The Instigator
Pastafarian
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
BillNyeTheUSSpy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 8 votes the winner is...
Pastafarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,540 times Debate No: 15603
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

Pastafarian

Con


Hey Michael—and once again I would like to challenge you to another debate on debate.org.
Definition
Death Penalty: death as punishment for a crime called also capital punishment http://dictionary.reference.com...
Illegal: Forbidden by law or statute http://dictionary.reference.com...
Overview
This debate will be about the death penalty. I shall be con saying that the death penalty should be illegal, for it is immoral. Pro will rebuttal and give statements on how the death penalty should be legal and that we should continue executing prisoners. The death penalty is rather pointless in my opinion because it costs us more money than the life sentence. The death penalty—does it bring back the victim? No it doesn’t. The death penalty rather than showing us to not perpetrate heinous crimes—shows that us Americans kill one another.
Structure of the Debate
Round 1: Introductions, and first arguments for Con. Pro will show his rebuttals to my arguments and give his own arguments
Round 2: Con will argue back and give more reasons. Pro will rebuttal to Con’s claims and give his arguments again.
Round 3: Same as round 2
Round 4: Rebuttal, and give your own personal reasons why the death penalty should be illegal or legal. (for both Pro and Con.)

Round 5: Conclusion.
Arguments
The Death Penalty is a waste of money
The death penalty is a pointless way to punish criminals in many ways. Rather than spend 137 million dollars a year on executing criminals, we should just put them into a life sentence. As said earlier—137 million dollars a year is on executing criminals, but however putting them in a life-sentence will cost only around 11.5 million dollars a year. Life sentence can just be as agonizing as having the death sentence. Death sentence basically means that they kill the criminals, but having a life sentence means that they let the criminals rot in jail until they die.
The Death Penalty is considered cruel and unusual
The United States constitution prevents Americans from being killed in a cruel and unusual manner. Whether or not it’s a decapitation, electric chair, gas chamber, or lethal injection—it’s barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder in a crowd of people. There’s no point in watching one being killed in an audience, so to say. My belief is that it’s unusual for American’s to be watching an execution happening in jail.
The Death Penalty could’ve killed innocent lives
The third argument in which I will provide states that “The Death Penalty could’ve killed innocent lives.” For example—Donald Paradis was sentence to death row in the 1980s for the assumption of him killing two people. After 21 years of hard work from his lawyers—they proved that Donald Paradis actually did not kill the two people—rather he hid the bodies into another place. In this website in which I will provide—it states that they saved approximately 12 innocent people from death row.. 12 people that might’ve been killed for no exact reason—other than perjury from the jury. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
In conclusion—the death penalty is pointless, immoral, and a waste of money.
Vote Con.
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Pro

Hello again Vincent. I think I'm on a difficult side to be on for this topic, but bring it on!

I'll follow the structure that Pastafarian made, so I'll start with rebuttals.

Rebuttal 1: The Death Penalty is a waste of money.

How much does safety cost? Its invaluable.

My reasons:

Reason 1: Safety is key.

If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe.
Debate Round No. 1
Pastafarian

Con

Round 2: BEGIN!
REFUTATION 1:
Rebuttals to Pro's Statement to my Argument.
First of all I am assuming that his rebuttal and reasoning is the same thing so I'll consider it as a Rebuttal/Reasoning Paragraph.

"Rebuttal 1: The Death Penalty is a waste of money. How much does safety cost? Its invaluable. : Safety is key.

If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe."

Pro says asks the audience how much does safety cost? Again based off his undescriptive rebuttal/reasoning I would have to assume by safety he means the perpetrator being able to go outside and cause more rampage. As I said earlier-- if they were put in a life sentence with no parole they can not get out. There is also something called "Solitary Confinement"

Part 2:
"If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe.If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe."

I highly doubt gangsters would go blow up the jail the person was in. Pro did not describe what kind of explosion so I am going to assume something as large as the Oklahoma explosion-- the one Timothy McVeigh did. I ask the audience-- what it means the world would be in danger again. What does it mean? The jail would be blown up so therefore the perpetrator would be in microscopic pieces. Part 2 made no sense, and contradicts itself.
ARGUMENTS
Evidence 1: Killing one person does not bring the other person back
What is the point in killing someone on death row? It will not bring another person back, unless they were injected with a zombie virus.. This statement is speculation-- but I believe justice is better served if he's suffering on a life sentence with no chance of parole. Hate, revenge, etc will not bring back your loved one.. Forgiveness is the first way to start the healing process, and it won't start if your a revenge-focused individual

Please Vote Con.
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Pro

My Rebuttal to your Rebuttal/Reasoning Paragraph:

"...If they were put in a life sentence with no parole they can not get out." There are no guarantees in life. Obama says that he promised change. Many people still feel like he hasnt made any change yet. My friend promised me that he would pay me back for all the cough drops that I gave him. He still hasnt paid back yet after a year.

Part 2:

You highly doubt gangsters would go blow up the jail the person was in? Did you highly doubt airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center? I bet you did. What happened after this? The depression happened. I ask the audience- Do you think that the things you thought were impossible were possible? I thought not.

Rebuttal to Evidence 1:

The family of the victim of murder may never forgive the person who killed their beloved family member. And again, safety in this country is very important. If that person got out again, another person could die. Take a look at diseases now. Would you just want to allow the disease to be stuck in one place or would you want to end the disease right where it is? Think about it.

Please vote Pro for making quick 2- 10 minute responses.
Debate Round No. 2
Pastafarian

Con

My Rebuttal to Pro’s Rebuttal/Reasoning Statements:

Someone that did a heinous crime will obviously not get a 3 month time in Torrance Jail. Once I prove the Death Sentence being immoral, the most threatening outcome in jail will be Life Sentence without parole. We are basing this again off of someone in death row. If there wasn’t “Death Row,” the next part would be a Life Sentence without Parole. I do not understand Pro’s reasoning in “Obama says that he promised change—hasn’t paid back yet after a year.” Please clarify on this
PART 2

I dislike the part where Pro blatantly assumed that I highly doubted airplanes crashing into the WTC. I knew something bad was going to happen one day—but I didn’t know it would be that one day. I should have said earlier that there hasn’t been any bombing in jail heard of so far. Of course it might happen one day—but it hasn’t happened yet. And the clincher for Part 2 did not make sense to me, so I would like you to clarify that statement.
Rebuttal to Evidence 1 of what Pro Said

“If that person got out again, another person could die,” You are basing all of this off the person not receiving a life sentence.. We are basing all of this of off Death Row inmates, not some person in jail for Grand Theft Auto. If one kills someone in a heinous fashion than he would obviously receive at lightest a life sentence.
“Take a look at diseases now. Would you just want to allow the disease to be stuck in one place or would you want to end the disease right where it is?” This claim makes no sense because you can’t “end” a disease. What you can do is prevent yourself having getting those diseases.


I thank Pro for committing to this debate even though he strongly opposes the Death Penalty.. One note to Pro—please clarify on what you say.
I shall not provide any more arguments because of the fact that Pro has not even provided any evidence pertaining to the fact that the Death Penalty is moral.
Please vote Con.
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Pro

Vote con for writing nothing this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Pastafarian

Con

I extend my arguments due to Pro's supposed forfeit....

Please
Vote Con
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Pro

trololololololololololoolololololololing
Debate Round No. 4
Pastafarian

Con

In conclusion what I had stated from rounds 1-3 are the reason why the death penalty is immoral. I urge the audience to vote for con, as pro forfeited and couldn't refute to anything I say.

Have a great evening
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Pro

In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by edenmay 3 years ago
edenmay
Good day. If my side will be considered... I would prefer death penalty as a good and a just action.
* The Death Penalty is a waste of money, well it is not. to spend money for the better, safety and welfare of your country is reasonable enough to allocate budget for death penalty. Putting a prisoner in jail that committed a lot of murders and even killed individual is subject to death!
* The Death Penalty is considered cruel and unusual, no! it is not cruel. death penalty gives justice to the relatives or family of a person/people whom the murderer killed. Don't you think that killing someone whom is innocent is not cruel enough???
Posted by PervRat 3 years ago
PervRat
"... 137 million dollars a year on executing criminals ... (compared with) 11.5 million dollars a year" ... con argues against himself in the opening on the claim of cost. 12 years of incarceration costs less than the death penalty, and he's talking about locking them up for 30, 40 or more years, executing them is clearly cheaper.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Amveller 3 years ago
Amveller
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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: Pro forfeited
Vote Placed by CapsLock 3 years ago
CapsLock
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This is pretty obvious.
Vote Placed by Puck 3 years ago
Puck
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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: Eh
Vote Placed by PervRat 3 years ago
PervRat
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side argued well, but Pro did not conduct himself well at all in the debate. What a waste of a good topic.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: In general, a bad debate. Pro didn't provide any decent arguments, neither side used any good sources, and I'm at least happy that this only wasted a few minutes of my life.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded without making any significant arguments, thereby wasting everyone's time. No relevant sources by either side. Poor debate.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: duh
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con for pro's not seeming to take the debate seriously. Con was the only one to use sources and pro was unable to refute either of con's arguments.