The Instigator
chaos-king
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
NickyB
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Should prisoners be killed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,074 times Debate No: 5790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

chaos-king

Con

I want to start by saying in a moral standpoint i believe every life is equally important and no government choose whether or not someone deserves to die. It is bad enough that we must kill in wars, but if we have the ability to choose whether to kill them or not we should choose to keep them alive. I believe no matter who they are or what they have done they do not deserve to die. i hope you accept my challenge.
NickyB

Pro

First, I would like to say that it would be my pleasure to accept your challenge chaos-king.

My opponent does not agree that prisoners should be killed.

"I want to start by saying in a moral standpoint i believe every life is equally important and no government choose whether or not someone deserves to die."

I agree with my opponent when he says that every life is equally important, but the government is not just mindlessly killing prisoners. I believe what my opponent is referring to is the "death penalty" or "capital punishment".

As defined by www.Dictionary.com:

capital punishment
–noun
punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.

[Origin: 1575–85 ]

As I understand, from information received from my opponent's profile, he is from Tokyo, Japan. I am from the United States and the death penalty here is as follows:

Death Penalty by State:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

State Use of Death Penalty:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I also looked into some information on Japan's death penalty and found the following article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article clearly states that the Japanese government "executes convicted murderers". I was not able to find any valid sources stating that Japan OR the United States kill prisoners for no reason at all.

"…if we have the ability to choose whether to kill them or not we should choose to keep them alive…"

I am unaware of Japan's stand-point on when to fire on an enemy soldier in war, but I know that the United States has a policy of "Do not fire unless fired upon".

http://www.antiwar.com...

"…no matter who they are or what they have done they do not deserve to die."

Does my opponent believe that the people they have killed deserved to die? It would seem that way. Why should a murderer be allowed to live after they take the life of an innocent person? Why should the families of the victims have to suffer because of one person's bad choice? My opponent needs to answer these questions before I see his case as a valid argument.
Debate Round No. 1
chaos-king

Con

I want to apologize to my opponent, but I am not actually from Tokyo, Japan. I put that down as a joke I am really from California, US. I never thought where I lived would be used as a source. I was not clear on my standpoint. You stated:

"I agree with my opponent when he says that every life is equally important, but the government is not just mindlessly killing prisoners. "

you also stated:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article clearly states that the Japanese government "executes convicted murderers". I was not able to find any valid sources stating that Japan OR the United States kill prisoners for no reason at all."

I never said that the government, whether it being Japan or Us, kill people mindlessly. It is true that they only kill convicted prisoners who are guilty for murder.

You stated:
"Does my opponent believe that the people they have killed deserved to die? It would seem that way. Why should a murderer be allowed to live after they take the life of an innocent person? Why should the families of the victims have to suffer because of one person's bad choice? My opponent needs to answer these questions before I see his case as a valid argument."

I didn't even imply that the people who were killed deserved to die. There are too many cases when someone is wrongly convicted for murder.

Here a couple articles to support my argument:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.press-citizen.com...

There are many cases in which someone is falsely accused of murder whether it be racism, stereotypes, or lack of information on the case. Killing is wrong and I don't think a government should choose who deserves to die. We don't have to use such barbaric and simple minded forms of punishment and if they are in jail why should we even bother killing them? They are already in a world of hell. I also want to add if you kill a murderer you are just as bad as they are.
NickyB

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for clarifying his location.

"It is true that [the government] only kill convicted prisoners who are guilty for murder."

My opponent understands that the government has a purpose for killing the prisoners that he speaks of. Therefore my opponent somewhat agrees with my standpoint on this argument.

"There are too many cases when someone is wrongly convicted for murder."

This is true, but aren't there nearly as many, if not more cases of someone that is truly guilty of murder being "proved" innocent?

Take a moment to go to Google and type in "murderer released due to lack of evidence" and look at the pages upon pages of stories supporting my argument. For those less inclined to do so, here are a couple of articles supporting my claim:
http://www.newschannel5.com...
http://www.haaretz.com...

"…if they are in jail why should we even bother killing them? They are already in a world of hell."

In a world of hell, is a person fed three times a day on a daily basis? Do people get to take part in numerous activities? Are people given occasional visits from their family? How about the parents of a child that was brutally murdered? How often do they get visits from their son/daughter? Or let's take a look at it from another stand point: How often do you think an orphan, whose parents were killed in a double murder, gets to eat three filling meals a day?

I'd like to close this argument by pointing out that my opponent failed to answer two of the three questions raised in my original argument that I clearly stated that, unless answered, would not (to me) make a valid rebuttal. To give my opponent one last chance to validate his case I will restate the questions, including the one that he answered:

Does my opponent believe that the people they have killed deserved to die? - Answered
Why should a murderer be allowed to live after they take the life of an innocent person? - Unanswered
Why should the families of the victims have to suffer because of one person's bad choice? - Unanswered
Debate Round No. 2
chaos-king

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for reminding me about the questions I didn't answer.

You asked, "Why should a murderer be allowed to live after they take the life of an innocent person?" I would like to say death is unnecessary. Killing them won't make a different much and it won't bring their dead victims back. No victim wants vengeance they want justice. I doubt that victim won't want death for the prisoner. When I mentioned that life in prison is hell you stated:
"In a world of hell, is a person fed three times a day on a daily basis? Do people get to take part in numerous activities? Are people given occasional visits from their family?"
It is true by gang members, not to mention being abused by those prison guards who hate them. I don't know about you, but spending the rest of your life with violent rapists is hell.
You also stated:
Why should the families of the victims have to suffer because of one person's bad choice? It is true that families suffer, but I know for a fact no person wants vengeance. They want justice. Our nation is smarter than long before and we shouldn't have to do the ignorant eye-for-an-eye punishment. I just believe that the US can't choose who lives and dies. We are on the same page when it comes that crimes can't go unpunished so instead of killing them, we should remove them from society and in prison. Living in prison, knowing the rest of your life will be in a cell is a far worse punishment than death. I hope I answered all your questions.
NickyB

Pro

NickyB forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chaos-king 8 years ago
chaos-king
Thanks sadolite, you have a good point. I used this example during my debate on gay marriage, I should've used it in this debate. Well I pretty much lost, but thanks for voting people I hope I do better in my next debate.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
The main thing you need to know about debating is don't let your opponent change the subject using samantics. This is very easy to get caught up in and almost all of the most successful debaters on this site do it. Example; the concept of right and wrong is an impossible stance to have as they will say right and wrong is relative and then they will send you off into a never ending battle of examples to define the simplest of things such as the concept of right and wrong. Guess what, it's all relative, there is no right or wrong. The new politically correct term is "Disruptive" As long as anything you do doesn't disrupt anyone, it isn't wrong. Doesn't matter how vile, disgusting or just plain, for a lack of better words, wrong it is, if it doesn't disrupt your ability to move about it is just fine.
Posted by chaos-king 8 years ago
chaos-king
Yeah I don't know about you, but I would like to stay away from prison. Raping isn't my thing.
Posted by chaos-king 8 years ago
chaos-king
Sadolite asked how I knew no person wants vengeance. I didn't know this for a fact because every person has a different mindset. I would like to say most people wouldn't want vengeance, instead justice. Though some people believe vengeance is justice. I would like to thank sadolite for correcting me. I'm new to this website so I didn't think sources, grammar, or any of that stuff was important. I thought the main idea was to state my opinion and destroy the other person's ideals.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Since I ran out of space below, I also wanted to add (like Sadolite points out) that your sourcework could use some practice. With many claims (like the one Sadolite mentions) it is necessary to prove what you say, and not merely by providing a link. When you find a source for such a claim you could say:
A study produced by John Sadolite showed that most Americans are not interested in vengence, but rather they are interested in justice.

This way your claim has supporting evidence, instead of being just an opinion. Hope this helps.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Con
- Pro was quite courteous, except when it came to responding to the argument in a timely manner. Happy Birthday, by the way.

Spelling/Grammar: Pro
- Con had some spelling and capitalization mistakes. Pro had few, and was superior in manipulation of language. Pro was clearly superior in flow and progression of argument.

Convincing Arguments: Pro
- There were a number of arguments that Con could have employed. The few that he chose were relatively weak and easily rebutted by Pro. He also wasted R3 by merely answering Pro's questions in short answers and not presenting an argument.

Sources: Pro
- Pro provided more sources, they were relevent to his argument, and he inserted them in the proper place. I would suggest that in the future Con pull out the relevent information from his sources and include them in his argument rather than leaving the reader to do his homework for him.

I see that Con is new to the community. Do not get discouraged, you have potential. Keep working on these areas. My main suggestion is to work on a more coherent progression of argument. There are plenty of debators here whose debates you can read to learn this skill (though not necessarily my own). Welcome to Debate.org!
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"I know for a fact no person wants vengeance" Before I vote, I would like to know how you "know for a fact that no person wants vengeance"
Posted by chaos-king 8 years ago
chaos-king
Don't worry about being absent dude. I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate.
Posted by NickyB 8 years ago
NickyB
I would like to apologize to my opponent and anyone following this debate for my absence in the R3 arguement. Due to the fact that yesterday was my birthday (WOOT!!!), I had a really busy week. I'd like to thank my opponent and everyone else involved for participating in this debate.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
You can't rape the willing R_R.

JK
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
chaos-kingNickyBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
chaos-kingNickyBTied
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 Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
chaos-kingNickyBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
chaos-kingNickyBTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
chaos-kingNickyBTied
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 NickyB 8 years ago
NickyB
chaos-kingNickyBTied
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