The Instigator
Kingjames
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BillBonJovi
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should their be a death penalty

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2010 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,203 times Debate No: 13797
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Kingjames

Con

No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty. They are still nice people, they should not be punished that harshily. Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty
BillBonJovi

Pro

I thank CON for making this debate; it is nice to meet CON.

Now on to the debate... seeing as my opponent is from America I have assumed that we are talking about the North American death penalty in general. If it was meant to be death penalties worldwide then my opponent should have mentioned that in his first round.

Using the following reference about death penalty procedures as my information source for my whole first round:
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

My opponent said in his first round in relation to the death penalty:

"No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty."

REBUTTAL: It appears CON does not properly understand how the Death penalty works. NO ONE will be given a death penalty unless they are proven guilty of a crime considered to be very evil like many murders. People who are "speeding or parked in a wrong spot" (as CON seemed to think) do not get Death penalties, the very most they will get is several years in prison.

-----------------------
-----------------------

Also CON said:

"Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty"

REBUTTAL: It is true that this is worse than People who are "speeding or parked in a wrong spot" but even drug possession, gun possession, or attempted suicide are still not likely enough to have a criminal awarded a death penalty (at least in North America anyway).

-----------------------
-----------------------

CONCLUSION:
So far my opponent has been illogical and failed to get his facts right, seeing as we have four rounds in this debate I will give my opponent another chance to make his argument more logical.
Debate Round No. 1
Kingjames

Con

My opponent only said what he think that I responsed wrong, he never defended his statement about the death penalty. Now to defend my statement, talking about the speeding ticket and parking ticket, that was just an example of why there should not be a death penalty. Here is my best reason of why there should be no death penalty. Some people who have commited a deadly crime, they are usually masterminds and can escape the scene and disguise themselves to never be caughten. In this case, there are some other people who look just like them and maybe considered a possible suspect. If you watch "Law and Order" Episode 103, one guy was sentenced to a death penalty but he was not the victim, he was the twin of the victim, but later the twin who was the real murderer felt guilty and didnt want his brother to bear the pain so he pleaded guilty. Now if there was a death penalty in which my opponent agrees to have, that honest person and truthful person wouldve been sent to jail for just being a twin and then you have a murderer gone free. Therefore a death penalty should not be taking into consideration
BillBonJovi

Pro

After reading my opponent's second round it makes me think that my opponent did not read my first round properly at all.

First of all, my opponent said:

"My opponent only said what he think that I responsed wrong, he never defended his statement about the death penalty. Now to defend my statement, talking about the speeding ticket and parking ticket, that was just an example of why there should not be a death penalty."

REBUTTAL: I urge CON re-read my response in the first round again only this time more properly. The facts are all there, and it's impossible for someone to get a death penalty for getting a speeding ticket and parking ticket. So there is no point in even considering that as an example to argue against the common death penalty.

-----------------------
-----------------------

My opponent then said:

"Here is my best reason of why there should be no death penalty. Some people who have commited a deadly crime, they are usually masterminds and can escape the scene and disguise themselves to never be caughten. In this case, there are some other people who look just like them and maybe considered a possible suspect."

REBUTTAL: This may appear to be a valid point, but once again as I said in my first round NO ONE will be given a death penalty unless they are PROVEN guilty of a crime. So in reality if someone is accused of a crime but is actually innocent then it's impossible for them to be PROVEN guilty. Please read the following source it supports my argument: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

-----------------------
-----------------------

Finally my opponent said:

"If you watch "Law and Order" Episode 103, one guy was sentenced to a death penalty but he was not the victim, he was the twin of the victim, but later the twin who was the real murderer felt guilty and didnt want his brother to bear the pain so he pleaded guilty. Now if there was a death penalty in which my opponent agrees to have, that honest person and truthful person wouldve been sent to jail for just being a twin and then you have a murderer gone free. Therefore a death penalty should not be taking into consideration"

REBUTTAL: "Law and Order" is a fictional TV series; in the real world it would not be that easy to do that. In the real world a whole background and family gets tracked down so if they were twins, the police would know right away. The Police could have used psychiatrists and lie detectors to correctly determine a case that would lead to a death penalty. Also DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence (even twins have different DNA).

-----------------------
-----------------------

CONCLUSION:
Yet again my opponent has failed to make his argument against the real modern day death penalty logical. Once again I will give my opponent another chance to make his argument truly logical.
Debate Round No. 2
Kingjames

Con

Kingjames forfeited this round.
BillBonJovi

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the previous round and has still not got his logic correct yet.

For this round I will just state facts why the death penalty should be used:

1.The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.

2.It creates another form of crime deterrent.

3.Justice is better served.

4.Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.

5.It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.

6.DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.

7.Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.

8.It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.

9.It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.
Debate Round No. 3
Kingjames

Con

Kingjames forfeited this round.
BillBonJovi

Pro

BillBonJovi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Kingjames, no officer here would be stupid enough for that mistake. Your whole background and family gets tracked down so if there were twins, the police would know right away.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
I am willing to accept this debate. However I can't truely debate with the Time to Argue being only 3 hours.
KingJames if please make the Time to Argue at least a day and I will accept the debate.
Posted by Raziel 6 years ago
Raziel
Why is this in sports? And i may accept this if you present your case in the first round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
KingjamesBillBonJoviTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
KingjamesBillBonJoviTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07