The death penalty should be illegal.
Debate Rounds (3)
I thank my opponent for the opportunity to have a great, enlightenig debate. The semantics seem pretty straightforward.
I would like to mention that death penalty is only frequent in cases of murder.
Thank you for your argument, Pro.
Now let's look at this from various aspects, including the ones both the Con and Pro share:
Morality - Pro says that this is not "moral" and that human life is valuable. If so, are we treating a human life any better if we lock up the criminal for his/her decades and rot in jail? Obviously not. In fact, I see prolonged sentences that come with charges of murder, etc. as a much more cruel punishment than ending the criminal's life.
Now, both options are immoral in one way or another. Ergo, we must now focus oneach option's practical advantages over the other. Here are a few primary ones for capital punishment:
I. Death penalty completely eradicates the risk of failed rehabilitation and the criminal repeating his or her actions after release (if there is one).
II. Death penalty saves tremendous money, esp. in today's 1.3 trillion deficit.
III. Death penalty helps prisons learn smoother and have more space.
I urge a ballot for the Con.
arando319 forfeited this round.
I extend all of my points across the flow,
I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another.
II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation.
III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources.
Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack.
I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheParadox 2 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: Con had a stronger case (albeit, I would have wanted both sides to have longer arguments if it was not for the character limit), and the Pro lacked fluent grammar, convincing arguments, and Round 3 rebuttal. Vote to Con.