Should the death penalty U.S.?
Debate Rounds (2)
I will start by discussing the problem this entails for the US government.
If we are letting people stay behind bars we are just adding to the amount of people in prison as well as the amount of money that has to be spent to take care of them. If they are never going be free again anyway what use is it keeping them behind bars, by ending their life they still realize that their life is wasted seeing as they will have to face letting down any obligations they have in society such as being a parent or giving love to a wife etc.
Back on topic however. What we are arguing for is life behind bars as appose to the death penalty. If the murderer (or offender) is sentenced to life behind bars the victim's family will have closure because the murderer will never get out. That should be closure enough, ending someone"s life however that is extreme.
Footnote. This may seem mildly contradictory to the first statement we made for Con we thought we were arguing for the death penalty.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: cons arguments about the absurdity of using the death penalty to solve overcrowding and that families can still get closure were way better then pro's, arguments? Im a little confused because Pro's "reasoning" (I use that word loosely here) behind his stance is almost at odds with the reality of the topic that is beign debated
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.