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

THW abolish the 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  
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: 12/23/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 98361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Round 1: Acceptance and Stance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and arguments
Round 4: Analysis and rebuttals

In a world where punishment is used for disgusting criminals, to make them feel sorry for what they have done, On the opposition side today, I oppose the motion to abolish the death penalty.


I am here to say that we should abolish the death penalty due to the fact that death penalty is inhuman and cruel to people.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank toowings4u for accepting my debate.
Sir, the global poor struggle to survive everyday, looking for food, shelter and water.
And yet, proposition want criminals, disgusting people to go into a jail with free healthcare, food and water.
On opposition side, he wants the criminals to be given such privileges that righteous people are not given.
I find it absurd, that disgusting people, who do not follow laws, who harm people (because the death penalty is often used for large and serious crimes) should be given basic rights that they have already violated.
Thus ends my first argument.

My second argument is that the state's responsibility to improve the state. That includes eliminating the bad parts of the state. Those people who have been deserved to have a death penalty, are rotten, and can:
1. Hurt the righteous people of the state by:
a) Their crimes can hurt people
b) Their being in prison is unfair and unjust
c) their resources being given to them must be obtained by tax, found from the righteous and just people of the good community
I have showed that these people are hurting the community, economy, and how that prop's argument of morality, stands no longer, because prop are withholding rights from good men, and giving those rights to disgusting people.

I rest my case.


Are resources more important than lives? No, definitely not! If our world treasure resources more important than lives, it is absolutely heartless. If resources are more precious than lives, then the so-called-criminal should not be punished, he should be rewarded instead - because he lessened the burden of other people. Is it really 'one man died, the world is better? No!!

We abolish the death penalty because we want to convey a value - lives should be treasured - to the people, including the criminals.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank sir for his first rebuttals, I will be defending today, and arguing.
toowings4u: If our world treasure resources more important than lives, it is absolutely heartless.
Sir, we accept that lives are much more important, when compared to resources, but we need to look at the cost of resources.
Resources for criminals- we refute
Resources for righteous people- we accept
These criminals have hurt people, then, they go and use tax to take away resources from people, those good people, who have worked hard for resources. These criminals are like leeches. Taking the best of the society, and harming the best of society.
Lives should be treasured, sir, we wholly accept that but we need to look at the costs and benefits of keeping these disgusting people alive.
To finish off my rebuttals, I would like to ask my opponent a question: Is it okay for a policeman to kill a culprit, perhaps during a chase?
I await your answer.

I will add an argument:

Sir, my previous arguments have been focusing on the impact on the society, as a whole. Let us focus much more precisely, on individuals. Let us move from the bigger picture, to the details. Let us change, from a macro perspective, to one of a micro.
How does the criminals and death penalty affect individuals?
Let me answer that.
Serious Criminals: These Criminals often take away the most basic right of all, the right to life. They also hurt individuals, people close to their victims, such as friends, or family.
Death Penalty: Makes individuals feel safer, knowing such a huge punishment may be in store for serious crimes. It can also make criminals think twice before committing a serious crime (e.g. raping, murder, torture)

Thus ends my 3rd round speech, I eagerly await your proposals.

I rest my case. Please vote Con.


Life is precious because all people only live once and so do criminal. Resources like money and food can be refilled but lives cannot. 'An eye for an eye' only creates hates, not forgiveness. It is a tragedy when people believe that you killed a man and you have to be killed. No one has the right to take away others' lives.

Are all the criminals found guilty? No, It might not. Some of the criminals are found innocent finally. So if they were suffered from death penalty, they have no turning back.

Our house believes that giving criminals a chance is the respect of human lives.
Debate Round No. 3


Sir, you have not answered my question, and as this is the last round, I will not be able to rebut your answer.
I invite the voter to look back, and realise that sir clearly avoided my question.

In this last round, I will be analysing this debate.
I have given you 3 arguments.
1- Unfair to poor people (not rebutted at all!!!)
2- These criminals are a burden to the state (not rebutted at all!!)
3- Proved that death penalties make righteous people in the state feel safer

My opponent, however, has done nothing but cling on to the childish idea that lives are "oh so important" while I have leaded you into reality. I have shown that even if lives are so important, we need to look at the cost of it: taking away the rights, needs and luxuries of the poor and the society as a whole.

I invite the voters to look back and see how clingy, dependent on the"life argument" Pro is.
He has based his whole case on the "Importance of Life" Argument, and I have already destroyed it. He is unwilling to accept a simple question, has many grammatical errors, and has done nothing else, but to say: Life is important.

I believe that my opponent has done absolutely NOTHING to deserve to win.

I rest my case.


I am nearly going to surrender but I would like to add one point. A policeman have to be punished or even died if he/she shot a man with no reason or the man he/she shot did not commit serious crime.

Anyway, Vote 'Pro' .
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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