The Instigator
Rhetorician
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
snamor
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

The Death Penalty, is unjust and should be removed

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...
Rhetorician
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 777 times Debate No: 34729
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Rhetorician

Pro

The death penalty should be eliminated. Murder in and of itself is morally wrong. Justice cannot be morally wrong.

The death penalty deals with the emotion of man, and not with the justice law is supposed to seek.

When we feel a person has done to us or society a grand wronging, we feel it is necessary for this person to be punished to the utmost of our capability. I concede this, as I would feel the same if I were wronged to a high degree. If my Mother were killed, I would want death to her assailant.

However, the law is not an emotional tool, it is meant to implement a just punishment.

The death penalty cannot be just, as just is to be morally good. And it is universally accepted that murder in and of itself is morally wrong.
snamor

Con

It seems this is the first debate for myself and my opponent. I was surprised to see the clock running down from an hour immediately after accepting so I will make a brief opening argument in response to what pro has stated.

The death penalty is a just punishment for those who have committed 1st degree murder. Rather than abolishing this penalty, it should more common and carried out more swiftly.

Assuming that my opponent is speaking of the death penalty being carried out legally by a government, it cannot be considered murder since murder is the illegal taking of a life.

Based on my opponents opening statement, it seems we have different understandings of justice as well. I look forward to the debate. Blessings.
Debate Round No. 1
Rhetorician

Pro

Let us present our definitions for just and moral.

I define just as merriam-webster defines it, among other sources, acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.

I define moral as merriam-webster defines it, among other sources, of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Based on the definitions provided a just punishment must be a moral punishment. I am glad to see your defense revolves around your definition of murder. It is necessary to rephrase "The death penalty cannot be just, as just is to be morally good. And it is universally accepted that to kill in and of itself is morally wrong."

Please keep the issue in context. The issue is one of morals. Killing, though possibly emotionally satisfying to the wronged, is an unmoral and therefore unjust act.
snamor

Con

snamor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rhetorician

Pro

In observance of your lack of argument for the second round, I will keep mine short.

As previously stated, the death penalty deals with the emotions of man, and not with the justice that law is supposed to seek.

An eye for an eye is emotionally satisfying. It is often the bigger man who receives a wronging, and seeks the high road. It is the duty of the law to take the high road.
snamor

Con

snamor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
snamor

Con

snamor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Rhetorician

Pro

Concluded.
snamor

Con

snamor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
RhetoriciansnamorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Aristotle's view of murder is that it is always wrong and killing another being is morally incorrect which is Pros basis. Con forfeited all rounds and only gave the definititon of murder. that is not an argument for why the penalty should stay
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
RhetoriciansnamorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither one cited any sources, points to Con for more convincing argument.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
RhetoriciansnamorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
RhetoriciansnamorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: There was only 1 round for arguments none were able to be refuted
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
RhetoriciansnamorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The claim that the death penalty is murder was an assertion without an argument. Con's response was adequate, that the state has legal authority, so it isn't murder. Pro needed to make some argument beyond repeating the assertion. Con forfeited, but no arguments were advanced in the forfeited rounds, so the debate was effectively ended at the start of the forfeits. Con loses conduct for the forfeits, but wins arguments.