The Instigator
Dark_Armageddon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should the Death Penalty be Legalized in Every State of the USA?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,221 times Debate No: 28903
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Dark_Armageddon

Pro

I feel as though the death penalty should be legalized in every state in the USA; if someone takes the life of another person (and gets caught), then they should not have the right to continue living on (assuming that their reasons for doing so were NOT life and death for them). You take a life, you lose yours. Simple, plus it'd save on the cost of jailing them for life, so it's better for the economy, too.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

I am not concerned with the financial costs of execution vs. incarceration, as the cost is entirely irrelevant; what we really need to decide is if killing a detained individual is ever justified. If it is found to be immoral, we can never justify it through material wealth and expense.


The death penalty is always unjustifiable.


To understand this, we need only understand why murder is considered illegal and immoral in the first place. The reasoning behind such claims ranges from what I would say is moral fluff, such as saying "life is sacred and fragile", to the more practical range of morality, such as "killing causes harm, and we should avoid causing harm".

Now, it is undeniable that killing causes harm, not only to the victim, but to the surrounding peoples, and on a broad scale, society as a whole. So one must question then why we allow the state to kill individuals. The common defence is "well, it's punishment for wrongdoing" as my opponent has claimed. But then...could not a murderer use the same defense when arguing for their murder? "So and so wronged me, so I killed them as punishment!" Why does the situation suddenly change when it is the state doing the killing? The state is nothing more than a collection of people. It is no more special than the average person. And we cannot say "because a lot of people say so", because organized crime is illegal too, especially when it comes to murder. The simple truth is, there IS no reason. It is simply hypocrisy, born our of a childish desire for vengeance, and to bring harm upon those who hurt you.

This is abominable behavior. Either killing is wrong, or killing is permissible. Given that allowing killing causes more harm than hindering it, the choice for which is more moral is obvious; the one that brings about less harm. Ergo, capital punishment is immoral, and unjustifiable. Given that this is true, we cannot justify immoral behavior because it is "cheaper". Which dismisses the other portion of my opponent's argument, regardless whether it's true or not.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by blackfirewolf 4 years ago
blackfirewolf
Ha I remember having the exact same debate with the_chaos_heart. She whipped my butt on that one. XD At least my debate was longer so I could at least further my argument. Pro should really not do one round debates.
Posted by Imagination 4 years ago
Imagination
ONE ROUND to discuss this topic? O_o
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by blackfirewolf 4 years ago
blackfirewolf
Dark_ArmageddonThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: TheChoasHeart was the only one to actually make an argument here. Way to short; needs to be more rounds for pro to help his case.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
Dark_ArmageddonThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm pretty sure you're debating yourself anyway based on the fact that Dark_Armageddon keeps voting and arguing either your debates or one round debates against another alt. Chaos made a small attempt at an actual argument though, so I'll say spelling and grammar 1 point to chaos. Honestly though it's pretty sketchy that i've seen about 4 debates in the last 15 minutes between Chaos Dark and Princess.
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
Dark_ArmageddonThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I leave this debate tied. Simply because there was no back and forth. There was no "debate". And because of that I cannot say which side convinced anything more. While Chaos presented a more rounded argument, he did not, in my opinion, address crucial issues that prove the injustice of the death penalty (i.e. yes someone could say he harmed me so I killed him, but there are different levels of harm, stealing a few bucks vs murder). Ultimately nothing was questioned in this single round debate and I don't think either proposed a convincing argument either way. It was just positions. However, I do give spelling and grammar to Con for putting up a good starting argument with better spelling and grammar.