The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,890 times Debate No: 20706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)




Alright here's how the argumentation format will go down. This debate will be in LD Debate Format. Therefore Definitions and FW must be evident in your case. Claims/Contentions, Warrants/Cards, Impacts etc.

1st round acceptance

2nd round arguments

3rd round closing statements

I look forward to a great debate with my opponent ^.^


Challenge Accepted ! Lets have a good round Nick ^.^
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting, looking forward to your arguments,

For clarification I offer the following definitions;

Merriam-Webster defines cruel as: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings

Unusual as: not usual : uncommon, rare

Death row: nickname for that portion of a prison in which prisoners are housed who are under death sentences and are awaiting appeals and/or potential execution.

Moving forward, I'll explain how we're going to break down future arguments, death row has been a topic of debate since it was reinstated in 1976, most notably to whether it breaches the "Cruel and Unusual punishment" section of our 8th amendment. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it did not, however i will attempt to change the opinion of my fellow debaters among other reasons why Capital Punishment, (e.g. death penalty) is not a justified punishment.

Therefore my value for this round is Morality- I uphold life because the topic suggests the taking of another human's life is some how justifiable, despite its hypocrisy and inhumane nature. My value must be upheld in this round because it encompasses the idea of rationality, or what the majority of human beings would do in a situation. My criterion is as follows, Sanctity of Life, meaning anything that harms human life becomes immoral and unjustified.

C1: Capitol Punishment is a breach to our 8th amendment.
If we look at the amount of inmates in the country, which in a research in 2002 concluded topped over 2 million(1), and the amount of inmates who have suffered from capitol punishment since 1976 and who are currently on death row, is exactly 4501 (2)(3). Right from the start we see this form of punishment as meeting the definition of "unusual",

However i will go even deeper, only about 3.5%(4) of all those inmates were actually incarcerated due to "violent crimes" which is usually the type of crime necessary for considerations of the death penalty. When we do the math it equals to about 70,000. Which means only 6.5% of all inmates who commit "violence crimes" are sentenced to the death penalty, obviously meeting the unusual definitions, considering 93.5% of all the other criminals serve their time in prison instead. We must also keep in mind that the estimation of 2 million inmates was from 2002, over 10 tens ago, meaning this number could in fact be inaccurate.

Furthermore the forms of execution used are both inhumane and cruel. As an account of the use of the electric chair depicts, "...the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber."

Even the most "humane" version of executions, the lethal injection is questionable at best. Not only are doctors excluded from these procedures but the can result in painful side effects, "This lack of medical participation can be problematic because often injections are performed by inexperienced technicians or orderlies. If a member of the execution team injects the drugs into a muscle instead of a vein, or if the needle becomes clogged, extreme pain can result. Many prisoners have damaged veins resulting from intravenous drug use and it is sometimes difficult to find a usable vein, resulting in long delays while the inmate remains strapped to the gurney."(9)

I: This destroys the concept of "sanctity of life" as we set forth only a certain amount of people to be punished by this extra measure of punishment, let alone it's obvious breach to the 8th amendment when we see the cruel means used to execute the inmates.

C2: The death penalty can potential kill innocent people.
Regardless of how accurate the justice system seems to be, we as humans will always make mistakes. ALWAYS. This alone is reason enough to abolish the death penalty. The possibility of having sentenced someone unjustly towards their death, and later discovering they were innocent would make me question the legitimacy of our government. Death is irreversible while a person in jail who is innocent can be released and this alone is reason enough to vote affirmative.

My opponent may argue that the justice system however is getting more and more accurate due to them continuously freeing innocent death row mates. 140(5) inmates to be exact, this however is not the case, it is almost often the case that the courts themselves don't prove the innocence of the inmates but outside sources(6) "it took the intervention of people completely outside of the justice system for them to win back their freedom."(7)

Their has also been over 9 cases since 1976 that have substantial evidence pointing towards the innocence of several executed inmates, let alone the dozens of possibly other innocent inmates that were wrongly executed(8). Nine cases in which innocent people were executed wrongly, how many more must be executed until we learn this is not a just means of punishment? One case of a person wrongly executed should be reason enough to abolish the death penalty but nine is superfluous reason to dissolve the death penalty.

I: The courts failure to recognize nine innocent people before they were executed is not only reason enough to do away with the death penalty, but it very clearly breaks the sanctity of life, when it executes not just 9 inmates, but 9 INNOCENT inmates.

C3: The justice system is biased, and racist especially in terms of the Death Penalty
Of the 492,852 murders between 1976 and 1999, 51 percent were of whites and 47 per cent were of blacks. (Homicide trends in the US. Trends by race, Bureau of Justice Statistics.)
This fact seems completely nonracial related, in fact most murders in the united states are intra-racial(10) meaning that White victims were often slain by white perpetrators, and likewise with Black victims by Black perpetrators. However 80 percent of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.

Now lets look towards criminal statistics, blacks make up only 13.6% of the U.S population.(11) Yet they're more than 40 percent of the country's current death row inmates, and one in three of those executed since 1977.

If the statistics don't convince you of the racial bias in the judicial system, then this must "In June 2000, a landmark study of the US capital justice system was released. Entitled "A Broken System", it had examined death penalty cases between 1973 and 1995 and found that the rate of prejudicial error in capital cases was 68 per cent. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in almost seven of every 10 of the thousands of death sentences that were reviewed on appeal during the 23-year study period."(12)

I: These statistics and account lead to one logical conclusion, racial bias is very prominent in the judicial system, and it is unfair to let this corruption execute unnecessarily where other options are avaliable.



Thanks Nick for posting up arguments. I will now proceed to post up my own case then rebut his.

Since Justice and Morality rests upon proportionality and giving each their due, Affirm the resolved which states The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

For further clarification I will offer the following definitions:

Justified- To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. [1]

Death Penalty- The sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. [2]

Punishment- a penalty inflicted for an offense. [3]

Now that I've established definitions for this round, it is necessary to understand how we will weigh the arguments for this round. The resolved states "The Death Penalty is a Justified Means of Punishment". The Death Penalty is an execution of murder for a capital crime. Therefore as an Affirmative I must advocate that the taking of ones life is a valid or righteous means of a penalty for a crime. In other words I will prove that the resolved is *Proportional* Since Morality and Justice rest on *Proportionality*.

My value for this round is justice which is defined as being just, right, or valid. The reason we should look to Justice is because the resolved says so itself. It states "The Death Penalty is a Justified means of Punishment" Therefore I must prove the Death Penalty gains Justice (in order for it to be justified) while my opponent proves it loses justice (in order for it to not be justified).

My value criterion is to promote justice to be delivered. This includes promoting those who commit crimes to be punished and those who are innocent to be protected. The Con may say they can link into this by saying they protect the innocent from facing the death penalty, but I contend that the innocent people are at a greater risk in the Con world than in the Pro world due to the possibility of release and also the taxes a citizen must pay for someone to stay in jail.

Contention 1: Capital punishment is a proportional punishment to Capital Crime, while prison isn't

Capital punishment (A.K.A Death Penalty) is defined as: The sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. Its not like people will be put to death because they stole someones bag of Doritos, people will be put to death for committing a high felony crime. A high felony crime deserves a high level of punishment. Therefore this drastic punishment is indeed proportional to a high felony crime. Life in Prison, however, is not proportional for committing a capital crime, here's why. When someone commits a capital crime, such as murder, the offense isn't able to be fixed. Someone is robbed of their natural rights to Life, Liberty, or Property COMPLETELY. These rights cannot be given back now. Therefore the *Perpetrator* Sacrifices their rights permanently as well, therefore the Death Penalty is proportional. Life in Prison, a perpetrator still has rights and can still possibly get out of jail. These statistics show how 600,000 criminals are released into society each year. 70% of all criminals are re-arrested within 3 years of their release from prison. This shows how criminals often re-offend after being released from jail. This puts the public at increased risk.

Also when someone goes to jail innocent people pay with their tax money in order to keep them there and protect society. When we con we simply have more and more taxes on innocent people rather than punish the guilty.

Impact: In order for something to be justified it has to be proportional and helps prevent harm to society. Therefore these arguments prove the proportionality in the resolved, the lack of proportionality without the resolved, as well as the harm that is placed in society without the death penalty.


I would like to establish the fact the B.O.P lies on the Con side since in the *Status Quo* the death penalty is justified. Therefore I don't need to prove anything I simply need to defend the status quo. At the point where my opponent has no offence you vote pro.

On to my opponents value structure.

His whole beginning paragraph is actually something that supports the B.O.P Argument I just made. The USSC Ruled the Death Penalty as justified and my opponent says he is the one who will attempt to change others opinions.

Now on to my opponents value. I cannot tell whether his value is Morality or Life. I have no problem with the value of Morality because Morality and Justice pretty much coincide with each other, but the value of Life is a different story. The value of Life has no reference whatsoever to whose life will be saved. Therefore he could value the life of a serial killer who threatens the life of innocent people. Therefore taking a Util stance doesn't gain justice.

On his Value criterion for sanctity of life cross-apply the argument I just made. If I don't follow sanctity of life it doesn't necessarily mean that I am not delivering justice. When the state goes and punishes a felon this is considered not following the sanctity of life but it is still justified therefore the value criterion of sanctity of life doesn't disprove the justification of the resolved. This is why we must use my value criterion of promoting justice to be delivered whoever does this gains the justification(Pro) or disproves the justification(Con)

Now on to his first contention

The "Unusual" Punishment argument doesn't have much effect because it isn't usual for someone to commit a crime to receive a death penalty punishment. This form of punishment is still proportional even if it may be unusual and therefore gains justice and is justified.

On to the second paragraph my opponent fails to recognize the level of the violent crime. If I punch you in the face I will go to jail but I obviously won't be put on death row because the offence was minor. Now those 6.5% probably committed a crime so awful like beat someone to death that they deserved the death penalty.

The "Cruelness" he's putting out doesn't mean it isn't justified to use the death penalty, it simply says the way we use it now is inhumane. It doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty itself. You can buy these arguments but they don't flow against justice, once there is a change in the system of delivering the death penalty it will be even more justified, but is still justified now.

Contention 2
Its true we as humans make mistakes but this is simply reason enough to vote pro. The reason being is an innocent person would much rather die than be tortured in prison no matter how long they stay in there. He tries to say that death is irreversible while going to jail someone can still be let out, but the psychological trauma one sustains in prison is also irreversible and is worse than death because they won't be able to live properly anymore, they'd live in fear of being attacked as they were in prison.

I'm not arguing the justice system is getting better, I'm arguing A justice system is getting better. DNA Testing was how they exonerated all of the innocent people my opponent stated in his C2 He tries to pre-empt me but fails because the releasing of innocence is still getting higher and higher over time.

Now against this next paragraph cross-apply what I say against the first paragraph, without the death penalty these people would have suffered even worse in prison. The pro is actually proving the justification better than the Con is disproving the justification.

Contention 3

Just because the Justice system is supposedly Biased doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty once again these supposedly innocent people would be put in jail and suffer even worse consequences than a death penalty.

I await my opponents responses. Vote Pro ! [1] [2] [3] [4]
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to quickly clear up something, I hope my opponent can forgive me but there was a mistake in the value area, it was in fact MORALITY and not LIFE, I hope he can accept my sincerest apologies, now on to defending my case;

I agree morality, and justice do relate however let it be noted that our Laws, the way to reach justice, are simply our codifications of our morals which is why we always prefer Morality ahead of Justice.

Towards my criterion he states that delivering justice doesn't infringe on sanctity of life, normally I would agree however as I have proved the Death Penalty is a clear break of sanctity of life, as it takes away the life of someone. Sending someone to jail does NOT infringe on sanctity of life because it does not harm the criminal in any way. In fact, they are fed, housed, and given the basic necessities of life, unlike the death penalty which takes away a criminals life and therefore makes the largest possible break to sanctity of life as it purposely kills someone.

My opponent establishes a "burden of proof" on the affirmative in stating that the "status quo" already approves of the Death Penalty and therefore I must disprove its justifications. However this "status quo" argument is fallacious argument because in the 1700-1800's we considered slavery as "the status quo" this didn't mean that it was "justified" as we can see since now it is abolished in the United States. Furthermore support for the death penalty has steadily been decreasing, only 33% of the populace supports the death penalty with a significantly higher (52%) supporting life without parole.(1) Completely turning around his "status quo" argument and proving how we should always look to the con.

Cont. 1
To my first contentions he states that since the Death Penalty is "proportional" and therefore justified. This argument is not sound however, because putting a criminal in jail is also "proportional" as they basically serve the rest of their life in a cell. However this "eye for an eye" argument is obviously NOT how we run our judicial system. A rapist is not raped himself, a arsonist is not set on fire, likewise a murderer should not be murdered himself and instead should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

My opponent clearly did not read the entirety of my first contention, but I will reiterate the important points of the 2million people arrested in 2000, 70,000 were convicted of violent crimes necessary to be considered for the Death Penalty, however as I proved ONLY 6.5% were sentenced to death (or exactly 4501) obviously meeting the "unusual requirement". Furthermore no matter what crime the death row inmates committed, the state does not have the right to use barbaric forms of death like the electric chair or the inhumane "lethal shot".

Cont. 2
My opponent makes the crude remark that a innocent person would rather DIE than to be sentenced to a prison sentence. Simply put this is not supported by any sources, and appealing to the humanity in all of us I think everyone can agree that no sane person WANTS to die. Furthermore, if you extend the 6th source from my first speech, you see DOZENS of stories of people exonerated and who live happy lives today. Obviously my opponents claim that "people prefer dieing then jail" is false and is why we also prefer life imprisonment.

Furthermore he fails to recognize the major impact of the contention the killing of people is not only wrong, but the killing of an INNOCENT person is even worse. How many people in the pro world would need to be killed innocently before they realized the death penalty has major errors. Not only does the death penalty have controversial implications but it is easily resolved by having life without parole as the alternative. It reaches the same goal, stopping crime, at a cheaper cost and without the possibility of killing innocent inmates. My source states how tax payers actually are paying much more for death row; "taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement."(2)

Cont. 3
My opponent makes a very short response to my third contention and is basically the same as before, however he misses the fact that a RACIST federal institutions should NOT be allowed to continue its proceedings. The reason we created the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to prevent racial segregation and major forms of discrimination. Now not only does the Death Penalty meet the requirement for "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" but it is a breach to our 1964 CRA, furthering my resolve that the Death Penalty is not justified nor is it Moral, taking a life is never justified or moral.


My opponent begins by stating that justice is also defined as "proportionality" however as I stated above it obviously isn't. The ancient proverb comes to mind "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Rapists are not raped by the judicial system, arsonists are not set on fire by the judicial system, and murderers should not be murdered by the judicial system. Towards his value criterion, he is stating whoever brings about the most justice should win the round. I only do this the best, for two main reasons, one I reach the SAME justice that he does, I prevent crime and secondly I DO NOT kill innocent people, a judicial system that is okay with the killing of innocent people is obviously one that is not functioning properly and is the reason why you will always prefer life imprisonment. Furthermore I have further proof of how the Death Penalty DOES NOT result in better justice and in fact does not prevent harms as the Pro would like to believe it does, in fact states that employ the death penalty have a higher death murder rate then the ones that do not(1).

To his Cont. 1, the proportionality argument has been proved again and again that this should not be how our justice system is run. My opponent brings up a very nice statistic that 600,000 criminals are released each year, my one question is, how many of those were convicted of a serious crime that would usually result in a death penalty sentencing? As I stated in my earlier speech, only 70,000 people were convicted of serious crimes, compared to the 600,000 people released per year, we see that the number of inmates who were convicted of serious crimes and released must be very small indeed, completely disproving his impact of "danger to the populace"

Furthermore I have turned his impact, and proved that the death penalty actually costs MORE than sentencing someone life imprisonment. Furthermore we notice that "life imprisonment" means that the offender WOULD NOT return to society and therefore makes NO threat to society any longer, and in fact reaches justice for everyone AND I prevent the risk of "killing innocent people" meaning not only do I punish the people who commit crimes but I PROTECT the innocent, meaning I link into his value criterion BETTER than he does a clear reason why you must vote CON.

I thank my opponent for his arguments and await the replies, may the best debater win!



I would like to thank my Good Friend Nicholas for this challenging round.

You can already cast your ballad for Pro because of the very CRUCIAL drop he makes. He drops the argument about how life in prison with no parole is worst than the death penalty.

On to the Value Criterion Debate

My opponent makes major contradictory statements when he says there is no break in the sanctity of life when one goes to jail and he also makes it seem that one going to jail is actually good. If one is fed, housed, and given the basic necessities of life then why doesn't everyone break the law to go to jail ? He never makes this kind of argument before so you must allow me to respond. The point of having jail is to be a deterrence to crime. The way my opponent makes jail sound isn't causing any kind of deterrence what so ever. This is already a reason to vote Pro because the Death Penalty doesn't sound Nice at all therefore Potential Violators of crime will be deterred from committing said crimes. We can't have the value criterion of "Sanctity of Life" because then there would be no deliverance of justice at all.

Also we need to at least discredit this Value Criterion because his second contention is all about how the Pro can never respect the "Sanctity of Life" because the Death Penalty can potentially kill innocent people. This is EXTREMELY abusive because the point of a good Value Criterion is to allow both sides to link into that said criterion, to be a good weighing mechanism. However this Value Criterion is a POOR weighing mechanism due to it being largely circular. This is the SECOND MAJOR reason to vote Pro. He has made a MAJOR breach in the point of LD Debate and should be dropped right here and now. He takes out ALL Fairness in the round with this abusive nature. I now must waste character space on trying to beat back this Value Criterion and I can't provide any kind of educational benefit to this round which is the very point of this debate round. Here is another CLEAR VOTER to drop my opponent. He takes out all Education.

Now against my value criterion of promoting justice to be delivered my opponent only attack on my value criterion was that he can link into it better (Which means he concedes to my value criterion being the criterion of the round) and he attempts to de-link me from my value criterion but this means he accepts my value criterion. He provides no reason to consider his criterion over mine therefore extend my Value Criterion to be the Criterion of the round.


He tries to bring up the fact that in the 1700-1800's Slavery was considered justified. This doesn't help him, he still needs to prove the Death Penalty isn't justified. This is where he was supposed to make up for the serious breach of education he made earlier in his speech but he simply continues to breach education. The B.O.P Lied on people like Abraham Lincoln and that's where education came about. If the burden of proof is on me this is another place where I must waste character space trying to beat it back. Here is your third voter of Fairness/Education breach by my opponent.

Then he tries to talk about the majority of the Populace opposed the death penalty, but first this is extremely contradictory to what he said in his case therefore don't allow him to change his words. Second these statistics don't prove anything in the Status Quo many places still have the death penalty in place and its considered perfectly justified, and just because a majority of the people are in support of something doesn't make it justified look to slavery as an example. The B.O.P Still lies on the Con.

Cont. 1

Against the idea that the Death Penalty meets the definition of "Cruel" I say it isn't because its proportional and delivers justice. Against this my opponent brings up life in prison, and the "eye for an eye" Proverb.

Against the "Life in Prison" argument: Just as my opponent makes Life in Prison sound earlier is the exact reason why it ISN'T proportional to capital crime. When one commits Capital Crime they rob someones natural rights. Rather than lose theirs as well (Which is what proportionality promotes) My opponent rewards them by allowing them to live for free on the common peoples tax dollars.

Against the "Eye for an eye" proverb: The way I use Proportional is the level of the crime (Such as capital crime or low level crime) is equal to the level of punishment (Such as capital crime or a day in jail respectively) therefore the proportionality he tries to promote isn't what I'm talking about.

The Theory shell I ran earlier outweighs this completely because this contention doesn't link into the value criterion of promoting justice.

Cont. 2

Basically against the first paragraph extend the argument of post-trauma life in jail causes a person. Also "Give me freedom or give me death" Comes into major play in upholding that extension. This extension shows how life in prison is more harmful than the Death Penalty.

He can provide the impact of protecting innocence all he wants but the fact of the matter is I'm protecting innocence from even further pain. People are often beaten and raped in jail. My opponent fails to recognize this throughout his arguments.

Also he takes about abolishing it to make things cheaper but first this doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty just because it is cheaper to have life in prison doesn't mean the death penalty isn't a justified means of punishment. Second these tax payers would be paying less but they would still be paying for innocence to go to jail and be abused every day which is a loss-loss situation.

Cont. 3

My response may have been short but it was still effective. No where in his third contention is there hard evidence that says the justice system is definitely racist only some of the rulings it makes MAY have SOME implications of racism. This doesn't take out the justifications of the Death Penalty. Therefore since my opponent doesn't meet his B.O.P at all there is no reason to vote con. This will be your fourth voter to vote Pro.

Now onto my first contention.

Now he tries to weasel out of it by saying the danger to the populace is very small but this is problematic because he himself says any danger to innocence is too much to risk and now he turns around saying there is only small risk to the populace ? I find this very contradictory as well as hypocritical and is your fifth voter to vote Pro because he himself says any risk to innocence is too much and shouldn't be taken.

Now the ending paragraph starts off by saying the Death Penalty is cheaper but that still doesn't take out the justification. Then he says when one is sentenced to life imprisonment then the offender doesn't return to society but offenders of serious crimes can still be released into society due to a bargaining chip of some kind prosecutors do this all the time therefore the death penalty is the only way to assure that the risk to innocence is low and then he says he prevents innocence from dying but he still promotes post-traumatic issues from jail which harms innocence as well as risks these crazy people to be released back into society and harm other innocence.

Here's how the round breaks down.

The first major voter is the theory shell I give earlier about my opponents abusive nature in this round and how Fairness/Education is a voter which he undermines.

The second reason is the value criterion for this round is to promote justice which the Pro does much better than Con because I ensure that one who may or may not be innocent won't deal with trauma from jail and also risk them being released back into the populace to harm other innocent people which also links into his criterion of sanctity of life so by my opponents own standard I win.

My opponent can get sources seeing that he had more but I get arguments link into both criterions more effectively.

I'd like to thank Nick for a GREAT round.

Once again VOTE PRO ! :D
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 3 years ago
Arguments go to Pro because of the carry of the BoP also the Proportionality argument.

I think the point everyone fails to get is that Pro supports the idea that LWOP is worse than the death penalty and is way too harsh.

I gave arguments to Pro right off of that argument and coupled with his sole contention were extremely strong.

The first and third contention of the Con were washed.

The theory shell in the last speech made me give conduct to Pro.

Good round to both debaters I hope to see more.
Posted by bluwater94 3 years ago
No offence TUF but did you really have to give him the points for "spelling/grammar" seriously i think were both equal on that, at least.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
This isn't a vote bomb
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Thanks for the detailed RFD. Much Appreciated :D
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
I voted Con precisely because he dropped the argument of life in prison being worse than the DP. That is ridiculous, and empirically false but no dispute was made so it stands in round. So basically, I was told that Life in prison is the worst punishment, and as Pro states: "When someone commits a capital crime, such as murder, the offense isn't able to be fixed. Someone is robbed of their natural rights to Life, Liberty, or Property COMPLETELY.". So if the crime is so grave, it should be received with the harshest penalty that is justly available, and I had no reason to believe LWOP to be unjust. So we have that murder is despicable, both the DP and LWOP are just sentences in response, but LWOP inflicts more suffering. The latter is obviously preferable.

Cons first contention was a wash. For one, the resolution is not US specific, so I cant weigh in round on the 8th amendment being violated. And clearly, it doesnt violate the 8th, but thats another debate. Contention two was a solid point for Con, no need to waste innocent life. Pros refutation didnt do it for me, LWOP might be worse, but it isn't irreversible. Capital punishment, for all its merits, is. Contention three was also a wash. Non-US specific resolution, AND it doesnt address the key issue of the justification behind Capital Punishment. C3 is an argument of why the DP needs to be suspended/abolished/repaired, not why it is fundamentally unjust.

Pros sole contention almost had me voting for him, but I felt that his advocacy of the DP on the grounds that its more humane while simultaneously defending the status quo (which allows LWOP for much less serious crimes such as kidnapping of "three strikes") is contradicting.

So neg wins
Posted by bluwater94 4 years ago
I forgot to mention that before our second arguments my opponent and I agreed to be able to post new sources/arguments for a richer debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 3 years ago
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I give the point of sources to Con because he had a lot more. My RFD for Arguments will be in the comments section.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Good carry of the BOP, by the pro. Overall an interesting debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved LWOP is possibly worse than the DP, and pro does not fully fight this very important point. But is is false but pro didn't fight it. Also his refutation for the innocent was weak, yet he could have used multiple sources proving his point. Con won.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
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: I felt that PRO was able to justify the death penalty completely, also had a much better response to Con's arguments and refutations than Con had to Pro.