The Death Penalty Is Wrong & Should Be Banned
Debate Rounds (3)
I shall be arguing how the Death Penalty is unjust and morally wrong on every level. Can you argue against that???
For the first round please just put your acceptance message.
Pro must prove that the Death Penalty is unjust and morally wrong on every level. I, as Con, must show how the Death Penalty is just and right.
I except the fact that everyone waiting on death row has done something extremely wrong and therefore that is why they are awaiting execution. Lets look at that word in further detail; EXECUTION. Isn't that what they did in the olden days with kings and queens: 'CUT OF THEIR HEAD!'. When you think about cutting off someone's head it sounds cruel and evil just like executing someone or killing them in any other way they do it is cruel and evil. Yes, the reason they're on death row probably IS because they have murdered somebody. HOWEVER they are human beings too and lets not forget humans make MISTAKES. Now you may be thinking 'is she mad or what?' The answer is NO, I'm not mad at all. I just have a heart and can forgive people for what they have done. As long as the person is deeply sorry for what they have done and can recognise and be sorry for their wrong doings, they should be forgiven and be given another chance at life. Not all murderers are bad people.
2.) GOD FORGIVES:-
I am a Catholic so don't be surprised as I give you evidence from the Bible that God forgives....YES, even criminals and murderers. Don't get me wrong here; murdering is a SIN, no doubt about it. You will surely go to HELL if you commit murder, UNLESS you repent, pray and ask God for forgiveness. If you're not Christian you still have to recognise what you have done wrong and STILL turn to God for guidnece and forgiveness. If you do this and are genuine there is no reason why you should have to go through the death penalty.
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you.
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.
Leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." ... How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
I have much more to say but lets see how you respond to this...
1. Nobody Deserves to be Killed on Purpose.
Pro presented a long, rambling, confusing supporting paragraph for this argument. She began by trying to appeal emotionally that "cutting off heads" was cruel and evil. Then she said that murderers made mistakes, that they should be given a second chance, and that not all murderers are bad people. If you think about this logically, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, the death penalty does not utilize the cruel method of "cutting off" one's head, it also is a modern punishment, not merely reserved for "olden kings and queens". This was an emotional appeal by my opponent that has no place in today's debate. Also, I would agree that all murderers have made mistakes by murdering people. However, this does NOT merit a "second chance". A second chance for what? To murder someone again? What if the murderers don't think they've made a mistake? My opponent again utilized an emotional appeal, stating that she "has a heart and can forgive people for what they have done". Forgiveness is a separate issue from punishment. Whether or not I forgive someone has no bearing on whether or not they deserve a punishment. Pro has repeatedly used an emotional appeal as a "straw man" in this debate. Moving on, even if the murderers are "deeply sorry" for their crimes, (again the "forgiveness" appeal) this does not merit a "second chance at life". Now remember, we are discussing whether or not anyone deserves death as a punishment. If a murderer has killed someone, in order for true justice, he must be given the same amount of a "second chance at life" as his victim: none. There was no second chance for his victim. The murderer deserves death for his deeds, no matter if he is forgiven, no matter if he is "deeply sorry". These have no bearing on the crime committed, and consequently have no bearing on the punishment.
2. God forgives
As I have already pointed out, forgiveness has nothing to do with punishment. Just because we forgive someone does not make their sin any less deserving of punishment. My opponent brought no reasons, not even any Bible verses, supporting her assertion that if you "turn to God" there is no reason to be put to death. The reason she could not show this is because it is impossible. The Bible is 100% clear on the punishment for murder: "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed." (Genesis 9:6a) This verse both sets out the punishment for murder and gives explicit authority to man to execute this punishment. The verses my opponent brought up are, again, a straw man, and have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
In conclusion, I've shown how Pro's arguments are faulty. I've also shown using her own source, the Bible, that murderers deserve and should receive the death penalty. Thus, it is easy to see that a Death Penalty is justified, and should not be banned.
My paragraphs were CLEAR to read I'm sure anyone else could see that it made sense, in the sense of being NOT confusing. Did I at any point say that the death penalty utilizes 'cutting off the head', NO I did not. If you read it correctly you would have seen that I said that is and example of execution and that the death penalty uses other forms of execution therefore being just as bad. I also don't believe that murdering someone merits a second chance, who does? What I need to state is that you have to think out of the box. Don't just put all murderers in a stereotype that they're all bad people. We have to think about what made the murderer kill in the first place. Let me give some examples; mental health issues, stress issues, anger problems, childhood problems. These things should never been taken lightly and only be taken into consideration.
I'm going to state a few cases that could have happened, it will certainly make you think twice:-
Case Study 1:-
Amy has had a terrible childhood from the age of 7 until she was 16. She was physically abused by her mother who never wanted her. Her mother was pregnant with her at the age of 16 and was told to keep her baby. She didn't really want it but she kept it anyway thinking she would cope. When Amy was 7 her mother used to kick her if she was sitting in the way of the tv and use her as a punchbag when she was upset at something. She basically punished her for being born. The physical torture went on for years until one day Amy had enough and stabbed her mother 17 times while she was sleeping; all the years of physical and mental abuse and her mother not wanting her caught up with her and she let all her anger out. She was upset that she felt she had to do that and knew the consequences but Amy was NOT a bad person; she was just deeply hurt and could not control her anger for once in her life and unfortunately it lead to her mothers death. That still doesn't take away the awful memories, bruises, heartache, nightmares and lack of trust she has in anyone today. Unfortunately she is sentanced to the Death Penalty as the judge believed she bruised herself to make up evidence and found it hard to believe she never reported her mother. Do you think she deserves death?
Case Study 2:-
Oliver's father had been an abusive alcoholic throughout Oliver's childhood. He constantly verbally and physically hurt Oliver's mother almost every day. There would be occasions when he would give up alcohol for a few months but it would never last. His mother lived in fear of her own life. When his dad was off the drink for a while, he'd still be controlling; not letting his wife go out, speak on the phone, wear what she wanted etc. You can see why there was no way to get out of the situation. She was like his slave; if she disobeyed there would be consequences. She was too cared of making him unhappy incase of him lashing out. Once his father twisted his wife's arm back so far that a bone broke and she had to go to hospital. Her husband forced her to say it was because she fell off a ladder. Oliver would secretly tell his mother they could ran away together. However it wasn't possible as his mother coudn't work because of arthritis so they needed his father's earnings in order to survive. When Oliver was 18 he went away to travel for three months promising to his mother when he came back he would have enough money for her to move away from hi father. One month later he got a phone call from his father saying his mother had commited suicide. There was cctv evidence of her jumping off a bridge. By the time Oliver was 19, he had done a lot of thinking and wanted his father to be punished. He shot him in his heart. Cold, yes, but he had good reason. He wanted to make his father feel like he had when he eard about his mothers death. His mother was the only person there for him; Oliver knew that his fathers actions of abuse and cruel treatment towards his mother led to her death. Oliver is the only murderer in this case but you have to see that he was the victim. He doesn't deserve the Death Penalty and if you have a heart you would agree with me.
To conclude my case studies: Murder is wrong but in certain cases the murderers are the real victims but can never be proven to be victims as there is too much evidence against them. Therefore instead of the death penalty these people need help to get over their past or therapy help for their mental health or anger problems. Therefore ruling out the death penalty could help with deciding if they truly deseve it and put the money to good use but helping the murderers who need it and so they should get a second chance at life. Con say's the murderer deserves death just like it's victim. Yes, but Con isn't considering each case individually, he is just putting them all into one catagory which is quite selfish and closed minded.
Also has anyone ever considered the Death Penalty as murder. Everyone knows that 2 wrongs don't make a right. So that person carrying out the death penalty of the criminal is too a murderer and might feel guilty for that all their life. This is causing more problems for people. They're getting paid to do that job and imagine getting paid to do the job of executing people all your life just because it's legal in your country. Not nice.
Refering to Con's arguments on God and forgiveness. I gave a whole list of Bible verses which prove my point. Lets not get picky Con, you can clearly see the general point I was trying to make; my verses DID support it. You only have one verse which is WEAK compared to my 10 verses.
In conclusion, I've shown how Con's arguments are weak, lacks using his own opinions and jut commenting on mine and he is very closed minded. It is so easy and clear to see from my points that the Death Penalty is not justified and SHOULD be banned.
P.s. Please vote for the person with the strongest answers, it would e a shame if your opinion on the death penalty came into this. ^_^
First of all, my opponent did not satisfactorily address my points. In response to what I said about her first argument being hard to understand, instead of trying to explain her argument, she merely stated that it wasn't, forcing me, as Con, to take her arguments as they were presented. She continues to assert that not all murderers are bad people, and that they deserve a second chance. Well, let's look at this logically. My position is that all murderers are bad people. If we look at the definition of "murder", we can see that murder is the "the unlawful premeditatedkilling of one human being by another". Therefore, to qualify as a murderer, a person must have premeditated the killing, and must have broken a law to do it. If a person kills someone intentionally, and breaks the law, he is bad person, and deserves punishment. If you look at this logically, all murderers by definition are bad people, and the argument that they deserve second chance is not tenable.
Moving down to her "case studies":
Her first case study stabbed a helpless woman 17 times with a knife until dead... Pro used this as an example to illustrate her point that not all murderers deserve punishment. But how does this support her point? This fictional person was guilty of ruthlessly killing a woman. Nothing in that person's past in any way justified the cold-blooded killing described by Pro. We can see that this person is a "bad" person. The answer to the question posed by Pro, "Do you think she deserves death?", is also misleading. The death penalty is only applied to certain crimes, and if the courts identified other aspects of the case, such as mental problems or self-defense, she would not even be eligible for the death penalty.
Her second case was much the same. Her "protagonist" was guilty of shooting and killing a man, without any proof of whether or not he deserved it, and with no reason for self-defense. If this man's crime was eligible for the death penalty, than yes, he does deserve death for his crime.
Throughout the debate, Pro has done two very questionable and inadmissible things consistently throughout the debate: First, she has utilized the emotional appeal, secondly, she has made the assumption that all murderers are eligible for the death penalty. Both of these are fatal to the Pro side, since she uses them to support her entire case. Her appeals of "if you have a heart" and similar phrases have no place in a debate round that relies on logical thinking and proof.
Pro completely ignored my arguments against her "forgiveness" verses, saying that my 1 verse was weak compared with her 10 verses. Given that my verse applies to this debate and hers didn't, my verse is much stronger. She said only that I shouldn't be "picky". As the opposing team, it is my job to be "picky" and point out the problems with my opponent's arguments. She also made ad hominem attacks by saying that I was "selfish and close-minded".
I think I have shown enough problems in the Pro case to merit a Con ballot, and on top of that Pro hasn't been able to counter my own arguments. The answer is clear: Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made some ad hominem attacks so conduct goes to Con. S/G to con mainly for better sentence structure/organization. Arguments also go to con because pro mostly relied on emotional appeal whereas con made logical arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.