committed their crimes before then (the vast majority) would be eligible for Parole and one day released[8]. Affirmation leads to deaths by historical precedents.

Even behind bars criminals manage to strike again. For example, Clarence Ray Allen, serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (the likely alternative) still managed to cause the deaths of still more people: he got a paroled inmate he knew to kill one who testified against him, along with 2 completely innocent bystanders[9]. In an uncharacteristic act of justice and logic, the state of California executed this filth in 2006. He will never harm anyone again.

C3: Justice.

Refer back to my framework, we can only justifiably punish people because they deserve it, to deny this is absolute insanity! I will lay out two hypothetical (although not unrealistic) scenarios where the Death Penalty should surely be implemented. I have little doubt that my opponent will accuse me of making an "appeal to emotion" but since Justice is an emotional construct, theres little use in such an objection.

One:

How should our society respond to evil?

Imagine a pedophile. He has fantasies about little girls, and constantly stalks them on the internet and in person. Constantly. Finally one day he snaps, and kidnaps an innocent little child, around age 6 or 7, takes her into a secluded area, pulls off her clothes, and brutally rapes her as she screams in vain for mercy and help. Finally, because he's a sick and twisted animal, he smashes her head with a rock and runs away.

Now, we have two options. We can send him to prison for the rest of his life. We can pay to feed, clothe, protect, entertain, and "rehabilitate" him for the rest of his life. We can look the little girls parents in the eye and say, yeah your innocent child had to die, but her killer gets to live off of your dime because we dont want to "sink to his level". Sorry. What justice is that? The parents will have to deal with the constant nightmare of knowing that somewhere that predator still lives, and can still harm others; he can potentially escape, or they could (God forbid) have to go through to biannual nightmares of his parole hearings because of a change in sentencing laws (as happened in the sickening James Moore rape/murder case[10].). At the very least they know that he will be sitting in his cell watching television and pleasuring himself on the memories of what he did to their beautiful daughter for the rest of his days, all payed for by them and their fellow law abiding tax payers. Wonderful.

Or, we could hang/electrocute/shoot/euthanize/gas him and end it once and for all. It seems that anyone with any moral sense what so ever knows which option is preferable.

Two:

Imagine for this scenario we have a leader of a militant personality cult, convicted of rape and murder. His followers are fanatic and will fight to the death to protect him, and commit suicide on his command. In the Aff world, he's imprisoned and his followers fight to get him out--they kill dozens of gaurds and lesser inmates in the process before they are all shot. In the Neg world, the man is rightfully executed and his followers commit suicide with him This might be a strange scenario, but recall that even one example where CP is needed is enough to negate. Also imagine a war criminal such as Adolf Hitler.

My opponent must prove his system outweighs mine in:

1. Deterrence
2. Justice
3. Recidivism prevention

Along with showing compelling reasons to change the status quo. Before then, the resolution is completely negated. The Death Penalty is a just consequence for those who choose a path of evil.

Sources:

1. http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thanks, Thett.
Opponents Errors:
Observation 1: She engages in the classical lex talionis argument in supporting capital punishment. There are several flaws with this: 1) it implies it is a morally just act without any objective moral measuring stick. Through observation alone this type of thinking actually escalates violence instead of quelling it. As Gandhi once said 'an eye for an eye and the world goes blind'. 2) My opponent claims that it is unjust to put the so-called 'benefits' of the accused above that of the victim. What benefits does the accused possibly have sitting in a 6x8 cell for over 20 years? What benefits does the accused have when after trial is over and he is sentenced to death he may also be taken to litigation where the onus of proof is far different? The law provides plenty of benefits to that of the victim and nothing to that of the accused, especially if his life is on the line thus my opponent contradicts herself.
Observation 2: Consider the effects this could have upon those individuals who were falsely accused and ordered to death. Also consider the number of appeals that appear within courts to reverse a death sentence and that economical impact upon society; Mr and Mrs John Due Taxpayer pays far more for judges, jury, more expert witnesses, et cetera just to 'be sure' yet slip ups still happen.
Observation 3: The state is NOT responsible for the procreation of the individual, so why then shall it have the right in determination the death of the same individual? Indeed, death is never needed. Remember when you were a child? What did you fear most? Your mother yelling and screaming at you? Or your mother giving you the 'I'm disappointed in you' speech? The former causes a fighting response while the latter makes you regret the decision very quickly. Shame is -statistically speaking- far more effective.
Observation 4: It would be quite arrogant of anyone to claim that the legal system does not need reforming as I shall show later.

Rebuttal:
Capital Punishment Deters Crime
It does not, I shall show this by objective facts. First, "The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976." [1] "A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty." [2] And finally "84% of current and former presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies reject the notion that research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty."[3] Logically as well I would like to point out that most of these people possibly suffer from a psychological illness, and thus disregard thinking about the death penalty while committing such nasty acts. Furthermore, if nothing more is death, then as a criminal why wouldn't I just make it worth it and go on a killing spree?

In regards to Westley Lowe, that's a subjective opinion and that's it. It should be disregarded as a source, here are his credentials: http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
He is nothing more than an author, and because he has no background in law, his opinions are irrelevant to the debate at hand. Her second source she projects as unequivocal objective facts. Yet in her source it's self it clearly shows ambiguity, they do not know the EXACT numbers. Also the article also refereed to other studies showing "in 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions."[4] Thus, in the formulation of a crime you need the guilty mind and guilty action (actus reus and mens rea) so a little thought experiment here: if non-negligent homicide does not require guilty mind then should that individual be liable and put to death for committing a death without intent? If we're drunk and I playfully wrestle with you, only to have you fall down a set of stairs and break your neck should I be put to death? NO.
Her sources (5,6,7) can be disregarded outright, as they are nothing more than broken links and thus cannot be used. I shall show ONE superior source, in which keeps inline with ceteris paribus´┐Ż as my opponent has asked, here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The source shows neighbouring accounts of murder-rates to those of the closest non-CP state. Non-CP states have held consistently lower crime rates than those that do have it. While it is true my opponent has a valid claim that the death penalty MIGHT serve as a deterrent, my source also accounts for this that they do NOT take into consideration those of non-death penalty states. Thus her argument is negated with OBJECTIVE FACTS. Other factors may have contributed to decreased crime (I.E Abortion, rehabilitation, social programs).

Rebuttal 2:
Recidivism
While she may claim they were convicted of a felony, she does not take into account those who were falsely accused and killed as a result. My opponent must apologize to the following people she has caused harm too:
Steven Truscott – Convicted of rape and murder at age 14, sentenced to death, spent 20 years in prison only to be found innocent.
Carlos De Luna – Convicted of stabbing a woman at a gas station, innocent
Jesse Tafero – Convicted of murdering an officer, no gun powder on her thus innocent, death by electric chair taking over 13 minutes
Salem Witch Hunt trial victims
-http://listverse.com...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, what about John Michael Sisco? According to my opponent this man should be heralded as a hero. For he brutally sexually molested, tortured, beat his roommate who was convicted of paedophilia in Toronto. Should this man be set free? - (WARNING! Article is HIGHLY graphic ..what your about to read is barbarism)http://www.thestar.com... Clearly 2 things are apparent: 1) Two rights do not make a wrong, and 2) at the VERY least, death is not the worst thing so why not abolish it? My opponents point is negated. Interesting isn't it? I bet anyone reading that had empathy for a paedophile...

Rebuttal 3:
Justice
Actually the death penalty Internationally, and legally within the US is illegal and unconstitutional. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which the US has signed onto) Article 3 AND Article 5. Stating "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" and "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".[5] The US Constitution holds the same thing in the 8th and 14th amendment. As stated by a US Supreme court Judge William J Brennan "I therefore would hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause... I would set aside the death sentences imposed... as violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."[6]

The resolution is upheld, and my opponent should exercise some prudence. Illegal, more crime, and morally incomplete, the death penalty should be abolished. I shall show further morality, legality and economically next round why CP should be taken down.

Thought experiment here on consequentialism as morality: if the ends justify the means then isn't it immoral to have CP? If we have it, we run the risk of ALWAYS killing the innocent. Without, we do not..thus the ends justify!

Thank you!

Sources:
1 Amnesty International or http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org...
2 Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, "Absence of Executions," New York Times
3 Michael L. Radelet, Ronald L. Akers, Northern Illinois University
4 http://www.cbsnews.com...
5 http://www.un.org...
6 http://deathpenalty22.wikispaces.com...
thett3

Con

Thanks.

My opponent makes a series of observations. Let's take a look at these:

1. My opponent criticizes my use of lex talionis to support capital punishment. using the old adage that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Nonwithstanding the fact that he didnt offer a system of justice himself, the problem with this as an argument is that capital punishment is not really an eye for an eye, not any more than imprisoning a kidnapper is an eye for an eye. A retributive death at the hand of the justice system is not the same as the murder of an innocent, as John Stewart Mills put it: "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live". Moreover, to support his continual violence argument he needs to show a case where the family of the executed attempted vengeance, or else you ignore it.

He asks what benefit prisoners get in prison. Evidently, prisoners themselves find a benefit to living, as ~95% of them consistently fight their death sentences, as opposed to volunteering[1][2] (2011: 43 executions, 2 volunteers. 2012: 23 exectuions, 1 volunteer). Moreover, to force the victims (society and the family) to pay the upkeep of the prisoner is an act of moral perversion and a mockery of justice.

2. He argues that someone could be innocent. First, this doesnt link in with capital punishment, it is an argument to increase the standards of evidence. Second TURN: An innocent condemned to die has a significantly greater chance of walking free than an innocent sentenced to life without parole. Since organizations like the innocence project have limited resources, they use them on cases which seem more urgent (IE death sentences). Moreover, death sentences have a multitude of appeals, all the way up to the chief executive of the state and the supreme court itself. Innocents condemned to life without parole have no avenue with which to turn, and as such die behind bars. A life destroyed by long term imprisonment is the same morally (perhaps even more cruel) than a life destroyed by the needle. Moreover, the CSI effect[8] shows that the chances of condeming an innocent become significantly less likely as time goes on.

3. He argues that the state shouldn't have responsibility for people, but we have to make the assumption that it should be. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this assumption, and since this is a debate about an individual issue not statism, its imprudent to debate the merits of government here. He argues that shame and dissapointment will be effective against cold hearted killing machines, and even if you buy this the empirical evidence proves it false, refer to the volunteer issue.

4. The legal system is indeed in need of reform. We agree here.



1. Crime deterrence.

My opponent cites Canada's decreased murder rate as a proof against deterrence. First, this violates ceteris paribus. Second, since the 1970s in Canada: adult usage of drugs has declined[3], incarceration rates have increased[4] , the inflation rate has decreased significantly[5], and crime in general has declined[3] The fact is that there are many factors going into a crime rate, which is why you need to prefer the logic (which he entirely dropped). Moreover, his only response to my empirical evidence is an ad-hom against Westley Lowe, but the fact is that Lowe could be a simple author and still be RIGHT. Lowe didnt conduct some advanced study, he made statistical observations going down to a COUNTY SPECIFIC level (compare this to my opponents rebuttal which is country-wide). He also dropped the studies I mentioned arguing that CP does decrease crime. Third, TURN: The decline in Canadas murder rate is less than the decline in the US when they re-implemented the DP, and significantly less than the decline in the Texas murder rate.

He is correct that states with the DP generally have higher murder rates, but this violates ceteris paribus. Consider state level assessments, which show significant deterrent effect (assessments he's dropped). His criminology card is just an appeal to authority, they could be right but he must demonstrate so. He gives no sample size, and not even a link into the study so really it needs to just be ignored compared with the heaps of evidence he dropped. He also states my sources are ambigious because they include manslaughter, but the kind of manslaughter mentioned is the "crime of passion" kind[6], so his rebuttal about accidental deaths really makes no sense at all.

He brings up a good point that many people have illnesses and dont think of the consequences of their actions. I agree with this, but for every person with consequence obscuring illnesses, there are dozens more without them. Sure, deterrence, and the fear of death, is only going to have an affect on those with a rational mind, but it still has the potential, and the facts show that it does deter. He argues again that non-CP states have less crime, but this DOES violate ceteris paribus. Anyone who's visited the United States knows that each state has a significantly different populace and culture than the others. Compare this to my county specific data.

2. Recidivism

He almost entirely drops this. His response is basically "oh well CP kills people too". I've already addressed this point. Further, Tafero was obviously guilty[9], and was a rapist besides. I'll concede to deluna, meaning the death penalty has a failure rate of less than .1%, a rate that will only decline. Compare this to the failure rate of imprisonment, in some cases upwards to 5% as shown in my case. You can extend the lives saved by deterring recidivism (dropped), and that many death row inmates would be paroled if the abolition was immediate (dropped). Seriously, this is my biggest point and he drops it entirely.

My opponent brings up the entirely irrelevant case of a pedophile who was extrajudicially tortured. Ok? He says that two wrongs doesnt make a right...except for that torture for punishments sake alone is not really a moral issue, it is almost universially rejected. Moreover, if it was known that the pedophile would violate more children without torture (as it is known some criminals will do without death--clarence allen) than implementing torture indeed would be a moral obligation. Further, theres no evidence that killing a killer is inherently wrong like torutre probably is, just as imprisoning a kidnapper is not wrong. My impacts outweigh regardless. Torture is the needless infliction of suffering, where as death is the end of all earthy suffering in order to save more lives. Not the same thing.

Death is not the worst thing one can face, no one argued that. The argument is that the death penalty is the safest and most just penalty.

3. Justice

Essentially dropped and therefore conceded. He makes no response to either of my scenarios, and gives no answer as to what we should do to a dangerous crime leader or war criminal. At this point you negate by default.

He makes the argument that CP is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has upheld the DP over and over again[7], and he gives no warrant on how it's cruel and unusual, other than one judge thinking so. His UN evidence suffers the same issue since he fails to define what is inhumane/degrading/cruel. Moreover, even if his counter holds true, this shows that we must abolish the death penalty, not that we should. My opponent needs to give an objective metric as to what is cruel/degrading, and then show the death penalty to meet those standards of cruelty.

The resolution is negated.


Sources: http://tinyurl.com...


Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

Errors:
1) Lex talionis stands, as US law a murder results in a death penalty and is the most common acknowledged by you and me in previous rounds. J.S.Mills is irrelevant here as he is a political philosopher, not a moral one. I easily counter with Rousseau here or even John Locke both acknowledge 1) The right to life [1] and 2) the state has no right in taking a life [2]. As Rousseau states: 'We may add that frequent punishments are always a sign of weakness or remissness on the part of the government. There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.' Volunteering is a benefit, so I ask, why rid them of their self responsibility by allowing them to escape through a voluntary death? Cases as requested: http://www.opposingviews.com...
Hence escalates violence.
2) My opponent resorts to semantics. I clearly showed that the death penalty has resulted in innocent men being killed not call for the increase in evidence. Those put to death can only be declared innocent until AFTER they have been killed as I have shown. Her turn is nothing more than a fallacy, a man alive has much more time to get his name cleared than that of one with CP. My opponent fails to show an OBJECTIVE MORAL THEORY as to why taxpayers money being used to house prisoners is immoral. Yes death sentences have appeal options, but whats to say a court rejects them? My opponent ignores this factor within CP. Also her own source acknowledges that no apparent CSI effect has happened in a jury.
3) Again semantics. I stated very clearly that if the state is not responsible for the creation of a person why is it responsible for their deaths? Because of the right to Life, Liberty and Property, who is the government to take my life away from me?
4) Question for my opponent you stated:
"He argues that shame and dissapointment will be effective against cold hearted killing machines"
You maintain CP causes crime deterrence, now you claim that it will not work.Which is it? You've contradicted yourself and acknowledged that CP does not deter crime!

1. Rebuttal
That study refutes Canada versus that of Canada, not Canada vs the US and therefore is NOT a violation of ceteris paribus. We're looking for an objective example here on the truths of CP and this is an excellent objective example. If anything Canada's population has increased and thus should have more crime. There isn't, it has dropped dramatically and therefore the study still stands! And you even furthered my point of ridding the CP yourself. My opponent acknowledges crime rates drop when CP is gone, but is wrong that in the US it dropped due to CP. It did not. [3]. She also forgets to distinguish between those rates and the rates of bodily harm and aggravated assault [4] which are higher mainly in Saskatoon and Regina hence the lesser drop. She is not telling you the whole story.
As for Wes Lowe the flaws here are quite obvious. My source clearly showed comparisons and contrasts between CP and non-CP states, and furthermore showed them through neighbouring states.[5] How is Lowe's flawed? Well lets look at New Mexico which -according to my source- has had 9 murders in 2009, and compare it to Nevada which only had 6. An observer would claim it deters crime but it is false.[6] In fact, my source clearly shows the differences between W Virginia and Virginia, Wisc. and Illinoi, and Iowa and Missouri (neighbours). No violation of ceterus paribus here and she offers no proof otherwise other than culture. Even if it did, my opponent couldn't make her case either as she has BOP. As for dropped sources this was due to broken links to which she admitted.(look in comments.) Number 4 still is broken! Her sources should be rejected and regarded as flawed.

2. Rebuttal
As I have shown with my source it does not save lives it places them at risk.Tafero was not guilty, the self evidence is not there (if you read the case the passenger was the gunman via gunpowder NOT Tafero). Furthermore, for every 8 men executed, 1 was innocent as the failure rate.[7] What if that was you or me? And finally, although someone innocent will always be jailed I argued against this in two ways: 1) without CP they will not be killed unjustly, and 2) it is immoral to do so for the entire population. Now inmates would not be paroled, as they would continue serving out their sentences (see Truscott Case and/or [8] New York) without parole. No drops here.
My point was clear in that case: Why have the CP when the man was rehabilitated? Why make it the gravest punishment when others are far worse? The accused in that case thought of himself as a hero as Canada does not have CP. It is not the safest as innocents are killed, and is not just due to it being illegal (dropped) and immoral(dropped .. see consequentialism)

3. Rebutals
I did answer them with the following: Which is more beneficial via consequentialism? The DP being active and potentially killing innocent people all the time? Or ridding it and saving those dollars for rehabilitation? No economic costs were ever debated (dropped) because it is cheaper. Hitler wanted power and committed suicide rather than spend life in jail. The paedophile suffers from a mental disease. Napoleon even said it himself "Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me." all dictators think like this, so rather than go to court and lose, they will fight until they die. Because when they die they are martyrs (Neo-nazi's anyone?) and cannot live to watch what happens without them.
Finally no it has not, the US Supreme Court temporarily abolished it in the Ferman v. Georgia case. I may have one judge but you have none. Also Canada has the same thing in it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have concluded it is cruel and unusual punishment. New York and Massachusetts also lost due to it being unconstitutional. And for that matter is still illegal, the right to life .. pretty clear people(dropped). It is illegal.

Moral:
Consequentialsim and Primum Non Nocere .. meaning CP is immoral because it purges the community into further violence, and risks killing innocent people. The ends do not jusrify the means. Furthermore, medical ethics dictate that doctors do not have the right to harm a life, and tarnishes the doctors reputation, the community, and the country.

Legal:
Retributive places crimes against the state first through the victim. A battle in court ensues and victims often never get to confront their attackers for healing. Communities have no options in ruling the guilt or innocence of a person and thus feel helpless in a 'miscarriage of justice' (Judges controversial rulings sometimes is upsetting). Compare this to restorative, in which the victims needs are placed first. Communities assist one another in determining the outcome, and proper reparations are made. Rehabilitation ensues with acceptance from the community, inline with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs resulting in less crime. Offenders are lead to come to the realization of self responsibility and are met with self guilt or shame.[9] 'Repay' to the community and victims of the crime.

Economical:
Due to appeals, too expensive (dropped). More experts are needed, judges, prosecuting attorneys, et cetera to ensure the prevention of a miscarriage.

Semantics twice by my opponent, no dropped points (me) and she has yet to fulfil her BOP via legal, moral (with objective theory as measure), or economical means. I ask for the win please.

Resolution Upheld. CP should be removed.

Sources:
1)http://www.debate.org...
9)http://en.wikipedia.org...
thett3

Con

I'll go down the debate and explain why I've won.

Opponents case

1. My opponent, instead of attacking the logic behind Mills point, uses another ad-hom attack against Mills. This is a concession, so his argument that an execution is the same morally as a murder falls apart. Moreover, he criticizes Mills for being a political philosopher, when Locke and Rousseau, the people he's cited, were also political philosophers[1][2]. TURN: Rousseau's quote indicates support of capital punishment in cases with a man to dangeorus to be kept alive.

He asks, why should we allow prisoners to volunteer to be executed? That's a cop-out, because he knows his point about prison having no benefit has been proven wrong. A prisoner volunteering is saving taxpayer dollars and taking responsibility for their actions, and even if it shouldn't be allowed you don't judge a policy based on a >5% probability scenario that can be easily mended.

He argued that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", and failed to prove it. His source is about how a man beat to death a pedophile who was violating his daughter. Good riddance. This however has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

2. He accuses me of using semantics. Evidently he does not know what semantics means[3], as I have not questioned his definitions at all. He totally drops my turn about how lw/op kills innocents too, just over a longer period of time. This concession blows his entire impact out of the water, because the alternative is worse. He just says it's a fallacy because people in prison live longer than thos executed. That's missing the point. Death sentences are matters of urgency and are comparitvely rare. Life sentences are abundantly common and less urgent, so obviously less attention will be paid to them and lwop does not have the appeals process the DP does. The turn stands. Moreover, he drops that this is not an argument against the DP, but an argument for higher standards of evidence. He doesn't understand what the CSI effect is. It means that the rise of forensic and DNA evidence has led to jurors needing more evidence to convict. He's right that conviction rates have increased, but this is irrelevant because that kind of evidence is much more common today than ever before, and will become more common as time goes on.

Hitch criticizes me for not citing an objective moral theory. What? I showed how punishment is inherently retributive and how the victims need to be compensated (both dropped). He's conceded to moral principles.

3. He drops that the debate is not about statism. He says we all have the absolute rights to life, liberty, and property. Ok. In that case, imprisonment, taxation, and fines can't be allowed. He doesn't show why the right to life is unique in that it can't be taken away. His argument is really incoherent. So the state doesnt force couples to procreate, therefore it isn't responsible for people? Then why call it a state? Again, his alternative (lwop) can only be enforced under statism, so his kritik is a non starter.

4. My opponent says that I contradict myself by brushing aside his argument that shame will deter murder. I dont think that shame will deter murder, but I do believe that fear will(not to mention that being on death row has a factor of shame as well). Fear =/= shame. No contradiction. In fact, if my opponent thinks shame will deter crime then TURN: Murderers should be publically violated in the most final of ways: death.

My case

Deterrence

Hitch drops a lot here. He dropped all of my studies, statistics, and logic in the beginning (except the ad hom against westley lowe) and continues to drop them.

For most of this argument, I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say. He says that Canadas population has increased so crime should have gone up, but we all know that rates measure crime relative to the population (like 6 in 100000), so this doesn't make sense at all. He ignores my turn that US crime rate dropped more during the same time frame. He ignores completely the COUNTY SPECIFIC data I cited in round 1, instead trying to compare stats country to country. He ignores all the other factors leading to a decreased crime rate in Canada that I cited. He says that I didn't talk about assault rates, but people are only executed for murder or treason, so why would I? Moreover, I still don't understand what he's trying to say.

He says that the flaws with the Lowe card are "quite obvious", then goes on to talk about his own source. So he's conceded completely to the statistics at this point.

He violates ceteris paribus again, comparing different states. That's dumb, not least because He says that I haven't proven any difference. What? The states are different by nature of being different states. They have different police forces, different laws, different cultures, different demographics, different climates, different histories, different schools, different geography, ect. ect. Even neighboring states are radically different, would anyone here honestly believe that the cultures of Texas and New Mexico or Lousiana are the same? Moreover, his analysis is flawed because it compares rates statically rather than over time. That is, it's most probable that the murder rates in DP states have declined faster than those without it, and even if they didn't since each state is different from the next, you have to look to individual analysis. Remember, he's already cnceded to county level data strongly indicating deterrence.

He complains about how some of my links were broken. This is true, but they were all fixed before I posted my round 2, so there's no excuse for dropping them now.


Recidivism

First, recall that my opponent totally dropped this point, so my impacts are all extended cleanly to the end of the debate.

He tries to argue innocence, but he completely dropped the fact that this doesn't link with capital punishment. He dropped the logic behind the turn regarding lwop. He drops that current death row inmates will be paroled. Life w/o parole didnt exist in texas (for example) until 2005. When a sentence is overturned, it goes back to the next highest sentence at the time of conviction[4]. Last time the DP was abolished, dozens of innocents were killed by released murderers. Historical precedent is on my side, especially given that prisons are more crowded today and budgets more stretched than ever before.

He says Tafero was not guilty of the shooting. Whatever, I don't have the characters to argue each individual case. So this bumps up the failure rate of capital punishment to around .18%, with both failures over 20 years ago. Remember that this doesn't link with the DP, and the failure rate of imprisonment is significantly higher (1.2-5%).


Justice

Again he makes no response. He untruthfully says that he answered this point with moral theories and that I dropped them. I'm sorry to be rude, but this is aflat out lie. His only response was about legality. He responds now that most war criminals will fight to the death. Maybe, but if even one doesnt than he needs to die. He's pulling a cop out here, because the evidence is in my favor.

His argument about legality is wrong. The highest court authority has upheld the DP as constitutional. The opinions of lower courts and judges are below SCOTUS in legal weighing. He doesnt even try to show it to be cruel and unusual.


My opponent brings up 3 new arguments for me to respond to in my last round. Ignore these. That's unfair, but Ill still try.


With morals he says the ends dont justify the means, yet he totally drops my cards on recidivism and deter. The judges need to weigh this. With legality, he's just wrong. He says we need to rehabilitate and somehow this meets the need of victims. No. Rehab is crim. benefit over victims. Economics: status quo arg., can be changed and justice > money.

Its incredibly cheap for him to advance new arguments at this point, he should lose the debate for trying to cheat here.

http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

I shall recap on this debate and shown why I've won. Much to the protests of my opponent.

My case versus my opponents.

Round 1 clearly states no semantics or ad hominem. The following are violations:

Opponent states "He argues that someone could be innocent. First, this doesnt link in with capital punishment, it is an argument to increase the standards of evidence." in round 2.
I stated (previously): "While she may claim they were convicted of a felony, she does not take into account those who were falsely accused and killed as a result." in round 2.
This is semantics, as my opponent contested the exact meaning of my sentence.[1] I never made a claim for the increase in the standard of evidence, I stated very clearly CP causes innocents to die as well. I furthered this point with the Steven Truscott case, as evidence was there to NOT convict him yet it still happened.

Second violation of semantics:
Opponent states: "He argues that the state shouldn't have responsibility for people, but we have to make the assumption that it should be. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this assumption, and since this is a debate about an individual issue not statism, its imprudent to debate the merits of government here." In the second round.
I stated (previously):"The state is NOT responsible for the procreation of the individual, so why then shall it have the right in determination the death of the same individual? Indeed, death is never needed. Remember when you were a child? What did you fear most? Your mother yelling and screaming at you? Or your mother giving you the 'I'm disappointed in you' speech? The former causes a fighting response while the latter makes you regret the decision very quickly. Shame is -statistically speaking- far more effective." in the second round.
This is also semantics, I never stated the state is not responsible for people per se, but that it is NOT responsible for determining their life lengths. Pretty clear, and thus my opponent should automatically lose with this alone, however I shall continue.

Violation of ad hominem
Opponent states: "Its incredibly cheap for him to advance new arguments at this point, he should lose the debate for trying to cheat here." in round 3.
I shall state several issues: 1) violation of the rules for my opponent to attack my integrity personally, and 2) it still allowed her to rebuttal my arguments, I even TOLD HER that I would argue those within round 3 in round 2. The arguments are fair. My opponents complaints are unfair and should result in her automatic loss in combination with the above semantics. However, I shall show as well why I've won:

Round 1 clearly states justification through political, legal, moral, or economical means. Let's see how our opponent fulfils her BOP.
Economical:
Me: too expensive, more costs to the taxpayer due to judges, experts, witnesses, to ensure the prevention of a wrongful conviction.(dropped)
Opponent simply maintains justice is higher than money (concession).
Result: no BOP filled.

Legal:
Opponent: Theory of justice, claim deterrents crime, claim recidivism
Me: violation of the US constitution, UN Declaration of Human Rights, shown a US supreme Court Judges testimony, also Canadian findings of CP being cruel and unusual punishment (charter of rights and freedoms), showed it did not deter crime but just the opposite.
Opponent: Claims Supreme Court Rulings opposite, claims ceteris paribus in measurement, and claims drops in her sources. Claims I must show family seeking revenge for 'culture of violence'. Also claims people released if lwop came into power.
Me: sources broken links, shown with other sources area of error, shown New York state and Massachusetts overrule CP due to Cruel and Unusual punishment. Same as Canada, AND pointed out studies show neighbouring states, and Canada versus that of Canada. Case shown for opponent as requested. Shown criminals on death row would not be released, meerly transfered to lwop.
Opponent: violates ceteris paribus to attack Canada versus US. Should count as drops. Also claims case is irrelevant for culture of violence. (I do not know how she could ask only to claim it's irrelevant. SHE ASKED FOR IT) Also should count as a drop.

Moral:
Opponent: claims self evident.
Me: Not so -shown through consequentialism (everyone's life is at risk thus immoral) refutes eye for an eye.
Opponent: irrelevant, LWOP immoral
Me: miscarriages of justice do not result in innocents being killed, thus relevant, also consequentialism covers due to the fact that it is better for everyone. Also shown through Primum Non Nocere that doctors reputation is tarnished.
Opponent: not the case .. yet no objective theory shown, still claims immoral.

I should also note that our sources will be key in determining a winner if the audience finds no wrong doings of my opponent. I therefore ask them to check clearly and carefully. CSI effect does not exist her source even shows that as well. Other than that violations of semantics, and ad hominemshould result in my win never mind the debate it's self, which even then as I have shown my opponent failed to justify via moral, economical, political, or legal grounds.

The resolution is upheld with superb aplomb. I thank you for your time and VOTE PRO!

Sources:
1)https://www.google.ca...
2) http://www.debate.org...
3) http://www.debate.org...

http://www.google.ca...

http://www.google.ca...

http://www.google.ca...

http://www.google.ca...
thett3

Con

Thanks for the debate.

[Intro:]
Uhh Looks Like Another Win For Me
Its The Ultimate Victory
Chamillitary man

[Hook:]
Everybody Get Low it's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Everybody Get Low)
Everybody Get Low it's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Everybody Get Low)
Everybody Get Low it's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Everybody Get Low)
Everybody Get Low it's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Chamillitary Mayne)

[Chorus:]
Everywhere That I Go (Everywhere I Go)
They Look At Me Like A Criminal
But Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
Im Not A Criminal

[Verse 1:]
Let Them Stay Local While Im About To Hit Japan
The G4 Get Me Out When I Get In A Jam
You Gotta Go Internatonal To Get With Cham
Women On Your Phone I Bet You Switchin Minute Plan
Let These Other Rappers Beef While They Arguein
We'll Be Runnin In With The Bags To Get The All The Grams
Take It Out Yo Hands, Take It Out Yo Hands
Money Talks, Only Language That I Understand
I Heard That Puff N Jay Was Worth Over 300 Mill
That Mean This Year I Gotta Put It In 300 Gear
You On A Treadmill Homie
You Just Runnin Still
Yes This The Rap That All The Other Rappers Love To Feel
I Got The Plaque But Now Im Back For The Reload
But We Know While Imma Still Stick To The Street Code
Tell Me What The Industry Is Lookin At Me For
Cause He Sold Platinum They didn't Think It Would Be Gold
Now They Try To Tell Me That There Will Never Be Mo'
But These Flows Are Sure To Be A ***** To Yo Ego
Ya Im From The South They Try To Tell Me That We Slow
But it's Ironic How Your Tryna Keep Up With Me Tho

[Chorus]
Everywhere That I Go (Everywhere I Go)
They Look At Me Like A Criminal
But Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
I Already Got Dough, I Already Got Dough(But I Think it's Time For Me To Get Mo')
Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
Im Not A Criminal

[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com... ]
[Verse 2:]
Call Up Universal Tell Them Open Up The Vault
N Tell Them I Just Had Another Million Dollar Thought
Albums Do Not Sell They Tell Me We Aint In A Drought
How Bought I Run In These Labels For The **** Now Break Em Off
Imma Boss Yeah Yeah
My Money Is Unlimited
Sorta Like My Motorola Minutes Is
Idiots, Koopa Bout To Tell You What The Business Is
Rap With This Rapper Major Label Only Gettin Rich
Whatcha Mean The Label didn't Promote
I Put A Million On A Million Do It Till I Go Broke
Might Have To Run For President So Give Me Yo Vote
Cause Bin Laden Wouldn't Be The Only One In The Scope
Get A Rope
N Duck Tape there's Bout To Be A Crime
Simplify Yo Songs I Aint Simplifyin Mine
The Industry Done Got In The Streets that's Why Rappers Diein'
Don't Get It Confused Imma Still Show You How To Grind
They Tell Me If I Write A Lullaby For The Females
That These Sales Are Sure To Skyrocket In Retail
Hope You Got A Backup Plan If Yo Cd Fails
Ill Drown Em Like Seashells
Till They Hit These Shells

[Chorus]
Everywhere That I Go (Everywhere I Go)
They Look At Me Like A Criminal
But Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
I Already Got Dough, I Already Got Dough(But I Think it's Time For Me To Get Mo')
Im A Ceo, Im A Ceo (Im A Self Employeed Ceo)
Im Not A Criminal

[Hook]
Oh, Everybody Get Low It's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Everybody Get Low)
Everybody Get Low it's A Stickup Everybody Get Low (Everybody Get Low)

[Verse 3:]
Ultimate Victory
Im Back For The Reload
But We Know Imma Still Stick To The Street Code
Seein Sumtin Pretty In The Middle Of The Road
Bouncin On Rims Like A Brick At A Free Throw
I Told Em Tomorrow Imma Be On B.E.T
Look At All The Free Clothin That They Came N Gave To Me
I Told Em Tomorrow Imma Be On M.T.V
Look At All The Jewelry My Jeweler Gave To Me Fo Free
Im Winnin So Keep The Hatin To A Minimal
Ya'll Need To All Give Applause To The General
Im Hearin How Ya'll Talk In Yo Interviews
Ya'll Really All Just Be Talkin Like A Interlude
Poppin At The Mouth
While Im Poppin Tags
50 Thousand In My Pocket Pants Gotta Sag
Magazine Critics Always Talkin Like They Bad
But In The Streets Tryna Hide Behind A Pen N Pad
But it's Ok
I Know Why You Gettin Mad
Cuz you know I Gotta Lot Of Whatever Yu Neva Had
Got A Betta Pad
Got A Betta Slab
We Gon Keep It Movin Try Ya Best To Get A Cab
Remember You Was Jammin Master P
Now That Houstons Super How You Try N Ask For Me
They Be Askin For A Verse don't Even Ask The Fee
Tellin Me How Many Bars To Spit Like that's For Free(Ehhh)
Try Again
Sorry Betta Luck Next Time
Unless Imma Sleep The Only Time Is Now Lets Grind
Yall Need To Stop Like The Words On The Red Sign
Unless Im Pointin Sumtin Tellin Ya Get Down

[Hook]
Oh, Everybody Get Low It's A Stickup Everybody Get Low
Everybody Get Low It's A Stickup Everybody Get Low
Not A Criminal

You're on the phone with your girlfriend, She's upset
She's going off about something that you said
She doesnt get your humour like I do

I'm in the room, its a typical Tuesday night
I'm listening to the kind of music she doesnt like
And she'll never know your story like I do

But she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts
She's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers
Dreaming bout the day when you wake up and find
That what you're lookin for has been here the whole time

If you could see that I'm the one who understands you
Been here all along so why can't you see?
You belong with me
You belong with me

Walkin the streets with you in your worn out jeans
I cant help thinking this is how it ought to be
Laughing on the park bench thinkin to myself
Hey isnt this easy?

And you've got a smile that could light up this whole town
I havent seen it in awhile, since she brought you down
You say you find I know you better than that
Hey, Whatcha doing with a girl like that?

She wears high heels, I wear sneakers
She's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers
Dreaming bout the day when you wake up and find
That what you're looking for has been here the whole time

If you could see that I'm the one who understands you
Been here all along so why can't you see?
You belong with me

Standin by, waiting at your back door
All this time how could you not know that?
You belong with me
You belong with me

Oh I remember you driving to my house in the middle of the night
I'm the one who makes you laugh when you know you're about to cry
I know your favorite songs and you tell me about your dreams
I think I know where you belong. I think I know it's with me.

Can't you see that I'm the one who understands you?
Been here all along so why can't you see?
You belong with me

Standing by or waiting at your back door
All this time how could you not know that
You belong with me
You belong with me

Have you ever thought just maybe
You belong with me
You belong with me
Debate Round No. 4
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
@LordKnuckle.

I gave conduct to Pro chiefly for con's causality fallacy. Withdraw your VB
Posted by LaissezFaire 4 years ago
LaissezFaire
"she may only post a 1-3 line rhetorical statement within round 4 with a goodbye of her choosing (will not count as a line against her)"
Technically, thett3 did not violate this rule. Hitch explicitly says that the "goodbye of her choosing will not count as a line against her." The song lyrics are a goodbye, not a rhetorical statement about the topic being debated.

Although even if he did violate that rule, it's clearly absurd to give a point on a meaningless technicality like that.
Posted by MISHIA26 4 years ago
MISHIA26
That is a different case all together feel like a person with a mental illness is not liable but a person with all their screws is and bi-polar and deppression don't count they just put a medical term on people with f%^% up attitudes and soft hearts.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
You're crazy if you think that's a fair reason to deduct conduct. Obviously you just didnt want me arguing in the last round, and I didnt. Like come on man, can you really, honestly, say that you think that's an acceptable reason? You sound like one of those cops who shut down lemonade stands for not having permits to sell drinks because "thats the law"
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
LK it was in violation of the rules, she could only post 1-3 lines of rhetoric and a goodbye (which wouldn't count against her) of her choosing. Clearly she violated that. GTFO
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
I can't believe people are voting against me because of the line rule thing like lolwut
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
thats fine, I'll be sure to let Magicr know. Thank you for your time, much better RFD
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Thett I was quoting from inside the debate seeing as the VB'er believed I mentioned nothing about the costs of lwop versus that of CP...so it's a little late now.
Posted by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
Hitchslap needs a hitchslap.
Posted by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
Updated (but didn't change) vote.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's deterrence argument is founded on a causality fallacy. Con also states that it was unfair of Pro to present 3 new arguments in round 3. This may be true, but round 3 still could've made for supple time to refute these and giving Pro no possibility of rebuttal in last round so, anything goes really at that point of contention. The rest of the debate was pretty even. Good job for both sides. Conduct goes to Pro in light of causality fallacy.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had very interesting arguments. Arguments go to Con though because Pro dropped several arguments within aJustice by not resonding to Con's scenarios.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was like watching a lion bite a baby alligator in the throat, thrash it around a bit, and then leave it to die in the hot African sun. And if you think this is a vote bomb, you're out of your fvcking mind.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Giving somebody conduct because the other person posted song lyrics in a round in which there was supposed to be no arguing is pure vote bombing. 2 Points to Counter the two conduct vote bombs.
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Con's arguments were at times weak (e.g. parents' feelings), Pro didn't sufficiently negate challenges to his case like recidivism and deterrence, and he made appeals to justice while not addressing Con's justice argument. He also really should have made his argument easier to follow.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Removing my counter-vote until I can read this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
TheHitchslapthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued from the point that there are reasons the death penalty shoudl not be removed, and I don't believe that Pro successfully negated all of them. More specifically, the crime deterrence argument was met with insufficent evidence by the part of the Pro, and so it failed to be negated. As such, I gave Con the arguments. However, not only did Con break the 3-4 line rule, she did it in a way that looked pretty rude, so i gave Pro the conduct.