The Instigator
julias
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Logan94
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Should the Death Penalty be enforced?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
julias
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,915 times Debate No: 33257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

julias

Pro

The death penalty should be enforced because when someone decides to do to someone else, it should be done to them as well. It says in, Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." and Exodus 21:12 ESV "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." Murder is wrong, and people should enforce the death penalty.
Logan94

Con

I completely agree with my opponent on the fact murder is wrong, And I can quote him saying murder is wrong in his opening argument. So if murder is wrong we should kill people who murder according to the pro. This is obviously a double standard for the government. This says that the government can kill people justly because you killed people. More murder will not solve a murder problem. Also my opponent like to quote the bible a lot, but the fact is that there is a separation of church and state. The Bible can not be used as an argument because the death penalty is controlled by the state and we have the separation of church and state. Recap- my opponents bible arguments are invalid, and he does not believe in murder, but backs the death penalty
This should be a very easy vote to make, obviously my opponent has not made any real argument. Vote con
Debate Round No. 1
julias

Pro

julias forfeited this round.
Logan94

Con

vote con
his argument is invalid and he isnt debating
Debate Round No. 2
julias

Pro

You are correct, what I said was not within the argument of church and state, but as of now we are discussing as to why YOU and I believe that the death penalty should or should not be enforced. Alright. You say, "More murder will not solve a murder problem." The Death Penalty is not exactly murder( this statement I know you will jump on), it is a form of punishment, that when people commit terrible crimes, certain measures have to be taken. Not everyone that is in prison will be put on death row in the first place. When someone decides to go murder someone, 90% of the time it is premeditated, and they intend to do so. My Dad works in a prison and has seen many, MANY women who have killed, stabbed, shot,or ran over there husbands, do you think they should just have to sit in prison all their life without getting the same thing that they did to someone else done to them? What about Adam Lanza, the shooter at Newtown. If he wouldn't have killed himself would you want him to be killed, and be shot for killing all of those innocent children? What if those were your children? Thanks.

This has nothing to do with what I said up there ^, but please refer to me as a lady not him.
Logan94

Con

1. my opponent states this argument is whether he and I believe it should be enforced, but government is the enforcer. We must look at the separation of church and state. The question does not ask if it is moral but more on the fact whether it should be enforced. the government is the enforcer!
2. the death penalty is murder. It is a punishment yes, but the punishment is murder! they are killed, and there is no debating that.
3. No, if someone does something terrible the same terrible act should not condoned unto them. 2 wrongs don't make a right
4. No I would not want the newton shooter killed. He should have rotten in prison for the rest of his life. The death penalty is the easy way out. They don't have to suffer if we kill them.
5. Cannot stress enough how two wrongs don't make a right. If someone does something terrible nothing is gained through killing them. vote con, and let these people ROT in prison.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
What's wrong with Julias. The Emperors name in Rome was named Julias.
Posted by caitlynreily 4 years ago
caitlynreily
Excuse me, but I do believe that "julias" is a female. You continue to refer to HER as HIM. This is not okay. Thank you.
Posted by julias 4 years ago
julias
The government is the enforcer, although you keep bringing up the fact of "separation of church and state". The Separation of Church and State was intended to protect the church...not the state, and people are using that as an excuse to avoid the fact that a lot of people base their opinion on the death penalty through their faith. 80% of America's population are Christian and would probably be throwing Bible Verses at you if you were to discuss the death penalty. The Death Penalty is a lesson. It teaches those that want to murder someone, not to. Or it at least makes them not want to do it in the first place. First of all murder and the death penalty are not 2 wrongs that don't make a right. When someone commits a murder, they intended to do so, obviously. The Death penalty is not murder! It is a lesson to those to not murder! Wake up! Okay, so you say you want people to "ROT" in prison. They are going to die in prison anyways! They are not going to feel guilty or learn their lesson if they committed the act in the first place. Vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
juliasLogan94Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The problem is julias forfeited but came back. Con was pretty good, and so was pro. But pro's was much easier to read and understand, and was more convincing, though con had a better conduct as I have voted. Good job both sides. :D