The Instigator
Nobody
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
LightC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,234 times Debate No: 6472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Nobody

Con

>I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

>I will be negating the resolution:

Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

>My opponent will be affirming the resolution:

Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

>This will be an LD style debate. If you do not understand an LD case or know how to write a case for LD, do not accept this debate.

>This debate will be under the assumption that the United States uses the same method (lethal injections) for killing the criminal as it currently does:

The intravenous injection is usually a sequence of drugs given in a set sequence, designed to first induce unconsciousness followed by death through paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or by cardiac arrest through depolarization of cardiac muscle cells. The execution of the condemned in most states involves three separate injections (in sequential order):

Sodium thiopental: ultra-short action barbiturate, an anaesthesic agent capable of rendering the person unconscious in a few seconds.

Pancuronium: non-depolarizing muscle relaxant, causes complete, fast and sustained paralysis of the skeletal striated muscles, including the diaphragm and the rest of the respiratory muscles; this would eventually cause death by asphyxiation.

Potassium chloride: stops the heart, and thus causes death by cardiac arrest.

>The round structure will be as follows:

Neg 1: Rules/Procedures

Aff 1: Constructive (limited to 6,000 characters)

Neg 2: Constructive and Rebuttal (limited to 7,000 characters)

Aff 2: Rebuttal (limited to 4,000 characters)

Neg 3: Rebuttal (limited to 6,000 characters)

Aff 3: Rebuttal (limited to 3,000 characters)

Violations of the character limits should lead to deductions in the "conduct" section of voting.

>I wish my opponent, whoever he or she is, luck in their first round.
LightC

Pro

I affirm: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

--> Resolutional Change: Capitol should be Capital.

[Definitions]

Ought to: referring to a higher standard of obligation
Capital Punishment: execution
Lethal Injection: *refer to neg's definition

[Resolutional Analysis]

First, the evaluative statement in the resolution is: The United States Ought To Use Capital Punishment. This is where the clash should be in the debate.

Second, the phrase "By Lethal Injection," is merely an advancement phrase within the resolution. Clash should not be developed in this part. This is true for two reasons:

1. It is much too open for negative abuse, and we don't want to waste our time on "theory debate."
2. It is not the "evaluative statement" as prescribed by NFL rules.

[Observations]

1. Ought to, defined as referring to a higher standard of obligation impacts the resolution because the debate is over a standard, rather then necessity.

2. Even though the resolution is in a US framework, I can still affirm by proving the resolution in terms of standards, regardless of framework.

The affirmative values Justice, giving each their due. Since the resolution is in a "punishment" framework the appropriate value is justice. Furthermore, since "ought to" is a higher standard, we must look at something beyond necessity. This plus the framework, leads to the value of justice. The value of justice is achieved by the criterion of proportionality. Proportionality is basically "equaling the scale." It is not equivalence, as some people might think. Proportionality has an inherent link to justice:

Justice is giving each their due. Due is only appropriate when it is proportionate (when dealing with punishment) For example, it would not be just to give a rapist a slap on the wrist plus $10 fine.

Contention I: Scale of Justice Argument

Kant theorized that in order for punishment to be just it must make the scales equal. Basically this means that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Proportionality is weighed by right violations, may it be negative or positive violations. Link this idea to capital punishment. The death penalty is administered to murderers, i.e. people that kill. When someone kills they violate all negative rights of their victims, and consequently all positive rights are violated as well. Thus, the only way to balance the scales is to kill the killer, because no other punishment can satisfy the right violations done to the victim.

For these reasons you can affirm
Debate Round No. 1
Nobody

Con

>Thanks to my opponent, LightC, for accepting this debate.

>I agree with my opponent's spelling of "capital," I apologize for any trouble that caused. Secondly, I agree with my opponent's evaluation of the resolution in that the clash should be over the use of capital punishment. I wish for the debate to be over this, the usage of lethal injection in the resolution was merely for clarification.

>I now move on to my arguments for this round.

>Albert Einstein writes "[He] ha[s] reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2) Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure." I affirm the resolution:

:: Resolved ::

>The United States Ought To Use Capital Punishment By Lethal Injection

>For clarification I offer the following definitions:

>Penal code: a portion of a state's laws defining crimes and specifying the punishment.

>Lethal injection: *see definition given in Neg R1

>Felony: a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor

>Additionally, I would like to offer the following observation as analysis of the resolution:

1. The affirmative burden of proof is to prove that the US ought to use capital punishment by lethal injection. The negative burden of proof is to prove that the US ought not to use capital punishment by lethal injection.

2. The resolution refers to the US as a whole rather than simply a part of the US.

:: Value and Value Criterion ::

>The negative values justice. Justice is obviously quite inherent in this resolution and any argument that does not uphold justice neither truly affirms or negates this resolution. Justice is the primary stipulation of this resolution given that it refers specifically to a single judicial procedure. Justice is attained within any given society with a sense of morality. The negative thus chooses the criterion morality. Morality is imperative because to truly govern a body of humans successfully, a set of morals must be in place. Throughout culture, one of these morals has almost always (exception of cannibalism) been to avoid killing fellow man.

:: Contention 1 - The State Is Not a Sufficient Instrument of Penal Code Through Capital Punishment ::

>We have five recognized penal goals in the US; listed as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, vengeance and incapacitation. To fit the justice theme of this debate, Capital Punishment obviously needs to fit into one of the above categories. These are the very fundamental basics of punishment; and yet Capital Punishment fits but one of these. That would be vengeance; to avenge a crime committed by the criminal. All Capital Punishment, whether or not by lethal injection, is by the State. We must ask ourselves: "should the State be the one to avenge this crime?" The answer is inevitably no; the only people who could properly avenge a crime are those who are directly affected by it. The State is simply affected indirectly because it not the true victim of the crime.

:: Contention 2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral ::

>"The world is a fine place and worth the fighting for and I hate very much to leave it."�‚��

It is often said that the greatest gift one could possibly give is life. The reverse is also true. Whether or not a felon even committed a crime is one aspect; but to take their life either way is quite another. There are no second chances. When felons are sentenced to death, they are given a time. From then on, their life is a countdown. A countdown of how long it will take until they die. With life as valuable as it is, can we as Americans afford to strip fellow Americans of the right to live? I think not. Does the eighth Constitutional Amendment not protect Americans for "cruel and unusual punishments?" Cruel is defined as willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. Capital Punishment is therefore a direct violation of the Constitution.

A. Pain In Lethal Injection

>A University of Miami study finds that 43 of 49 studied criminals killed by Capital Punishment were not sufficiently unconscious due to sodium thiopental. These criminals were alive and awake during their painful cardiac arrests.

>I will now move on to my opponent's case.

:: Value and Value Criterion ::

>My opponent and I share a value of justice. Justice will provide a voting issue and a means of determining which side truly proves their case over the other. Therefore, we will not be debating the existence of justice, but rather how justice is best fulfilled. I counter this with basically my entire case (not supporting Capital Punishment). My opponent chose a criterion of Proportionality. This criterion I must take issue with. For example: it is, in the US (Texas), possible to commit a felony for multiple rapes of a minor. Given the US framework at hand, is it proportional that this is a crime possibly punishable by death? Do two rapes equal one kill? Neither my opponent nor the legislature provide a bright line.

:: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument ::

>My opponent's first contention is rebutted similarly to his criterion. Basically he message in his contention is this: killers deserve to be killed. He explained this properly, but apparently he does not understand that Capital Punishment is not ONLY for murders. Let's follow my opponent's logic for a moment. What should we do to rapists? We should rape them? Of course not. What happens if a killer has killed twice? We can't kill anyone twice, so what would the action be? We'd just kill them once. But isn't this unfair to those who only killed once themselves? They could die for only half of what someone else did to deserve the same punishment. Aren't two murders worse than one?

>For the above reasons I urge a negation.

>I used 6,974 characters.
LightC

Pro

I'll go NC, then AC

"Secondly, I agree with my opponent's evaluation of the resolution in that the clash should be over the use of capital punishment. I wish for the debate to be over this, the usage of lethal injection in the resolution was merely for clarification."

--> Ok, good. Extend this framework through the debate.

--> I concede his observations.

[NC Value Structure]

--> Both agree with justice as superior value.

VC: Morality

--> I have 3 responses:

First, this is an inadequate VC because it provides us no weighing mechanism for the value of justice.
A. He makes no warrants
B He makes no link the value
C. He makes no impacts to the value
D. He never defines what morality is

Second, morality is to vague and it is too relativistic. For instance I may find something that is immoral, whiel you find it amoral, and another friend may find it moral.

Third, morality and justice are not always interconnected. For instance, I may have to kill in self-defense, which is justified but killing isn't a "moral" act. It can be just, but never moral. Therefore, you cannot weigh justice on the basis of morality.

Contention Overview: Since I knocked out his VC, any arguments dealing with the morality of an action can be dropped automatically, since there is no link.

C1 - The State Is Not a Sufficient Instrument of Penal Code Through Capital Punishment



--> I have 3 responses:

First, capital punishment fits into retribution not vengeance. This is true for two reasons:

1. Vengeance implies revenge for personal reason, but retribution is devoid of emotion and is based on notions of reciprocity and proportionality.
2. Vengeance is done by direct action, not by an indirect mutual, legitimate agent.

Second, your logic about states not being able to avenge only strengthens my first response. I agree, the state is not an agent of revenge, but retribution for crimes.

Third, by simple extension my opponent's point dejustifies all punishment. Why? Because in some manner all punishment would be stopped because it isn't personal, and thus the state cannot take part in it.

C2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral

--> Overview Argument



--> I have two responses:

First, my opponent is right, life is the greatest gift. Then what about the life of someone murdered on the street. They have worth as well. But they were killed without due cause. Life is important, yes, but its the way someone lives that furthers the inherent worth of life.

Second, the innocent killed also does not have a second chance. Does he/she?

A. Pain

--> My opponent conceded my analysis, thus you can drop this point. Lethal Injection is not where the clash is.

[Defense of AC]

--> He concedes my whole framework and pre-standard arguments

V: justice (Value for the round)

VC: Proportionality



--> I have 3 responses:

First, he concedes my ob. that if I prove the general principal of the death penalty just, I fulfill the "US" framework burden.

Second, The bright-line is the idea of right violations.

Third, since he never adequately refutes my standard (due to his concession of my observation) you can extend my standard/VC. (This will be the weighing mechanism for the round)

C1 - Scale of Justice



--> I have 3 responses:

First, based on affirmation theory, I need only prove that we OUGHT to use it. My framework of murderers meets that burden of ought.

Second, he never responds to the fact of "positive and negative right violations." Since he did not, and this is the bulk of my contention you can extend my point through the flow.

Third, the idea of contextualizing the amount of murderers does tn answer any question within my case. But for arguments sake, my point is qualitative, not quantitative.

For these reasons you can affirm.

<...> = type from opponenet (does not count in total type cap.)
Debate Round No. 2
Nobody

Con

>I shall rebut my own case then my opponent's.

:: Value and Value Criterion ::

>My opponent describes my criterion as inadequate for four main reasons.

A. He makes no warrants

The justice system is based on morals. I was under the impression that this was relatively obvious. For example, we do not sentence life in prison for stealing a candy bar. It would be immoral to do such a thing (given the already discussed worth of life).

B. He makes no link the value

See previous statement. Justice is based on morality.

C. He makes no impacts to the value

Without morality justice does not exist. I think that's an impact.

D. He never defines what morality is

About this my opponent is right although I still assumed it rather obvious. Morality is what is right or wrong; permissible or impermissible; should or should not.

Additionally, my opponent claims that morality is too vague or relative. Essentially, he thinks that it is subjective. This is a logical mistake. He follows an informal logical fallacy known best as Loki's Wager. Basically, he makes the claim that something which is mot easily measured (in this case, morality) cannot be discussed. This premise is obviously false as it can be related to multiple subjects. For example, I could claim that piano skill is immeasurable. In some senses, this has a point. I, myself, would not be able to choose between two world class pianists. However, there is a bright line between skilled and unskilled. There is a similar line between moral and immoral.

My opponent lastly claims that killing in self defense is a contradiction by this rule. This is actually untrue. This is by a rule known as et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium. This is Latin for "a man's house is his castle," in the case house refers to oneself. If the person kills not for malice, but rather for defense, this is perfectly moral. Additionally, murder is defined as killing with premeditated malice while killing is simply taking a life. The moral line lies in the malice. Justice is again based upon this. While the murderer may be sentenced to prisoner, a killer may not be.

:: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument ::

>My opponent's first point of rebuttal is that capital punishment is not vengeance; but retribution. This has just as many flaws. For example, people from Oklahoma can be sentenced (remember that we agreed to discuss the entire US) to death for multiple sexual abuses (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Retribution means that the penalty fits the crime. We don't rape that person twice, instead they can be sentenced to death. This is clearly NOT retribution. Not proper retribution anyway.

My opponent claims that my logic strengthens his first response. He has neglected to explain, so I have nothing to rebut. Simply a bare assertion fallacy.

Third, he brings up that no punishment is personal. I completely agree. This is why there are five reasons to punish someone. This may not need to be personal. For example, assault could result in a year of jail. This is retribution because society has deemed this equivalent. Rape obviously does not equal killing.

:: Contention 2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral ::

>My opponent's argument is basically an ignoratio elenchi; he admits that I am right about life's worth. He then immediately changes the subject to the second chance of someone who is killed on the streets. This is all well and good, but it doesn't really address my argument. It is just a distraction, a red herring if you will. If my opponent wanted to discuss innocents killed and their second chances, he would have added it as a contention.

A. Pain In Lethal Injection

>My opponent rules this void as the method of killing is not to be the main clash. While I agree with the principle of it not being the main argument, pain during death is relevant no matter how killing happens. However execution may happen: stones; lethal injection; hanging; etc. Pain is involved. Lethal injection is currently very common and is the best means of comparison. I thus claim that this point is NOT null.

>I now move on to my opponent's case.

:: Value and Value Criterion ::

>My opponent bases his refutation of my rebuttal to his second contention off of what a bright-line is. I hereby concede that it is related or pertaining to rights violations. However, ought life to be a right? I quote my opponent:

"Ought to, defined as referring to a higher standard of obligation impacts the resolution because the debate is over a standard, rather then necessity."

"Life is the greatest gift."

So don't we, even according to my opponent's implications, have a higher standard of obligation to protect a right to live? Don't we all deserve this? Yes, we ought to allow the right to live in the US.

:: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument ::

>My opponent makes three claims in his third contention:

My opponent says that he has met the burden of ought, but he neglects to explain it. This is simply the bare assertion fallacy.

He next says that I never respond to "positive and negative right violations." If this truly falls under the umbrella of "Scale of Justice Argument," I have indeed rebutted it or its essence for that matter.

My opponent says that contextualizing the murder does not answer the question (implied) given in his case. My opponent simply cherry picks in his case; he gives evidence true about some unique cases, but these are not always the case. He acts under the false premise that capital punishment is only used for murders. It is not.

>Voting Issues:

*My opponent has ignored several of the arguments I have given, he simply moves on to another topic while he is to be responding to mine.

*My opponent has never fully proved his own case, rather he assumes that he is correct.

*My opponent hasn't "killed" any of my contentions.

>I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him luck. Please vote Negative. 5,998 characters used.
LightC

Pro

I'll go through a (main) line-by-line analysis, and then voting issues (I'll sign post as I go along)

--> He is saying that morality is self-evident within the court system. This is flawed for two reasons:

First, morality is subjective and relative to the beholder. Therefore, it isn't self-evident

Second, the court system is based on justice, not morality. We give each their due, not what is "right," If this was true then all punishments would be dejustified because in some way all punishments have an immoral aspect.

--> My opponenet concedes the idea of proportionality: "For example, we do not sentence life in prison for stealing a candy bar." THIS SHOWS THE IMPACT OF MY VC ONTO JUSTICE, HE CONCEDES IT.


See previous statement. Justice is based on morality.>

--> He never makes an apparent link; he says it is self-evident, but that is not good enough in a debate.


About this my opponent is right although I still assumed it rather obvious. Morality is what is right or wrong; permissible or impermissible; should or should not.>

--> Cant define it in his second speech, drop his definition. Thus his VC has no definitional analysis.

--> I have 2 responses:

First, I never say it is immeasurable, I say it is subjective. There is a difference between the two.

Second, take your piano example, yes, you could think it is immeasurable, however isn't is subjective whether it is the best instrument to play? That is my argument.



--> Agaisnt misses the point. If you follow my opponents logic, he is saying that killing is ALWAYS immoral. Thus, he logic extends to all examples, for instance self-defense. This proves that killing is not always immoral.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......). Retribution means that the penalty fits the crime. We don't rape that person twice, instead they can be sentenced to death. This is clearly NOT retribution. Not proper retribution anyway.>

--> Never refers to the term ought to. Just because the US uses the death penalty for rapists does not mean this what we ought to do. The resolution is what the US OUGHT to do, and this case, my argument is for murderers. This basically mitigates all offense from the Neg. dealing with the type of criminal.

[Voters]

1. He never actually mitigates my offense to his VC, and thus you can drop it. He merely says morality is self-evident, however that doesn't hold as weight in an LD debate. Therefore, he has no way to link his contentions with his value.

2. His link between his value and VC is unclear at best, thus cannot achieve his value with his flawed VC.

3. He concedes the idea of proportionality being essential to justice, thus you can use my VC as the weighing mechanism in the round. Therefore, you must default to the aff. case.

4. Anything else you find appropriate to vote on.

For these reasons you can affirm.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Very well, RFD then. I felt as if the Aff didn't truly refute the neg's standard until the very last round, by which it was too late. However if I accept the Neg criterion of morality, then the neg basically conceded this to the aff on his defense of killing in self defense, as his logic there basically states that it is moral to kill those who are violating other's rights.

There were also a bunch of other points, but that was the one that first came to mind.
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
Four votes not comments on why...
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
I agree fully.
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
I request to know why whoever voted gives reasons. Also applying to the future voters.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
I request that only LD'ers vote.
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
I think that was justified. I've debated 4 times as opposed to your 95.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
lol
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
Specifically him.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
From school, we both compete in tournaments.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
yes, im very good actually.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
NobodyLightCTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
NobodyLightCTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
NobodyLightCTied
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:07