The Instigator
Ismagulova
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Losing
5 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 4 votes the winner is...
Ismagulova
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 38065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Ismagulova

Pro

Capital punishment shoul be legal for some cruel crimes, like pedophilia or too cruel killing of human being. Because people like these usually have psychological problems, and if they rid from prison, they surely will do it again, and people may will suffer.
henryajevans

Con

'like pedophilia'

Paedophilia is a mental disorder. It has a huge amount of possible and probable causes, and should be and is considered in most parts of the post-enlightenment world to be an illness. A person that conducts themselves in any mentally ill manner should have the right to help from the government to allow them to control and eventually eradicate the behaviour.

'too cruel killing of human being'

Killing is killing, regardless of the method. All that matters is that they did it and the cause for it. It's not the eighteenth century; people don't duel with each other over honour anymore. If I stab someone and leave them to die, how is that worse than shooting them with a sniper rifle clean through the head? It's not, really. All that matters are the circumstances, such as a robbery gone wrong, a fit of passion or a mental illness.

'Because people like these usually have psychological problems'

So you admit that most people who commit paedophilia and murder are mentally ill, yet still believe that killing them is the best option. That's just barbarism. If they are mentally ill, it is not their fault that they commit crimes. But you would punish them.
Debate Round No. 1
Ismagulova

Pro

If they are mentally ill, it is not their fault that they commit crimes."
If it is not their fault, that they are ill and are committing the crime, may be we will not punish them at all and just let them commit their further crimes? And it is not the fault of children who after such kind of accidents have psychological traumas and emotional problems for all life. It is an absurdity. Real barbarism is giving them one more chance to do such kind of things. In addition practice shows some children who were victims of pedophilia, became mentally ill too. So each mentally ill person is the risk for the society.
In addition I said USUALLY, not always. Some of murders are not mentally ill, they do it intentionally. It shows their inhumanity and cruelty. And do you think such kind of people deserve forgiveness?
henryajevans

Con

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ismagulova

Pro

In addition populace pays for their accommodation in prison, for their food and drinks, as a tax. While some families can not even find money for their own food, do not saying about food for murders.
henryajevans

Con

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Go ahead
Posted by Aadron 3 years ago
Aadron
Henry, may I please challenge you to a debate upon the same question that the PRO side of the argument posed? I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty but wish to play devil's advocate and shall argue for the side of the death penalty.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jonathan11 3 years ago
Jonathan11
IsmagulovahenryajevansTied
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: The pro was arguing against the proposition.
Vote Placed by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
IsmagulovahenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, as is his custom, so conduct goes to Pro. Con had better spelling and grammar. Pro's arguments must have been more convincing since Con was forced to give up. Neither side used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
IsmagulovahenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con FF'd. Spelling and Grammar was relatively bad on Pros behalf. Sources: Neither side had any. Arguments: Aside from FF'ing, 'Con did good to make an argument, but didn't uphold those arguments when refuted.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
IsmagulovahenryajevansTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF