The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

The Death Penalty Should be Banned in America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
NationalistMarxist has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 96786
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance, not arguments
There will be three rounds for debate
The argument is whether the death penalty should be banned in America
I will be arguing the negative
Good luck


Good luck good sir!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you and again good luck

I would first like to define the type of death penalty I am advocating for as a swift and painless death (or at least as swift and painless as possible). I am not advocating for torturous deaths such as electrocution and hanging.

The first contention I would like to bring up is that some people are too dangerous to be kept in prison. We cannot risk people who would be given the death penalty, such as terrorists and serial killers, escaping captivity or making parole. The only way to make sure they do no more harm, as harsh as it sounds, is to kill them.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 year ago
What about this argument:

Imagine that you're being attacked by someone who wants to kill you.

Obviously you're allowed to fight for your life. Health of your agressor is under no protection while he tries to hurt you. Even more than that. Not only his health but also his life isn't really protected then. After all if say you kicked or hit him in the head, and in result killed him, no one in their right mind would charge you with murder. Everybdy agrees on that. For instance if you see someone is strangling other person, you are allowed to take a spade or rod and smite him across head. Everybody agrees that even if attacker dies there is no guilt involved.

But what if you lose and your tormenor kills you? What then? If there is deaht penalty his life is still under threat. It seems natural, if one's life wasn't protected during crime, why should it change after crime was succesfully done?

But what if there is no death penalty? Well, then we have a problem. Our system of justice rewards murderer for effectife assault. He is getting a prize for his efficacy in a form of protection of his life. It's not a mistake, it's not a coincidence or accident that we arrived at such situation. It's direct consequence of abolishing death penalty. Murderers are being awarded for their job. As it turns out trying to kill smeone is worse crime than actually killing someone.

Justice system which sometimes do harm to innocent people isn't a perfect one. Justice system which institutionalizes practice of awarding murderers is broken to the very heart.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.