The Instigator
Bublifuk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Should the death penalty be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,382 times Debate No: 25924
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Bublifuk

Con

Hello,
I reckon there have been many debates about this topic. So it should be easier to get free arguments.
Rules:
1) Semantics allowed
2) Pro stands for death penalty, Con stands against
3) 5 rounds
1. Introduction/confirmation
2. each debater presents his arguments
3. rebuttals
4. rebuttals
5. rebuttals
4)72 hours time to argue
5) 8000 characters
6)Winner is determined by quality, development, forming of arguments; semantics etc.

Good luck and I am looking forward to thrilling debate
Bublifuk
RationalMadman

Pro

I shall 'introduce' arguments but not elaborate on them for this round.

C1: The death penalty is proportional punishment/due desert for murder.

C2: Executions help society express horror and abhorrence of murder.

C3: Executing killers is not comparable to raping rapists (I just want to say that despite this contention being valid, I support a system of raping rapists... However, I shall pretend I don't because that would make burden of proof too great for my side).

C4: Death is more compassionate than life in prison (I am using this contention to counter any points regarding justice versus mercy, if you raise mercy points I shall almost always refer to this contention).

READ THIS ONE CAREFULLY! C5: For the sake of this debate, we will be discussing the death penalty in regards to prosecutions where the one found guilty was found so without any doubt, with at least two pieces of evidence, and definitely not where the convicted was found guilty by means of probability or with less than two pieces of solid, unquestionable, evidence.

C6: Death penalty can/should inflict pain on murderers; due desert (This is a continuation of contention 4, in that contention explains how it is merciful, but this contention states how the issue of legalising it should be for the justice behind it, not the mercy).

C7: Capital punishment has a deterrent effect on criminal activities (I shall expand on evidence supporting this next round).

C8: Capital punishment is 100% effective in preventing a murderer from killing again. (I will challenge my opponent to even begin countering this contention)

C9: Executions punish the guilty so can't encourage killing the innocent (this is a pre-counter contention to the philosophical outlook that if killing is wrong, why should we kill, the issue isn't that killing is wrong, it's the purpose for killing and who you are killing that affect its need for legalisation)

C10: Rejecting calls for capital punishment risks inciting vigilante justice (Especially seen in African countries, I shall supply evidence supporting this in round two)

C11: Capital punishment relieves strains on over-populated prisons. [This explains reasoning behind contention 12].

C12: There is no valid reason that taxpayers should waste money supporting a murderer for a lifetime if that murderer doesn't give back to the economy by the time they die. This is largely due to the harm that the murderer has caused society in order to get sent to prison in the first place.

Best of luck, wisdom and fortune to my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Bublifuk

Con

Hello,
First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it will be entertaining for both of us. At the beginning I must appeal on my opponent to follow rules since first round is accepting. There wasn't any need to put arguments right there. So please just copy them again in order to follow the structure of debate.
Thank you.

Arguments:

1->It sounds as nonsense, but it's true. The death penalty cost more than life in prison. According to certain sources it's 2 millions to 500k in dollars[1]. In particular, in California they would save 170 millions $. Because the execution cost more than life in prison, it's better to ban death penalty. Subsequently, government would be able to spend money on more prosperous matters.

2->One of the most important arguments. That even evidence is irrefutable, the convicted still may be innocent. Many times after being executed, the convinced was vindicated, however, after death. This actually proves that death penalty is not considerate action

3->Death penalty serves as scary example for those who contemplate about homicide. On the other hand, this consensus is faulty.[2] A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Why it is so? For simple reason people acts in affect thus they don't realize the responsibility under which they act. As Death penalty doesn't serve as deterrent there is no need to have it.

4->Another purpose of death penalty is to avoid another homicides of convinced person, likewise, the some does life-long sentence in prison. To conclude it, it saves both money and maybe innocent people lifes. Condemned can be useful as worker somewhere more than as "corpse". Killing him appears to be pointless action.

I hope I've summed up my arguments correctly. I think, they are convincing enough to persuade potential voters to vote for Con


[1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
RationalMadman

Pro

Fine, I will copy paste my contentions... Seriously though your structure said round 1 in introduction/confirmation, not acceptance... Anyway here I go. By the way It's rude of a 'con' in a policy debate to set out parameters, in almost all policy debates, parameters of the legalisation in order is always presented, and layed out by, the pro.

C1: The death penalty is proportional punishment/due desert for murder.

C2: Executions help society express horror and abhorrence of murder.

C3: Executing killers is not comparable to raping rapists (I just want to say that despite this contention being valid, I support a system of raping rapists... However, I shall pretend I don't because that would make burden of proof too great for my side).

C4: Death is more compassionate than life in prison (I am using this contention to counter any points regarding justice versus mercy, if you raise mercy points I shall almost always refer to this contention).

READ THIS ONE CAREFULLY! C5: For the sake of this debate, we will be discussing the death penalty in regards to prosecutions where the one found guilty was found so without any doubt, with at least two pieces of evidence, and definitely not where the convicted was found guilty by means of probability or with less than two pieces of solid, unquestionable, evidence.

C6: Death penalty can/should inflict pain on murderers; due desert (This is a continuation of contention 4, in that contention explains how it is merciful, but this contention states how the issue of legalising it should be for the justice behind it, not the mercy).

C7: Capital punishment has a deterrent effect on criminal activities (I shall expand on evidence supporting this next round).

C8: Capital punishment is 100% effective in preventing a murderer from killing again. (I will challenge my opponent to even begin countering this contention)

C9: Executions punish the guilty so can't encourage killing the innocent (this is a pre-counter contention to the philosophical outlook that if killing is wrong, why should we kill, the issue isn't that killing is wrong, it's the purpose for killing and who you are killing that affect its need for legalisation)

C10: Rejecting calls for capital punishment risks inciting vigilante justice

C11: Capital punishment relieves strains on over-populated prisons. [This explains reasoning behind contention 12].

C12: There is no valid reason that taxpayers should waste money supporting a murderer for a lifetime if that murderer doesn't give back to the economy by the time they die. This is largely due to the harm that the murderer has caused society in order to get sent to prison in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2
Bublifuk

Con

Bublifuk forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

Forfeit=concession.
Debate Round No. 3
Bublifuk

Con

Bublifuk forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Bublifuk

Con

Bublifuk forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

Whether you like it or not, some criminals deserve to die.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
BublifukRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF