The Instigator
mongoose
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,629 times Debate No: 9928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (23)

 

mongoose

Pro

Resolved: The death penalty should be used in certain cases

There are many cases in which the death penalty is just and should be used. For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed. While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life.

Death Penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org...
mongeese

Con

Thank you, mongoose, for starting this debate.

"For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed."
Impossible. There's always a chance that the man was framed. Always. Unless, of course, there's a direct confession, but in that case, it would be a plea bargain [1], and you don't reward a plea bargainer with death. What kind of bargain would that be?

"While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life."
Now, why would the option of death have to be written into the law? Everybody always has the option of death. Just throw the prisoner in a mine, and let him kill himself if he wants. Killing him for him would hardly be delivering justice.
Additionally, this would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the law [2]. If a man can do work, he should be put to work, but if a man cannot do work, it would be illegal to require his death, as that would be discrimination against his physical fitness.

In conclusion, my opponent has to show a realistic situation that would actually happen in which a man is proven to be absolutely guilty beyond doubt, and also has to justify killing that man rather than sending that man to do labor. He has not done this, and until he does so, the resolution is negated.

Good luck.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mongoose

Pro

My opponent has dared to challenge the possibility of there being 100% proof of a man being framed. Fun! Hypothetical situation time! So, let's say a man is at a Yankees game. He runs onto the field, and shoots their entire team dead, killing them. After this, he is tackled by the umpire, and taken into custody. This was seen live on several cameras, in front of thousands of witnesses. The man is never given a chance to escape. In this case, it is 100% proven that the man is guilty of murder.

The option of death would have to be written into law. Suicide is illegal, as is letting a man suicide who one knows full well is going to suicide. This would be called assisted suicide [1]. Because of such, it would have to be written into law.

The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't.

It is clear that when one person takes the life of another, then that person has lost the right to life.

".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." [2]

The Constitution supports the claim that the death penalty is just, as it includes life as something that can be taken away with due process of law.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
mongeese

Con

1. Hypothetical Situation

My opponent should realize that the armed Yankees security guard would have already shot the criminal dead before he fired fifteen shots. It is not logical for a man armed with a gun to be tackled by the umpire, but instead shot.

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that if the man is arrested, he would plead insanity, and a psychological trial would be needed to determine whether or not he is in fact insane, draining the taxpayers' money. As my opponent is heavily against wasting taxpayer dollars, I assume he would not be in favor of this.

2. Suicide

My opponent claims that suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. However, this is ridiculous. Just because they are, doesn't mean they should be, and we're debating "should," so my opponent has to give reasons as to why suicide should be illegal. Suicide is currently legal in the United States [1]. It seems completely illogical for my opponent to support the involuntary killing of a man by trial, but not the voluntary killing of a man by assisted suicide. It is a violation of liberty to make suicide and assisted suicide illegal. In fact, what my opponent proposes be done with criminals (giving them a choice between labor and death) is an assisted suicide at the expense of the taxpayers. Instead, the criminals that want to kill themselves should kill themselves without any legal interference whatsoever.

3. Fitness

"The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't."
But they should. And you agree that they should. And the resolution says, "should."
Round 1: "[T]he prisoner *should* at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life."
My argument stands.

4. Right to Life

Just because we have the legal power to take away a man's life, doesn't mean we should. A man's life is much better spent working in prison, to which my opponent agrees.

5. Conclusion

My opponent claims that because assisted suicide is illegal (which it shouldn't be, as it infringes on liberty), the state should be given the power to perform assisted suicide (completely contradictory). Obviously, we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars just to let a person kill himself through the state rather than through a rock. He's a criminal; he deserves to be killed by a rock rather than by a deadly implement of his choice.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mongoose

Pro

1. Hypothetical Situation

Let's say that he only kills Alex Rodriguez, and is then shot in the arm, forcing him to drop the gun but not killing him or permanently damaging him. He also is a clear hater of the Yankees, and has a blog called "Shoot Yankees Dead!" He also has a very high IQ. He does not plead insane. He just denies that he killed him, and says the videos were all edited, and the people were all brainwashed. Remember, this is all theoretical.

2. Suicide

My opponent's source is about suicide, not assisted suicide, as it would be. I do support the right to assisted suicide. However, this also goes with the death penalty. If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death. In this case, it would be a penalty, of death, supporting the resolution.

3. Fitness

I have changed this argument to separate not the unfit from the rest, but the unwilling. This way, it does not unlawfully segregate people.

4. Right to Life

This is worthless if the man refuses to do the work. My opponent has given no substatial reasoning for not allowing the death penalty, and it is almost the last round. The right to life should be taken away for capital crimes. A mans life is better gone than spent absorbing food and health care [1].

5. Conclusion
My opponent believes that my plans would waste tax payer money, even though I have shown that they would not. The state deserves to be able to remove the burden without having to return him to the streets or making him somebody else's problem. Thank you. Vote PRO.

NOTE: It is impossible to kill yourself through a rock. A rock is a very hard object. A person would die on impact if going at the speeds required. Thus, it is impractical for prisoners to have to do such, as it would take very elaborate equipment. [2]

1. http://cbs4denver.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
mongeese

Con

1. Hypothetical Situation

If he does not plead insane, then that's all the more evidence for the lawyer to use to plead insanity for him. To claim that everybody was brainwashed would be very good evidence for insanity.

2. Suicide

"If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death."
Put to death? No. That's still a waste of money. What you do is deprive the convict of food until he works. In this case, death is not a punishment, but merely a cop-out from the real punishment, life enslavement. My opponent's source desrcibes capital punishment specifically as the killing of a person through legal process. Starvation is not an execution by judicial process, as described by my opponent's source (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and fits no definition of "execution" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).

4. Right to Life

My opponent now decides to identify the unwilling, but I have given temptation through starvation as a better method, as it requires no food wastage and might actually make the person cooperate. Additionally, if I had power over prison life, it would be miserable health care, and bread and water for consumption. Not a waste of resources in the slightest.

5. Conclusion

My opponent's plans would still use up taxpayer money with appeals to insanity. If a man refuses to do labor, he should not be put to death forcefully, as my opponent began to advocate in this last round, but rather deprived of his foodstuffs until he cooperates, a win-win for both parties.

NOTE: My opponent's source for his NOTE gives no reason to believe that a person could not kill himself through a rock. It's just either a cheap attempt at a source by taking my quote out of context or a humurous play on words, in which case, I hope it is the latter, although the source still has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

In conclusion, vote win-win, not lose-lose. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
Eye for an eye will make the whole world blind -- Gandhi

Also, keeping someone locked up for life is cheaper than giving the death penalty.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
...I think I just got bombed.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Come to think of it, this is about the only debate I didn't get vote-bombed in.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The main point was, we should kill him, because it would be more profitable to have him work.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Mongeese didn't attack any of the main points.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
This was kind of a quick debate, yeah.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I disagree on the excellence. It seriously lacked organization on the key points and the irrelevancies were given too much attention.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
Excellent debate. I'll read it in full and leave an RFD later.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
My "new argument" only had to be brought up in the last round because my opponent only brought up the potential of rebellion in the last round.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
S/G: Tie

Conduct: PRO
1. CON brings up the new argument of temptation through starvation in the last speech giving PRO no time to rebut.
2. I thoroughly enjoyed reading PRO's case, particularly the hypothetical situations. I think making the debate entertaining is exceptionally good conduct.

Sources: PRO
Same as WJM for the most part.

Arguments: PRO
CON just nitpicked PRO's 'hypothetical situations,' and the arguments didn't seem to rebut the idea that someone can be 100% guilty at all.

What it seemed to come down most was that PRO said "we force them to work or kill them." CON rebutted with "well, we can force them to work through starvation." Forced starvation seems like a way to implement the death penalty to me. Anybody who consistently refuses to work gets starved to death.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I like mongoose's profile picture better. DDO's old voting system sucked O_o
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by QiiXii 6 years ago
QiiXii
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 6 years ago
spinnerclotho
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by numa 6 years ago
numa
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 6 years ago
SaintNick
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ricky78 6 years ago
ricky78
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
mongoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70