The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Should there be a death penalty in Canada?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,797 times Debate No: 27472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




My first debate that I've started! My question: Should there be a death penalty in Cananda? First off, I would like to set some rules:
1. Round 1 is for acceptence and the rest of the rounds are for your argument. Round 5 can be for your conclusion.
2. Be friendly! I will try not to offend anyone who accepts my challenge and I will try not to take offense to whatever you may say. If I offend you in any way please tell me in a formal manner so I can apoligize and not make the same mistake twice.
3. Although this is a serious matter please don't be too formal. Lets have some fun with this guys! (3
4. Please be patient! As I said, I am new to this and don't fully know what I am doing. Also please don't take too long to update because I have a tight schedule, being in high school and such.

To clear up any confusion I am for the death penalty in Canada
(pro).Anyone wishing to take my challenge will be against it(con). Thanks! XD


I accept. Begin your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Wow, that was fast! Thank you so much for accepting my debate challenge! You have no idea how excited I am! Now, down to business.
I think there should be a death penalty for these simple facts:

1. If someone is going to go to jail for life without parole (I heard that in Canada the term "life" actually means only 30 years but that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a peron is going to jail for say, a 100 years. In other words, they will die before they are realeased). I say that there is no point to this. If the person is going to jail till they die why bother keeping them alive? Are we just giving them the chance to escape? That may sound harsh but to me it seems a very logical answer to this is to just kill them. In a humane way, of course. Even raging serial killers that raped and murdered like 20 innocent girls should... oh wait I think they should be tortured slowly until death. But our society doesn't work that way (which I think everyone should be thankful for). Besides, that would drag us down to their level! So the next best thing is to inject the bus-tards.

2. The amount of money the Canadian government spends on prisons is incredible. Nearly more then 3 billion dollars is spent each year to run the prisons with it costing almost 50 million to build them. These costs have gotten higher in recent years because people are now getting longer sentances and therefore, it costs more to run them. Though most prisoners are not raging lunatics that murder for pleasure, I believe that getting rid of these people will save tax-payers hundreds and also help insure their safety. (This is slightly old but I think it has some major points that I have just said).

3. I have not, nor knows anyone, that has been accused of a serious crime. However, watching stories on the news of how a man is only getting 5 years in jail for kiddie porn charges, molestation, and various other disgusting things, not only boils my blood but also scares the living sh-it out of me. And I wasn't the one that was victim to some sick-o. Think of how the victim and their family feels. Would they feel safe that there was always a chance that the same guy is coming to get them? Wouldn't they move on faster, go to bed at night happy, knowing that they and their family was safe? That the rage and hatred and guilt would fade away (faster) knowing justice had been served? If anything, people should get longer sentences. But my debate isn't on how screwed up the justice system is, it's about the death penalty. Yet I think it would please the public more that the guy is dead then that he is being treated better then the victims.

ONE IMPORTANT THING I SHOULD ADD: I think the death penalty should only be used in certain cases such as: there is hard edvidence to a serious crime such as murder or rape, that there is hard edvidence that the person accused will not stop, and as in my first point the person is just going to jail for the rest of their life anyways. More simplier crimes like drug charges, manslaughter, DUI's, prostatution, and stealing should not be reasons to use the death penalty. That just seems a little over the top to me.

Some Definations: (not in the proper order, sorry)
parole: 1. Law
a. Early release of a prisoner who is then subject to continued monitoring as well as compliance with certain terms and conditions for a specified period.
b. The duration of such conditional release.

D.U.I.: short for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Manslaughter: The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

molestation: the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape.

Prostitution: The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment.

Serial killer: someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval.

Murder(duh): The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another; Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Sorry for some of the more obvious definations. I eagerly await your response to my debate. Best of luck! You'll need it! (Hehe, sorry just HAD to add that!) XD Respond soon and once again I thank you for accepting my challenge!


I am not concerned with the financial costs of execution vs. incarceration, as the cost is entirely irrelevant; what we really need to decide is if killing a detained individual is ever justified. If it is found to be immoral, we can never justify it through material wealth and expense.

The death penalty is always unjustifiable.

No one ever deserves to die. This includes the worst criminals imaginable. Life is something fragile, sacred. This is why the taking of life, even accidentally, is awful and in most cases, punishable to a certain extent. For the state to think permitting execution is anything less than hypocrisy is abhorrent. On what grounds do you justify killing someone who is not of an immediate threat to your well-being? Punishment for wrong-doing? Then why cannot the killer use that same argument to justify their murder? Why could a murderer not claim in court they killed because "so-and-so did me wrong, so I killed them"? The state has no more right to kill people than any individual citizen.

I will say it again, no one ever deserves to die. The only time the intentional killing of another human can ever be justified is in the case of self-defense. When someone's livelihood is being threatened, and in order to protect it, are forced to kill the other. But this is not the case when it comes to execution. These people are already detained. Neutralized. We therefore have no excuse for killing them. This is not justice, this is vengeance, and in some cases, racial and sexual discrimination, masquerading as justice. And I say it again, if we would not allow those excuses from the average citizen, it is nothing less than hypocrisy to allow them from the state.

I expect this line of argument will throw my opponent off, so I'll leave it off here, and allow them to gather their bearings. I assume they were preparing for a financial, a practical argument. As I said, this is irrelevant, compared to the morality of it. Before we can even begin to discuss the practicality of the death penalty, we must decide if it is truly moral and just. If my opponent cannot show that the death penalty is justifiable and moral, they cannot reasonably defend it's usage.
Debate Round No. 2


Now, I'll agree the death penalty may not seem justifiable to some but to others it is. In other words there will never be a full agreement on whether or not a person deserves to die. It's like on the topic of abortation. Many believe that it is the killing of a human while others say it's the mother's choice and truely it isn't a person yet. I agree with your statement that "Nobody deserves to die." But where will it end? The world is overpopulated as it is, so even if killing is wrong, wouldn't it seem ummm, I guess easier? Truely, all in all, I agree with most of what you said. Self-defense is really the only reason a person should kill. But it isn't always like that. People kill for no purpose, for their own profit. That is the type of world we live in. And whether or not the action is wrong, I know I, with many others, would feel much safer going to bed at night knowing a deranged person will never, ever be hurting others again. You have to remember what I said, I believe the death penalty should only be used in certain cases. I especially want you to think on the idea that if a person is going to jail for the rest of your life it seems illogical to throw them to the wolves. The other imates might not like the type of crime the other commited and the peson would either be shanked and die a painfully (slow, depending on where they are stabbed) death or be gang-raped so much that they wish to die.

I'm sorry for the fact that my ideas seem to jump around and I'm not positive I answered your questions correctly but I did my best! One last thing I should meantion: THE COST IS RELEVENT!!! Though I'm still young and therefore don't pay taxes yet, I still know that whether or not it's wrong I don't want to pay for the killers to be thrown into prison to rot untill they die. It seems much simplier to ummm, "get rid of 'em" then throw away my money. I want to go to school, maybe start a family, and live an ok life. I don't want, no matter how little it is, wasted on the scumbags of society. I'm sorry if that is harsh sounding but it is truth...

I await your reply.


1. "...the death penalty may not seem justifiable to some but to others it is."

Perhaps my opponent can clarify what they are trying to get across here, but I would like to point out that this is a debate. Of course there is disagreement on whether or not it is justifiable. That is why we are debating. To see if it is justifiable or not. There can only be one truth. Either the death penalty is morally acceptable and justifiable in some circumstances, or it is not. Someone must be wrong. so to say "well, some people think it's justifiable, and others don't" gets us no where, and destroys the spirit of debate.

Justice cannot be a subjective thing, else it is no longer justice, but simply personal desire.

2. "I agree with your statement that "Nobody deserves to die."

If you agree that nobody deserves to die, then there is not point in furthering the debate, as if no one deserves to die, capital punishment is completely and utterly unjustifiable. The idea of justice is to give what is deserved, to make things right. Not to fulfill people's subjective desires for vengeance and bloodshed. If the killing of a neutralized, incarcerated individual is unjustifiable, than doing so is inherently unjust, and therefore, should not be committed by any justice system. If this is indeed what you believe, then you have conceded the entire debate.

3. "The world is overpopulated as it is, so even if killing is wrong, wouldn't it seem ummm, I guess easier?"

If we wish to uphold the notion of justice, we cannot commit immoral acts, or else we become hypocrites. What would we be if we said "you cannot do this action because it is immoral", and then turn right around and say "even though killing you is unjustifiable, it's easier, so let's do it"? How could we logically punish the former individual, yet excuse our own actions? We cannot. The proposition is illogical and hypocritical.

Just because something is easier does not make it "right" or "okay". It might be easier to kill those who disagree with you, or it might be easier to emotionally abuse someone so that they are submissive to you, but this odes not make these actions okay or morally permissible. This notion that what's easy is what's best is childish.

4. "People kill for no purpose, for their own profit. That is the type of world we live in. And whether or not the action is wrong, I know I, with many others, would feel much safer going to bed at night knowing a deranged person will never, ever be hurting others again."

The existence of wrongdoings does not justify further wrongdoings. You cannot begin to logically justify an immoral act by pointing at others doing similar immoral acts. Living in a world where people kill unjustifiably does not justify killing. The very fact that we say their killing is unjustifiable is evidence of the fact that we are appealing to some system of morality and justice. If their killing is wrong, then our killing is wrong. If our killing isn't wrong, then we cannot logically claim that their killing is wrong.

As for your comment about feeling safe, I find it particularly damning, especially when you say, "...whether or not the action is wrong...", which shows you are arguing from a state of complete disregard for morality. Whether or not capital punishment is wrong? Whether or not it is wrong is a pressing issue, and if the action is wrong, then no, sorry, but your sense of safety does NOT excuse an immoral act. That is not logically sound reasoning. The basis of an immoral act is that it is inexcusable. You cannot excuse the inexcusable.

5. "You have to remember what I said, I believe the death penalty should only be used in certain cases."

Those certain cases are irrelevant, as I am arguing capital punishment is always unjustifiable. It is immoral. Meaning it would be immoral and unjustifiable even for the few situations you seem to want to use it for.

6. "The other imates might not like the type of crime the other committed and the peson would either be shanked and die a painfully...death or be gang-raped so much that they wish to die. THERE ARE WORSE THINGS THEN DEATH."

While I agree these are legitimate concerns, they are incapable of justifying something which is unjustifiable. If capital punishment, as I argue, is immoral, than the risk of being murdered or raped in prison is not an excuse for the state to kill someone, as the state never has the right to execute someone. Period.


The cost is irrelevant, for as I have stated several times in this post, capital punishment is immoral. If an action is immoral, it cannot be justified ever. This means that you cannot justify execution based on cost benefit analysis. Rendering the cost irrelevant to this debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok for #1: "...the death penalty may not seem justifiable to some but to others it is."
Sorry if this was slightly confusing. What I am trying to point out is that there really is no right answer to "should there be a death penalty" because there are so many different opinions. To say "Someone must be wrong" is incorrect. Ths doesn't have to be a black and white world. There is no "this is right and this is wrong." That is how the world works and I doubt it can be changed. And as for the subject of justice take a look around you. When the system lets someone clearly guilty walk, how can that be justiable? It's not. Though money, delays, the twisting of words and loopholes not many actually get what they deserve. So ask yourself: Who is it that truely gets to judge that those like myself don't believe that justice is actually about what's right and wrong, but about money, money and more money. If that's not wrong, giving justice to only those that can't buy their way out, what is?

#2: I'm very sorry for my poor wording here that obviously confused you. And truely, I have no idea why I said that. I can't really remember what I was thinking but I'll give it my best shot to try to explain.
You say nobody deserves to die but as I said before "where will this end?" And who truely chooses whether a person is deserving? And don't say "God" or whatever because he isn't here on earth. So the answer to this question is: Nobody. But if we don't take action nothing will ever happen.

#3: I'll admit, you have me whipped on this one. So I will surrender this arguement with as much dignity that I have left. (You are right. Just because the answer is easier doesn't make it right.)
However, the same could be said of prisons. Instead of really dealing with the problem we just throw it behind bars because it's "easier" and costs less time and money.

#4: I completly disagree with you on the safety part. The justice system was designed to help stop evil and therefore bring safety to others. The justice system is failing at this. And another point I should add is that there are different ways that killing is seen. Though just because a killing was "accidental" doesn't excuse the crime, it does show an important moral. The person didn't mean to kill someone else compared to someone who knew what they were doing. The death penalty would be killing for JUSTICE! Think of people in war. They go off and kill tons of people. They might not want to but they do in full awareness. Yet you don't see them getting thrown in jail. No, they are seen as heroes defending their freedom and country though the actions are almost exact to murder.

#5: The cases are relevent. Should someone who murdered go to jail for the same amount of time for maybe someone caught with drugs? Would that be justiable, having the same amount of punishment for all crimes, no matter how one may be worse then another? That would be wrong and is the reason there is different amounts of sentences for different crimes and their seriousnesses. As the fact goes, a druggie should not be injected compared to a serial killer.

#6: Ok I'm not going to respond to this one because I believe it is slightly stupid now and irrelevent.

#7: Society is run on those that have the most money. You can not argue with this fact (Though I'll bet you'll try). Therefore, the cost is relevent.

One last thing, please could you not use such big words? Sorry that sounds stupid but I am only 14 and English is not my strongest suit. It makes it very diffacult to debate when I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
I await your response.


Ah. I didn't know about your personal challenges with English. I'll try to tone down the formality.

1. "
What I am trying to point out is that there really is no right answer to "should there be a death penalty" because there are so many different opinions."

If you are not even willing to claim that your own stance is "right", then why are we debating? This moral subjectivity coming from you in this post completely destroys the spirit of debate. Not to mention that it is false. Multiple beliefs do not give rise to multiple truths in this case. Either something is just, or unjust. It cannot be both, as both concepts are opposites. So, as you put it, since many people believe different things, many people must be wrong on the issue. It is not incorrect to say someone is wrong, because truth is not relative. Truth is a constant, and applies to everyone and everything. So either truthfully capital punishment is just, and I am wrong, or it is truthfully unjust, and you are wrong.

You raise an excellent point about the justice system being flawed and often bought out by the wealthier. I agree completely. However, once again, you cannot justify a wrong action by pointing to other wrong actions being committed. As the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because the rich abuse the justice system to their advantage, and just because the guilty sometimes walk free, does not justify killing people, because killing people is still wrong whether or not those things are occurring.

2. You say nobody deserves to die but as I said before "where will this end?" And who truly chooses whether a person is deserving?

Nobody chooses who is deserving. Nobody deserves that power over life and death. We as a society have determined killing to be morally wrong, because it generates great harm. For this reason, the state killing people cannot be justified, because it brings about the same exact harm. If we desire to live in a truly just and civil society, we cannot encouraged the use of something as barbaric as capital punishment, and a mindset of "you can live and you get to die". All we are doing then is fostering a culture of violence, which seeks to solve problems through brutalization, and death, rather than working through problems in a civil and peaceful manner.

3. However, the same could be said of prisons. Instead of really dealing with the problem we just throw it behind bars because it's "easier" and costs less time and money.

This is actually very true, and while irrelevant to this debate, is something I have been pondering as well. Whether or not jails can truly be justified. But that is neither ere nor there in this debate. Another time perhaps.

4. "The justice system was designed to help stop evil and therefore bring safety to others."

There's an important distinction to be made here. The justice system was designed to bring justice. Not safety. Sometimes in bringing justice it brings safety, but not always. And seeking safety is not always just. Consider the Japanese interment in America during World War II. Certainly not just, and yet it was done for the sake of safety. Safety does not necessarily equal justice.

I always would question where it is you get the notion that incarceration is somehow more dangerous than execution. Do you have any statistics on the rate of prisoner breakout amongst violent individuals who are on death row/in prison for life? I will argue that you will find no such statistic in your favor. Someone locked up for life is neutralized and contained. They are of no threat to you or anyone else. This idea that you then need to kill them in order to be "safe" is ridiculous. You're not looking for safety, you are simply looking for an excuse for vengeance and bloodshed.

You cannot kill for justice when you are (1) killing someone against their will, and (2) they are not an immediate threat to you. The actions of soldiers therefore can be seen as heroic and defendable, depending upon the cause they are fighting for, because their actions do not fulfill the above two criteria. The problem with the death penalty is that it fulfills both those, rendering it unjust.

5. The cases are relevent.

No, they are irrelevant. Allow me to explain why.

We are not having a debate on how long someone should be incarcerated, or how drastic their punishment should be (on the whole). We are discussing one specific type of punishment, and one specific type of punishment only. Capital punishment. Of course someone who commits murder should have a harsher penalty than someone who, says, drives drunk and hits a bus sign. But the point I am trying to get across to you is that neither of them deserve death, because no one deserves death. No one, no matter what their crime is, deserves death. The justice system cannot justify killing people as punishment, while punishing people for doing the same thing. It is hypocritical and illogical.

If no one, no matter what their crimes is, deserves death, then to bring up the various cases is nonsensical, as they are irrelevant; it do not matter what crime someone committed, they do not deserve to be killed.

That is why the cases are irrelevant. Because no case warrants someone being killed.

6. Society is run on those that have the most money. You can not argue with this fact (Though I'll bet you'll try). Therefore, the cost is relevent.

Society is indeed run by money, but again, that does not mean money can justify immoral acts. For instance, if someone told you to kill your best friend, you would say that's wrong and horrible. And if they offered you a large amount of money, the action of killing your friend would still be wrong, regardless of how much money they offer you. The same can be said about execution. The cost does not matter, because if execution is immoral, then it is unjustifiable. Period. No amount of money can justify an immoral act.
Debate Round No. 4


I do believe that first comment of yours was an insult to me but I'll let it slide for now. So, last round hah? I better make it count then...

1. I am stating here that in my opinion it is just but to others it is not. That was all I was trying to get across: there are different opinions for different people.
As for your opinion that something has to be just right or just wrong I'm sorry but you are wrong. There is no clear judgement in the world. If there was there would be no problems in the world because everyone would know exactly what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, problems would be avoided.

2. Did you not read more of what I said here? ("You say nobody deserves to die but as I said before "where will this end?" And who truly chooses whether a person is deserving?") Yes I said this but after that I also said that nothing would happen if we all just sat around doing nothing. Actions must take place if anything helpful is going to happen to the system.

3. I'll let this go. I really don't want to try to explain further.

4. Fine, whatever, justice isn't always safety. But the idea of justice is fairness in treating a person. If we throw someone in jail or slap them with a fine who says they won't just do the crime again? That isn't very FAIR to the people! Because then nothing really helped to stop it right? I am not saying to kill people with the possibility that they may commit the same crime again (or a worse crime) but to just prove a point here.
As for the army and soldiers, they are basically killing someone without their will. I mean, who would willing hand over their life? Besides the suicide bombers and terroists of course. No, a person will fight tooth and nail to live. And though it might be self-defense they did go to war in full awareness that they would have to kill. And though the enemies may not be an immediate threat they still want to kill them don't they? And they will try, while they have the element of surprise.
Again, I don't think this is very important to the debate, I'm just trying to prove a point.

5. The only arguement you have here is that the cases aren't relevent because nobody deserves to die. That is actually your entire arguement for this whole debate and it isn't a very strong point. Allow me to explain: just because you say it's wrong, is it? Many people believe that certain people deserve to die. (And I realize you are now going to say something about how "That doesn't matter, This is ruining the spirit of debate, blah blah whatever")
The cases are relevent because it decides who actually might deserve this type of punishment.

6. I'm not saying money justifies a moral action I'm saying this as a point. The system (and the world) is run on money. Period.

So this is the last round of my debate. I would like to thank anyone who took the time to read this (in my opinion) quite long, boring, and useless debate. And my last point is: MY OPPONENT'S ONLY ARGUEMENT THOUGH THIS WHOLE THING WAS THAT NO ONE DESERVES TO DIE! THIS I HAVE CHALLENGED FURTHER UP.

To my opponent: No offense or anything but I didn't enjoy this debate at all. You weren't a very fun person to debate with and I found myself dreading the time when it came for me to post my next arguement. However, I will try not to hold hard feelings against you because I'm pretty sure you have whipped my a-s-s in this (LOL XD), though I still think you are wrong about many of the thing we have discussed. Anyways, don't feel offended if I, like, never challenge you again. This was much to formal for my taste and I often had to keep my anger and annoyance out of my typing because, truthfully, you were piss-ing me off! (which really isn't actaully hard but you get what I mean). May the best man (or girl!) win.

VOTE PRO!!! And that is my last word! ;)


Oh no, I wasn't trying to insult you. You said English wasn't your strong suit. I was noting it and telling you I would try and speak in a way that made things easier for you. I didn't mean to offend you. I understand I can be rather...formal. Even if I don't mean to. Just instinct. I apologize.

Well, this is the last round. I will give some very brief rebuttals, summarize the events of the debate, and leave the vote up to the viewing audience.

1. Clear judgment and right and wrong are two different things. Just because some people may not have discovered truth, does not mean there are not definite truths about life.

2. Action must take place, yes. I never contested this. But you seem to assume the only alternative to incarceration is death. This is a false dichotomy.

3. You have a very valid point about how jailing does not necessarily prevent crime, and I agree. But that does not mean we can justify killing. All it means is, we need a better solution than simply jailing. Say...rehabilitation?

4. If there is nothing wrong with killing people, then there is no reason to criminalize certain murderous behaviors in the first place. But we do, and thus, we, as a race, have determined that life should not be so hastily taken. However, having agreed upon this, there is then no justification for the state to take a life; it is hypocritical. For if killing someone out of vengeance is illegal, so too should it be with the state, and killing as "punishment". They are the same action. Again, capital punishment is not justice. It is vengeance, masquerading as justice.

The basis for not killing in the first place is because it causes misery and suffering, which, as no one wishes to experience true suffering, we should be avoiding. Since no one wishes to truly suffer, we should instead seek to maximize freedoms, and limit harms. This is why killing is wrong; it is an avoidable harm.

Individuals viewing his debate, there are several things you need to take into account. My argument has been that the death penalty cannot be justified, unless it is to be found morally acceptable. I have proposed that since no one deserves to die, no one can morally justify the death penalty. Now, my opponent has made several concessions throughout this debate, including agreeing with me that no one deserves to die. If my opponent agrees, that no one deserves to die, then how can she reasonably defend execution? It is impossible. No, it would seem to me, and I hope to all of you, that what occurred here was this: My opponent came in, defending execution through financial reasoning. When I point out the moral conundrum that this causes she agrees, but hastily attempts to avoid the fact, for as Pro she cannot afford to concede what is, in essence, the entire debate. For that is the question. Do people deserve to be killed, under any circumstance? I propose no, and my opponent has agreed. Therefore, the choice of victor should be obvious.

It is only logical to oppose capital punishment, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by blackfirewolf 3 years ago
ahhh you know, i was kinda disappointed that so few people actually looked in on this debate. and that i lost it (XD). anyways, if anyone does ever read this let me just say this: i probably sounded kinda snarky to my opponent but i am sorry about that. i have messaged chaosheart back after she messaged me saying sorry. in that way i hope there is no hard feelings between us and that maybe oneday we could have a less serious debate.

congrats on winning! :D truely the better person won.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
Not too bad. Both debaters are newish to the site so welcome and good effort! Message me for more feedback. I'll just judge this like a regular debate. Pro and con both started by asserting their cases without really engaging with each other. Con should have attacked pro's case right from the start as well as building their own. Pro's responses to this were rather unfocused, lacking in structure, and consequentually assertive. Con had much better structure and this had a strong impact on the quality of their rebuttal. Pro improved in this as the debate progressed. Con could have improved their rebuttal somewhat by not rebutting pro's words but the more general principles that underpinned them. Pro had BOP. Pro had to show why we should accept a moral basis. Issues such as society suffering and cost were thrown about, but con was able to parry all that by arguing death is always immoral. Pro did not have a sufficiently clear or consistent response to this point, perhaps because of the issue of structure. This is what pro needed to win, and unfortunately lacked in this debate. Having said that - pro, don't feel discouraged, because you've made a really great effort here and it's really obvious in your arguments. Good luck to both of you for any future debates you have.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: See comments.