The Instigator
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,619 times Debate No: 18686
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (7)

 

Lordknukle

Pro

PRO argues for the death penalty.
CON argues against the death penalty.

Death Penalty: "The punishment of execution, administered to someone convicted of a capital crime."
http://goo.gl...

I wish both of us the best of luck.

Round 1: Acceptance (no arguments)
Round 2: Main Case (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and Conclusion

Breaking these rules will automatically result in loss of conduct.

No arguing semantics about the resolution or definitions.

No trolls or anybody with over 50 debates please.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Accepted. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I wish us both the best of luck.

Deterrent (1)(2)(3)

This will be my main argument upon which my entire debate is based:

It has been shown by multiple studies that the death penalty does in fact serve as a deterrent to future criminals. Countries and states that implemented the death penalty have considerably lower crimes than the rest of society.

“During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.

Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "(1)

Another statement:

“The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease.”

The graph below drawn by the Bureau of Criminal Justice gives a general overview of the murder rate compared to the number of executions that had taken place in the US up to the year 2000:

Some of you might know that I had problems with posting pictures related to this topic. Therefore I urge you to visit this link:

http://www.debate.org...

The graph that I found is from the Bureau of Justice. It shows how correlated murders and executions are. As soon as the executions went down, the murder rate skyrocketed. Also, notice that before the execution drop, murders were relatively high. About 10 years after the execution drop, the executions start to go up. Shortly after, the murder rate went down. From this graph we can clearly see that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.

Now the question is, how much does the death penalty act as a deterrent?

A study by economist Isaac Ehrlich in 1975 stated that for each person executed, an estimated 7 or 8 other people are saved.

According to utilitarianism, this is moral and ethical. Seven or eight innocent people should not have to suffer the ultimate price when only a convicted murderer is killed.

However, there are many other studies that actually say differently than Isaac Ehrlich.

Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the

deterred murders per execution at three, five, and 14).”

“The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.”

Whichever study you deem to be correct, the results are similar. The death penalty does serve as a great deterrent. Whether the actual number is 3 or 25, the death penalty serves and benefits society as a whole by saving innocent lives.

Human Rights(4)

I know my opponent will bring up this argument so I might as well write about it now. In Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, it stated, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. However, if we really followed this rule then society would greatly differ. According to it, we would also have to abolish charging taxes and fines since they violate one's "security of person”. We would also have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation because they deprive people of liberty. So the interpretation that abolitionists derive from Article 3 of the Declaration is illogical and contradictory.

Also, the current notion of human rights is actually quite new. Modern human rights have been around for less than a century. However, lack of human rights has been around for thousands of years. Europe and Asia haven’t had modern humans rights for thousands (some say ten thousands) of years. Therefore, we can deem lack of human rights to be more important according to the time frame that it was used in history.

I will let my opponent provide the bulk of this argument but I just started it off by saying that human rights are not deemed correct and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is obsolete and contradictory.

Cost of death penalty (5) (6) (7)

Contrary to popular belief, a death penalty does not cost more than life in prison. The reason why modern executions cost so much is because of all the legal proceedings. However, what if we used the most effective execution machine through history? The guillotine. Therefore the cost of the death penalty would go down significantly. If we were to say buy a guillotine (cant find an exact price estimate) for say $20 000, we could use it for countless executions.

According to this website listen below, the cost of an incarcerated federal prisoner for one year is $94 500. If a criminal was kept on life without parole for 30 years, $2.835 million dollars would be spent on him. On the other hand, we don’t need to keep people on death row. He could be executed straight after his conviction. Compare $2.835 million+ to $20 000 for multiple executions.

Lets assume that my opponent will be stubborn and insist on arguing the current version of the death penalty. The current death penalty costs about $1.2 million dollars. Compare $1.2 million to $2.835 million for keeping a criminal locked up for 30 years.


Conclusion

I believe that I have successfully demonstrated that the death penalty serves as a great deterrent to future criminals. It saves the lives of innocent people. Also, I started out our argument about human rights (which my opponent will most likely continue) stating that the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is obsolete and contradictory. I have also shown that a death penalty is more economical than life in jail.

Vote PRO

Good luck to CON

(1)http://wesleylowe.com...

(2) Levitt, Steven. Dubner, Stephen. Freakonomics. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2005.

(3) Robert Tanner, "Studies Claim Death Penalty is a Deterrent"


Democrat and Chronicle, June 12, 2007

(4) http://www.un.org...

(5) http://www.vcn.bc.ca...

(6) http://www.amnestyusa.org...

(7)http://boisdejustice.com...


F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Thanks Knuckle. I have 2 contentions to make. Most of my case involves rebutting my opponent's points which I am going to do next round, due to the way the debate is structured. (and also because I am running out of time)

C1) Human Rights Violation

A) Methods of execution are flawed. I will only consider lethal injection as it is widely considered to be the most humane method of execution. Lethal injection causes paralysis and can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. I will expand on this in the next round as I have limited time right now.

B) Since 1990, an average of three countries each year have abolished the death penalty, and today over two-thirds of the world's nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice [7]. This shows that we are moving away from barbaric medieval practices like the Death Penalty. Pro for some reason argues that "lack of human rights" are more important than human rights. It makes no sense. The fact that human rights are a new concept shows that as a society, we are becoming more civilized.


C2) Innocent people are executed

A) There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations total in the United States and 206 since 2000. 17 of the 273 people exonerated specifically through DNA served time on death row [5].

And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date.

B) Many that are executed could be innocent. There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved [1].

C) A common argument for Pro DP is that it saves innocent lives. But how many does it really save? The alternative to the DP is life without parole. So, the DP only saves the lives of innocents who would have been killed if a murderer escaped from a Maximum security prison, and managed to murder again. Prison escapes are rare and are declining [4][6].


Sources
[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[4] http://www.bop.gov...
[5] http://www.innocenceproject.org...
[6] http://abcnews.go.com...
[7] http://www.amnestyusa.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Pro

C1: Human Rights Violation

"Methods of execution are flawed. I will only consider lethal injection as it is widely considered to be the most humane method of execution. Lethal injection causes paralysis and can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. "

The lethal injection method is actually very humane. It first starts out with Sodium thiopental which puts the person in a coma in 30-45 seconds. Then the Pancuronium bromide paralyzes a person when they are already in a coma. Then the Potassium chloride leads to cardiac arrest. The only drug that leads to death is injected while the person is paralyzed and in a coma.(1)

Most people want executions to be humane. But the question is: why? A death penalty should only be given in cases of murder. Therefore, we can safely assume that the person caused the victim harm. Even though we try to avoid this, it is justified if the person accidentally suffers.

"Since 1990, an average of three countries each year have abolished the death penalty, and today over two-thirds of the world's nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice [7]. This shows that we are moving away from barbaric medieval practices like the Death Penalty. Pro for some reason argues that "lack of human rights" are more important than human rights. It makes no sense. The fact that human rights are a new concept shows that as a society, we are becoming more civilized. "

The fact that countries removed the death penalty shows absolutely nothing. According to your logic, the Dark Ages as a whole were more civilized than Ancient Greece, which brought us math, science, philosophy, astronomy, etc because they were farther along the evolutionary scale.

My human rights logic goes as follows:
Modern human rights have only existed for the past century.
Lack of human rights have existed for ten thousands of years
Therefore, human rights cannot be deemed correct.

C2: Innocent people are executed

"There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations total in the United States and 206 since 2000. 17 of the 273 people exonerated specifically through DNA served time on death row [5].

And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date."

So you are saying that there have been 273 exoneration's since 2000 but only 138 exoneration's in total. Contradictory much? Your stats of 138 exonerated since 1973 are correct (2) so we will examine them. Since 1976, there have been 1 271 executions in the United States. (2) There are very little (if not none) cases of criminals being exonerated after they have died. Therefore, lets take the lowest assumption of 3 saved per execution (previous round). As a result, 3 813 lives were saved by executing the 1 271 prisoners. If there were no exoneration's, then the 138 would have died. According to utilitarianism this is just because the majority of the people benefit.

The argument that DP executes innocent people is very weak. There are very few (if none) cases were it was acknowledged that the DP executed a wrong person.

"Many that are executed could be innocent. There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved"

You are making an assumption. Assumptions do not stand it debates. Since there is no proof that any of them were innocent, for the purpose of this debate, you cannot assume that they are innocent.

"A common argument for Pro DP is that it saves innocent lives. But how many does it really save? The alternative to the DP is life without parole. So, the DP only saves the lives of innocents who would have been killed if a murderer escaped from a Maximum security prison, and managed to murder again. Prison escapes are rare and are declining."

The DP saves between 3 and 25 innocent lives per executions.

Yes, escaping from a maximum security prison is nearly impossible. However, it costs much more. As previously demonstrated, it costs $2.835 million to keep a person locked up for 30 years. It costs $1.2 million for a conventional death penalty today. Keeping a person locked up for 30 years is 2.36 times more expensive than the death penalty. Some people are incarcerated for more than 30 years.

I would like to point out that my most effective and convincing argument about DP Deterrent remains untouched.


Conclusion

I believe that I have effectively rebutted all of my opponent's cases. My opponent has ignored my most effective case that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. Human rights is a relatively new idea that cannot be deemed correct. The possibility of an innocent execution is nearly non-existent. The death penalty reaps amazing benefits for society.

I urge voters to vote PRO

Good luck to CON



(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

First of all, Knuckle says at the beginning "Round 2: Main Case (no rebuttals)"!

Then he claims in Round 3 that I did not address his case about deterrence in my Round 2, which is ridiculous because I was just following his rules. I addressed it now.


1) Deterrent


Most of Pro's data is secondhand data complied by Wesley Lowe, and biased with Wesley's own pro-DP opinions. I will first refute each of them. Second, I will show that corelation could exist either way. Third, I will prove through logical reasoning why no causation exists.

(I) Refutations

(A) Temporary suspension of DP 1972-1976

Wesley mentions a bunch of years where the murder rate fluctuated. That could have been due a number of different factors such as economic recession and unemployment. Here, it can clearly be seen that Pro's corelation can be better explained because of higher rates of unemployment.

Year - Executions - Unemployment rate[7]
1964 - 9250 - 5.2%
1969 - 14590 - 3.5%
1975 - 20510 - 8.5%
1980 - 23040 - 7.1%

For 3 out of Pro's 4 data points, it can be seen that the murder rate directly corelates with unemployment. Pro as well as Wesley are comparing apples to oranges because they are choosing years of higher unemployment rates where DP was suspended and lower rates of unemployment where DP was not. Even Ehrlich, who Wesley cites on his website admits that murder rates increase during times of higher unemployment [1]. Criminals resort to violence to fulfill their basic needs.

(B) Dudley Sharp
"The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999, a 44 percent reduction."
Same cause-corelation fallacy. Unemployment rate was 7.1% in 1980 and 4.2% in 1999 [7]. A 59% reduction.

(C) Texas
"the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent."
Same. Below graph shows how unemployment rates in Texas have declined almost by half from 1991 to 1999 [8].



(D) Pro's graph
The trends of homicide rates in DP states and non DP states are almost entirely the same. If the trends in the picture were due to deterrent effect, then once the DP was re-instated, only the states in which DP was legal should have seen a fall in murder rate, not all states. A decrease in murder rate in all states can be better explained by economic factors.

The picture shows that from 1930 to 1960, murders actually decreased with decrease in executions. The graph actually supports both the Pro-DP and the Anti-DP positions. It wouldn't do to cherry pick the years where there is an inverse corelation.

(E) Ehrlich
Ehrlich's study is flawed. Pro never cites the actual study, he just wrote whatever Wesley wrote about the study on his website. I posted the original below [1]. Ehrlich's study was based entirely on mathematical analysis during which, he made an assumption that criminals respond to incentives [1]. That is a flawed way to conduct a study. Response to incentives should be the conclusion, not an initial assumption. This showed circular reasoning.

In fact, a panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, determined that Ehrlich's work had methodological and conceptual shortcomings [5]. A report by the Dartmoth University shows that when the time period chosen for Ehrlich's model is changed, the slight negative corelation between executions and murder completely disappeared [10].

(F) Emory Univ. Profs.
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders"
Pro never even found the study. I posted an article from one of those Prof's Joana Shepherd below [19]. She admits that although executions appear to deter crime in approximately 1/5 of the states the study was conducted in, in the remaining 80%, executions show no deterrent effect [19]. An Emory Prof. herself admitted that deterrence only occurs 20% of the time. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions [19]. The studies are nullified and inconclusive.

(G) Illinois moratorium
The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following

Unemployment in Illinois increased from 2000 to 2004 [12].


Pro didn't even cite the original studies. He is simply throwing out isolated sentences from each study straight from Wesley's homepage. I have now shown that by failing to account for all the variables the comparisons were flawed. All the studies have been negated.

(II) Counter-examples

(i) The murder rate in Canada was 25% below the rate at the time of abolition [4]. If Pro's studies were accurate, Canadian murder rate should have increased.

(ii) If the DP actually deterred criminals, then states that used the DP should have a lower crime rate than those that don't. However, no such corelation can be made. In fact states with DP have higher murder rates [11].

(iii) A study conducted by Michael Radelet found out that 86% of leading criminologists think that abolishing the DP in a particular state would not have any significant effects on the murder rate in that state [6].

(iv) The study by Dartmouth also concluded that the DP has no effect on murder rates [10].


(III) Logical reasoning behind the lack of corelation
(a)Any punishment can be a deterrent only if promptly and consistently applied. Due to it's nature and it's irreversibility, it is not possibe with the DP. Taking of a human life must not be done without caution.

(b) Some people actually choose to get the DP over life in prison because of the better conditions on death row [9].

(c) Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended [12].

(d) According to the ACLE, even when crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest [12].

(e) The number of executions is very small and such a small sample size is prone to errors. Either side could prove whatever they want.

I showed why murder rate is completely unrelated to executions. Pro has the burden to prove both causation and corelation.


2) Cost
The DP costs more than LWOP. Pro admits that DP costs more when all the legal proceedings are included. However legal proceedings are an integral part of the DP. The finality and irreversibility of the DP require us to take all possible precautions and exhaust all appeals before the execution is done.

When legal costs are considered, a DP case costs at least $1.25 million more than a comparable case with a sentence of LWOP [15]. In North Carolina, spending increased by $2 million when a county experienced a capital case [16].


3) Human Rights
(A) The flaw with Pro's syllogism is that Pro assumes anything that is modern is not "correct." He doesn't say why.

(B) Lethal Injection

The first drug Sodium Thiopental is an short acting drug that wears off and leads to consciousness, while the inmate is unable to express pain because the second drug pancuronium bromide paralyzes them leading to a painful death [17].

The fact that Medical professionals are prohibited from performing the execution means that it is done by amateurs which greatly increases the risk of a screwed-up execution [18].


4) Innocent people die
(A) "So you are saying that there have been 273 exoneration's since 2000 but only 138 exoneration's in total. Contradictory much?"

If you read carefully, you will see that the 138 is for death row only. 273 since 2000 is for all post-conviction exonerations. Jump to conclusions much?

Pro relies on Ehrlich's study and assumes that 3 people are saved per execution. I refuted the study in 1E.

(B) The best way to get a conviction overturned is to have a competent attorney [14]. This creates a disparity between the rich and the poor. Those who can get good lawyers who work harder, and find DNA evidence are likely to be spared while poorer people get executed.

(C) Pro again uses Ehrlich's flawed study.


Sources
http://bit.ly...

Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Pro

My opponent has had a remarkable argument.

He has changed my opinion on the death penalty

I concede.

VOTE CON
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

An actual change of opinion? That's something that doesn't happen too often. Anyway, to tie up some loose ends and summarize:

1) Deterrence

All studies that show deterrence are flawed. How can they all be wrong? Well the first thing to note is the sample size. There are so few executions per year and to draw from such a tiny sample size causes a lot of variations and outliers which would skew the data. Not to mention, some of the studies did not take other factors like unemployment into account.

Secondly, and most importantly as can be seen with the Emory example, the professors are very careful with their data and usually show both sides as well as any limitations it might have. The media on the other hand blows it out of proportion, misrepresents the data and says sensationalist things like "15 innocent lives saved per execution" which is usually not what the professors intended.

Overall, I have proved that the Death Penalty does not deter and the studies are actually inconclusive.

2) Cost

Legal proceedings are an integral part of the costs so the Death Penalty is actually more expensive.

3) Human Rights

Just because modern human rights haven't existed for thousands of years does not by itself mean that they are not correct. Pro makes an extraordinary claim that "lack of human rights" is the correct thing, so he has the extraordinary burden to prove it.

Lethal Injection causes great suffering for the inmate, they just can't express it because they are paralyzed. It also has the potential for screw-up since amateurs not medical professionals administer it.

4) Innocent Lives

There have been hundreds of cases of DNA evidence clearing people. Our justice system is not perfect. The problem is that only rich people will have lawyers who are good enough to extend their appeals, find DNA evidence and clear their name. The poorer people will be executed.

The irreversibility of the Death Penalty distinguishes it from all other forms of punishment as the mistakes made by the justice system cannot be corrected, or at least they have a limited time to correct it as opposed to unlimited time for Life Without Parole.

The Death Penalty should not be implemented in any society.

I was really anticipating Pro's response to my argument but that's okay. LordKnukle, it was awesome debating with you, and I hope we debate again.

Voters, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
http://www.michiganlawreview.org...
Study^

Publicity as in newspaper. Shepard analyzed this in his Journal of Legal Studies paper. There is some deterrence because newspapers publicize it a month before and a few months after.

Shortening sentences was also addressed in the journal of legal studies paper. It notes although the innocents risk raises hypothetically, the deterrent effect increases dramatically.

Well, states can begin executing more. Lol. Just sentence more death penalties. Like Texas and Virginia. Virginia has the shortest wait, cheapest murder punishment because of it, and some of the most deterrence (minus Texas who executes more).
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I haven't been able to access the actual study so I am reading off of the article where Shepherd posted analysis on the study (http://www.csmonitor.com...). She does say that the deterrent effect can only be seen where there are lots of executions. I don't see how the number of executions can be artificially increased (by killing random people?) so it isn't something that can be changed to favor retaining of the DP.

The other thing you mentioned is publicity. I guess public hanging and lynchings could cause even more of a deterrent effect but that is a whole another debate - the publicity of executions. Delays happen because they are unavoidable. Because the DP is irreversible, you want to be sure you are lynching scum. Rushing into executions increases the likelihood of mislynches (killing innocent people).

Point is, if a state has less executions, that is just the way it is. You can't just start killing more people.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Okay. I re-read this debate.

F-16 probably has made the best DP case possible... But the study by Shepard (it's online) shows the detergent effect is so large in some states it leads to a net-benefit. The study notes the no-effect/brutalize toon that occurs is because those states have the most delays, fewest executions, and least publicized executions.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Okay. I re-read this debate.

F-16 probably has made the best DP case p
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
i still dissagree with F-16 even though he did really well.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
I agree with thett, though "excellent refutation" is an understatement. The deterrence argument was annihilated.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Thanks. I spent an insane amount of time researching on it before I could find the right angle through which to counter.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
wow falcon, I have to say that is an excellent refutation of the deterrent argument!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Or maybe one of them just refreshed their page a thousand times, lol.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Not sure. Lick and seraine's debate had been done a thousand times before too, but it got 1,200 views. Maybe one of those random occurrences?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: sadly con won...
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Pro was doing pretty good, but then Con came around and demolished his case. Very impressive performance by Con.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded, but understandably. F-16's rebuttal scares me. He just shattered the deterrence argument. I've also got to give sources to Con for him showing the flawed methodology in Pro's.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Conduct to pro for admitting he was wring. It takes a mature person to do such a thing
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: Pro concedes after Con destroys his deterrence argument. This is a great example of why I dont run deterrence as the main argument, the studies indicating deterrence as iffy at best, and misleading at worst. However I am dissapointed that Pro's position was changed.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter arguments were detailed and devastating. Had Pro responded, which he did not, he would have had an uphill battle.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
LordknukleF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, CON won it anyway by adequately refuting PRO's arguments.