The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 60835
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First round whatever you want, open with your own arguments.

I saw some people discussing this earlier and thought someone would at least consider trying to change my mind. I think the death penalty, or capital punishment, should not exist. Pro will obviously be arguing to keep the death penalty where it is already in place, or implement it in more regions.

Please no semantics.

Good luck!


(Hi there. Just for the record I agree with you. I just want to practice debating, and see if I can argue against what I believe in.)
First of all, the death penalty is for those who have committed horrific crimes against humanity. It's hard to imagine how much the family of the victims hurt after learning about the murder/other crime committed against someone they love. The death penalty allows them to feel that they have gotten even.
And when serial killers end up serving a life sentence instead of taking the death penalty, things end even worse. There are many records of them being killed brutally in prison, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, who ended up being bludgeoned to death.
Debate Round No. 1


It's always good to debate against something you believe in; it helps a lot with your perspective regarding that topic.

Thanks for accepting!

It's perfectly acceptable for families or friends to wish the same fate upon the offender that took someone they love from them. I thought the same thing, that if someone killed someone, they too should deserve to die.

However; who knows what happens when you die? For all we know, it's nothing. To some, that could literally be taken as a reward - a freedom; especially since in most cases, the person is injected with a fast acting serum that kills them painlessly.

If I can ask a question - what would you, personally, consider worse: being set free of all pain and hardship, or suffering for your entire life (or most of it)? Now I know that is biased to an extent, as we don't know for sure what happens after we die, but we do know for a fact what happens when we are alive. And to punish someone in their current life would make a lot more sense than to let them slip away and cease to exist.

You brought up Jeffrey Dahmer, someone who I had in the back of my head when thinking about creating this debate. He was a sick POS who brutally destroyed the lives of not only the 17 girls he raped and dismembered, but their families and friends, and scarred people who heard about the events. Although my gut instinct would say take him out of existence, we need to consider how, what happens when you do, and what would happen if you don't.

How - Lethal Injection [1] is the most commonly used form of execution. It puts the inmate to sleep before shutting down his organs and stopping his heart [2].

What happens if you do - Like I mentioned before, the inmate simply falls asleep and dies in their sleep. We don't know what happens to someone after they die.

What happens if you don't - Take Jeffrey Dahmer as our primary example. He was meant to spend 16 terms of life imprisonment, so in other words, he wasn't ever leaving prison.

Variables - Dahmer was brutally killed after spending almost 3 years in prison.

Now if we take all these factors into account, what would have been a more appropriate punishment for someone who raped and dismembered 17 girls? Putting him to sleep, or letting him rot for the rest of his life? And considering he was probably beaten and picked on constantly during his stay in prison until he was beaten to death, I would say that's a pretty fair punishment.

Mind you, maybe I should have made this clearer, I'm not saying strictly imprisonment is better than capital punishment. I'm including what happens in prison; how you're treated by guards and other inmates is included.

Looking forward to hearing your side of this!




Exactly. You don't know what happens when you die, so you can't just assume that they slip away just like that. Who knows, it hasn't been scientifically proven that hell exists or not.
And Jeffrey Dahmer did not murder girls, he murdered boys, as he was a homosexual and wanted to feed into his sick fantasies.

And even though most U.S. states don't allow it, use of the electric chair still exists, however rare. The electric chair is a bit more uncomfortable way to die, to say the least. (not that I am approving of torture. The electric chair isn't as bad as that.)

Yes, and there is no guarantee that they will be treated badly in prison.

And there have been problems with prison overpopulation as well. Why not just do away with them, and have them not be a problem anymore?

And what if they get a parole, or even escape? That gives them another opportunity to kill or commit other crimes.
Debate Round No. 2


You're willing to not punish someone in this life, where everyone knows they are being punished, because we "don't know" what happens after we die? We could also be in an infinitely happy place for eternity, nobody can prove that place doesn't exist either. We can't prove hell exists, and nothing suggests it does that can back it up with any kind of evidence, so we have really absolutely no reason to believe it does other than "it's a possibility," which is why I believe it is better to punish someone in this life (one we know exists and is real, etc) instead of just winging it and seeing what happens after you die.

Sorry, not sure why I said girls. Either way, he's a sick pos.

Even with the electric chair, although barely used anymore, death is still quite fast, and guaranteed. It isn't anywhere near as bad as being locked in prison for decades and possibly (probably) being beaten a lot.

There is no guarantee, but simply being in prison is bad enough, or good enough for society. They are locked away, alone, in a dark cell, with horrible food, nobody to talk to and really no reason to be happy. It really isn't a good place even if nobody picks on you.

[1] The reason we have prison overpopulation is not because of the millions of mass murderers, it's because of the millions of petty crime charges; possession of marijuana, sale of alcohol to a minor, illegal downloads, petty theft, etc. Things that a lot of people do that don't actually hurt anyone. Using illegal drugs sends you to jail, even if you haven't hurt anyone besides yourself. People are branded pedophiles, pedophiles for having sex with a 17 year old when they themselves are in their early 20's. Ridiculous laws (especially the last one) are the reason there is a prison overpopulation. Killing a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people is not going to change anything.

A lot of the time, the people who are being considered to go on death row are also being considered to spend life in prison - with no chance of parole. Parole is almost never an option if someone is a serial killer, rapist, terrorist, etc. And it is hard as hell to escape prison.

Would you agree that it is better to be punished in this life time than just hope something happens after they die? That makes sense to me.



Yes, death by electric chair is guaranteed, but not always that fast.

Prisoners do have other inmates to talk to, actually, every day. And there are several advantages of staying in prison for life that sickos could take, such as having free access to food and shelter, which is a good thing to them, as well as rehabilitation. Just killing them off doesn't give them a chance to learn anything either. I'm not saying that if a killer says that they regret their actions, just forgive them and set them free, but time in prison could allow them to reflect on their actions.

Yes, some of those laws are ridiculous, but it's better to do something than nothing even if it doesn't make a significant change, don't you agree?

And just because escape is hard doesn't mean that it isn't impossible.

There is Ted Bundy, for example, who killed after he escaped. It's better to ensure that that won't happen, and just eliminate the problem completely. Ted Bundy actually evidently feared the death penalty greatly, as he exhausted every legal point just to get a life sentence instead.

I'm just using Ted Bundy as an example though, since he is well known. His behavior can represent many inmates who have committed atrocious crimes. Honestly, the horrible criminals don't know that jail is a bad place. They actually fear the death penalty, which can prevent the crimes.

And once again, I think I should stress that it provides closure for the victims' families, which they definitely deserve.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Chuz-Life; I'd be more than happy to debate you on this. As soon as you have time, feel free to challenge me, I will accept unless I'm incredibly busy, which I highly doubt I will be.

Also lol @ aerogant
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
Hey Aerogant, I've restricted my debates many times. Am I an idiot? No. My win percentage is 70% higher than yours, and you have the lowest ELO possible on this site, and one of the lowest win percentages ever too. So it's kind of funny for you to be calling someone an idiot.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
This may comes as a shock (to some) but I am a defender of capital punishment. I can accept and fully support the death penalty. So, I'm tempted to accept your challenge, MM. However, I'm already involved in another debate and I barely have the time to give it the effort the subject deserves. maybe when that one is over??
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Aero, Do you know me more than I know my parents?
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Spot on. Except it's 0.2%, give me some credit.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
By the way, I am against the death penalty, so nice assertion. You clearly are afraid of me, that you cannot even imagine that I could agree with you on some things. That's the ultimate fallacy of all fears - it turns a human into 100% nullification. Why? Because the way fear works, is that it treats objects as if you were running away with your back turned, therefore you cannot see eve 0.1% of the the value in those of which you fear.

I know fear more than you know your own parents.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Exactly. You restrict it because you know someone on here doesn't take your BS seriously and destroys your arguments as if it was their destiny. You're the one that thinks "scientist" as a word means a "real scientist" - you're the one that believes what you want to hear and read through your limited understanding of a facetious and deceitful world, not me. That's why you restrict it - you're afraid. I have not once restricted a single argument because I have nothing to hide and I can take all of you on by myself.

Get on my level, nutters.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
I kind of thought you would try to accept this. One of the reasons I restricted it so you couldn't accept.

Emphasis on you. Sorry, bud.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
All the idiots restrict their debates - period.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know what happened at the end. Pro made a case against the death penalty and for the life sentence while showing the benefits of being in prison compared to death. It only shows that the life sentence is better than death penalty... "Just killing them off doesn't give them a chance to learn anything either." Confusing and not helping to his case. So...con wins.