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

Should there be a death penalty?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/30/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 44956
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)





1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.


Also rewarding

Alright. The death penalty is a punishment. In some cases, punishments are imposed for the person to learn. In other cases, they are imposed in retribution of an offense, thus proving that the death penalty is indeed a punishment. If they were only imposed for the person to learn, then it wouldn't be a punishment, as you don't give the criminal a chance to rehabilitate and change, but you rather completely remove them from existence.

However, it is also a reward, as if you were imprisoned for life, it will be cruel, considering the behavior of their inmates. However, if you are penalized by death (As apparently, your crime can be severe enough to warrant the death penalty), you won't have to go through that.


The existence of the death penalty deters people. It for sure deters me.


If a criminal murders (The act of unlawfully killing someone[1]) someone, in return, they deserve to be penalized by death, as the death penalty is also imposed in retribution of an offense, and they'll come out equal and evenly.


Thank you for offering the opportunity to debate this.
I accept.
Since you have given your arguments in round 1 and haven't said otherwise, I will go ahead and present my arguments, as well.


There have been numerous cases of law enforcement catching the wrong people and falsely charging them with criminal offenses [1][2][3]. If a death penalty is given to an innocent convict, then the state is pretty much committing murder themselves, which defeats the entire purpose of the justice system and greatly reduces the credibility of the government. There is no way to reverse a death penalty once the actual culprit is caught, either. At least if the falsely accused was just thrown in jail, the state could still reverse the punishment (to some extent).

In some cases, when the offender has committed a very, very serious crime, such as mass murder, painlessly killing them with a chemical-filled syringe is letting them off EASY, especially since many of them have already resolved to die before committing such crimes [4]. For many, the psychological impact of solitary confinement for years upon years is a much better tool of punishment. It also gives the convict plenty of time to contemplate and regret what they've done, rather than just die and having that being the end of the story.

In most cases, administering a SINGLE death penalty costs much MORE than keeping that person in jail for their entire life, due to the expensive appeals process and the price of the chemicals needed for the execution [5]. USA is a nation already ridden with debt, and there is no reason to make it worse, when there is a much more cost effective method of punishment.

I look forward to seeing your rebuttals.
Good luck!


Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting this debate.



There are years before execution now. And during that year period, you will take a DNA test. So, I don't think that an innocent can be penalized by death anymore.


Like I said, it is a punishment. However, it is also a reward, as your experience in prison will most likely be cruel, considering your inmates' behavior. However, it is enough of a punishment. You murdered (The act of unlawfully killing someone) a person, so the same happens to you. In retribution of that offense (Crime). And with that, both the criminal and victim come out equal and evenly.


Juries tend to agree with the death penalty, regardless of consequences. So, that's really on them.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.




I suppose I will do as my opponent has done and give rebuttals to his round 1 contentions.

Rebuttal 1: "Also Rewarding"
Here, Pro argues against long term imprisonment with two points:

1) "If they were only [imprisoned] for the person to learn, then it wouldn't be a punishment"
2) "if [they] were imprisoned for life, it will be cruel"

I find it hard to give a rebuttal to this because Pro seems to have contradicted himself by saying that long term imprisonment is both too light of a punishment as well as too harsh of a punishment...

Rebuttal 2: Deterrence
Pro argues that "the existence of the death penalty deters people".
However, he hasn't provided any sort of evidence for that claim.
In addition, long term imprisonment is quite a harsh punishment, so I would argue that it would deter people from committing crime just as well.

Rebuttal 3: Retribution:
Here, my opponent argues that the only way to get a murderer back fair and square is to kill them.
However, as I've argued several times, long term imprisonment is often harsher than death penalty, even according to psychological research [1].

Debate Round No. 2


Politician forfeited this round.


My opponent has not been online in 3 days.
I certainly hope he comes back to finish the debate...

I will refrain from posting anything this round.
Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


Politician forfeited this round.


It is unfortunate that my opponent has ended the debate pre-maturely.

Extend all arguments.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 4 years ago

250 M in cali.
Posted by dtaylor971 4 years ago
I did a debate on this once. I can't remember my exact words, but I think I said something like "100M per death penalty" and it was true.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 4 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF