The Instigator
BenJWasson
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
migmag
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

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 3 votes the winner is...
BenJWasson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 93717
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

BenJWasson

Pro

Hey everyone!

Some rules:

-First round is acceptance only.

-No semantics or ad hominem attacks.

-Use actual evidence and cite sources please.

-Have fun!

A couple other things about my speeches:

-If anyone doesn't know, a contention is another word for point or assertion, I will be using this word in my speeches. Also, c means contention as well (like if I say C1 it means Contention 1).

-Also, a criterion (also called standard) is something which the judge chooses who wins the debate by, it is part of framework. For example, if the criterion is health (and both sides accept this criterion), then all arguments that don't involve health are invalid, because the judge, or in this case the voters, are only focusing on health.

-Lastly, if, at any time, I say "we", "our", or similar words in my speech, it means my team, which in this case is just myself (sorry, used to typing out cases for a team of multiple people).

migmag

Con

this website is STUPID regarding "debate rules", I'm going to make my comments end of story.
you CANT UNKILL someone, so people that are later found INNOCENT can NOT be BROUGHT BACK
Debate Round No. 1
BenJWasson

Pro

Hey everyone! There isn't much to talk about beforehand, so I'm just going to get straight into this debate.

VIOLATION OF RULES
I said in my first speech that first round is acceptance only, but my opponent completely disregards what I have said and actually posts an argument, even insulting the site itself. Due to a violation of the rules I have set out, conduct points go to Pro. Moving on to my actual arguments.

RESPONSE TO CON POINT
With this violation of rules in mind, I will still be refuting what the Con has said, which is the Death Penalty kills innocents.

The DP killing innocents argument is completely invalid. There is no factual evidence saying that the death penalty has killed an innocent in decades. To support this is Bob McCulloch, St. Louis County prosecutor. When asked if the death penalty kills innocents, he responded with:

“No. There are claims out there about that by those who are against it, but in the modern era of the death penalty, which is since about the mid-70s when it was reinstated and approved by the Supreme Court, there has not been.”

Even so, as the evidence from my first contention shows, every execution carried out through the death penalty deters 18 innocent deaths, so the amount of lives that we are saving are 18 times the amount of lives we are losing in the absolute worst case scenario (which isn't really possible anyways).


With that refutation out of the way, here are my contentions (or points).

PRO CONTENTIONS
C1: The death penalty deters crime.
The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty will save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.

"The reasoning here is simple - fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, death is a much more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the mind of murderers - to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them."
(David Muhlhausen The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives)

Numerous studies support this idea. One study looked at over 3,054 counties over a period of more than two decades, found that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. Another study conducted in 1985 by Stephen K. Layson at the University of California concluded that just a single execution deters 18 murders. Judge, you don’t need to calculate how many lives that saves, because we have. 1 execution deters 18 murders, based on our previous evidence, and according to information from the Death Penalty Information Center, 28 people died from the death sentence in 2015. If you do some simple math, 28 times 18 is 504. This means that approximately 504 murders were stopped simply because of the death penalty deterring crime in just 2015.

So, to conclude this contention, the death penalty deters crimes and saves hundreds of lives per year.

C2: The DP prevents the accused from committing further crime.
Subpoint A - Recidivism.

Often times, many criminals come back into society, only to kill again. This is called recidivism. An example of this is Andrew Dawson, self proclaimed “Angel of Mercy”, who originally went to jail for stabbing 91 year old Henry Walsh in 1982. In 2010 he was released, and within just a couple weeks, he stabbed neighbors John Matthews and Paul Hancock when they were defenseless, leaving their bodies in bathtubs.

Things like this actually happen more than one would think. Statistics from the Bureau of Justice show that despite journalism claims to be the contrary, recidivism rates are actually fairly high, coming in at 51.2% re-arrest rates for people whose greatest crime was murder. The death penalty can stop this, making murderers unable to end more innocent life.

Another example of this is Kenneth McDuff. He had killed 3 young adults with an accomplice. The accomplice had then given up, and confessed. Kenneth was sent to life in prison, but was later released. After being released, he killed 9 more people.

The death penalty ensures a complete 0% rate of recidivism, since it is impossible to commit a crime after death. Thus, the death penalty would prevent this from ever happening.

Subpoint B - Further crimes in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for prisoners to commit homicide, suicide as well as rape or other crimes while in jail, because there is no worse punishment they can receive than something like life in jail. Putting dangerous criminals in jail just endangers the other inmates and the guards who watch them.

The only way to make sure a criminal doesn’t harm any other innocent people is to subject them to the death penalty.

C3: The Death Penalty brings justice to the deserving and keeps communities aware.
When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished. If we allow murderers to continue living such as in the case of life without parole, what we are doing is wasting taxpayer money to feed people responsible for the deaths of men, women, and children. J. Budziszewski, Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas, further explains this.

“Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution.”

So the best way to maintain a fair and just country while also preserving peace and keeping communities aware of the problem that is murder is by using the death penalty.

CONCLUSION
I have fulfilled my BoP with my three contentions, I have refuted everything Con has said, and I have shown the rule violation of Con. Because of all these reasons, vote Pro!

migmag

Con

You are NOT a Democrat on LOTS of issues. Democrats are FOR Affirmative Action YOU apparently are NOT. True Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST most aspects of Capitalism but YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST a Flat Tax YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST the NRA Gun Rights Movement YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST the Iraq/Afghan Wars YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are FOR Labor Unions YOU are NOT, TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are for RAISING the Minimum Wage YOU are NOT, In Fact of the FIFTY 50 "Big Issues" your profile addresses you are on the WRONG side of over HALF of the issues, so HOW do you list yourself as a DEMOCRAT? Welfare, Minimum Wage, Labor Unions, and MANY issues where you put "Und" or "N/O", HOW can you NOT have an opinion? What I want to know is your own PROFILE says you are AGAINST the Death Penalty!!!
Debate Round No. 2
BenJWasson

Pro

Con continues to use personal attacks to try and win debates... Oh boy.

MY DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS
All Con does in his second speech is try to say that I am not a Democrat, although he doesn't refute any of what I have said or even respond to my refutations. Not only is this claim that I am not a Democrat have nothing to do with the debate at hand, but it is also simply untrue.

In his speech he basically lists a lot of the issues that he thinks all Democrats are on one side of (a huge generalization, by the way), and says that I am not for/against these issues, however he even says it himself, I put Undecided or No Opinion on these issues, meaning I am not for one specific side. Even so, the only reason I put these two things on these issues is because I have not done enough research to make an education opinion.

"How can you not have an opinion?"
Maybe because I don't immediatly follow the bandwagon on these issues and actually try to find the side that I would fit best with, which is in this case neither. Just because my profile says I am against the Death Penalty doesn't mean that I can debate the other side, in fact this debate was actually to see what side I am truly on because I have done a lot of research and want to make a truly education opinion (as you can see on my profile, even after doing this research I am still against the DP).

CONCLUSION
As you can see, this debate isn't much of a debate right now. All Con is doing is personally attacking me, yet he doesn't even mention my whole second speech. All of what I said stands untouched, which is why I don't really have much to say in this speech. I hope Con can actually respond to my arguments in his next speech, but for now, vote Pro!
migmag

Con

You can't be the PRO LIFE party (Republicans) and also want to KILL people
Debate Round No. 3
BenJWasson

Pro

Con is saying completely irrelevant things at this point. Who says you have to be Republican? Are you just assuming everyone is a Republican? Also, Pro Life has nothing to do with the death penalty. As I explained in my third point, the death penalty is needed to maintain justice in our society. Also, there are many benefits to it that end up saving more people than are killed (nevermind the fact that the people killed are the worst of criminals).

My arguments still stand, they were unrefuted. Vote Pro!
migmag

Con

Politics is BLACK and WHITE, If you are FOR the Death Penalty, that's a CONSERVATIVE position, if the Death Penalty WERE your PRIMARY issue, you 100% WOULD have to admit to being a Republican, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton JUST confirmed they are BOTH ANTI Death Penalty
Debate Round No. 4
BenJWasson

Pro

Again, my opponent is questioning whether or not I am a Democrat, which has nothing to do with the topic. Look, if you really wanted to argue about whether or not I am a Democrat, message me personally. I'd rather not you ruin this debate with something irrelevant.

Con has also not even spoken of anything I have said in my speeches. I have given reasons for the DP standing and he has not talked about them.

I am clearly winning this debate so far. Vote Pro!

migmag

Con

Again, it's black and white the death penalty is NOT a deterrent and killing another human being is PLAYING GOD, if they belong in prison for 40 years, fine, but death is never acceptable
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
Sounds good. Just sent you the challenge.
Posted by BenJWasson 7 months ago
BenJWasson
@thinkbig alright, i can do that.
Posted by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
I'd like to debate this with you. Sorry your debate was taken by a troll.
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
Also, saying I shouldn't be on the website just because I don't have an opinion on these issues is ridiculous. They put an Undecided option for a reason.
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
No, the fact that I am undecided means that I haven't done enough research to choose a side. I don't blindly follow the Democratic party, I think for myself - sorry, might be an unheard of concept for you.
Posted by migmag 10 months ago
migmag
go ahead, as a Black person if they think it's OK to be ANTI Affirmative Action, which is WHY they vote DEMOCRAT. How can you POSSIBLY say you need to "research" Affirmative Action? It GUARANTEES the minority group an EQUAL place at the table. HOW can you be UNDECIDED on ALL of the issues you mention? And the FACT that you are says you CANT be a Democrat, certainly NOT a Progressive Liberal Democrat. I have done WAY more research that you EVER will, besides, didn't you take even ONE Political Science class? You SHOULD have learned PLENTY about Politics and these issues. LABOR UNIONS are SUPER important if you want ANY chance at GOOD pay and GOOD benefits. Minimum Wage is VERY important to see to it that ABUSIVE EMPLOYERS don't try to UNDER pay their employees with a NON living wage. How can you NOT know whether you believe in REASONABLE gun control? Republicans are against ALL types of gun control PERIOD. You shouldn't be in here (or be allowed to vote) if you don't know THESE ISSUES
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
On my profile it says I am undecided on affirmative action... I haven't look at the pros and cons enough to make a decision. I am also undecided on capitalism, flat tax, guns, minimum wage, labor unions, and pretty much all of what you said.

"How can you not have an opinion?"

Oh, maybe because I ACTUALLY RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING A DECISION.
Posted by migmag 10 months ago
migmag
You are NOT a Democrat on LOTS of issues. Democrats are FOR Affirmative Action YOU apparently are NOT. True Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST most aspects of Capitalism but YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST a Flat Tax YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST the NRA Gun Rights Movement YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST the Iraq/Afghan Wars YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are FOR Labor Unions YOU are NOT, TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are for RAISING the Minimum Wage YOU are NOT, In Fact of the FIFTY 50 "Big Issues" your profile addresses you are on the WRONG side of over HALF of the issues, so HOW do you list yourself as a DEMOCRAT? Welfare, Minimum Wage, Labor Unions, and MANY issues where you put "Und" or "N/O", HOW can you NOT have an opinion?
Posted by BenJWasson 10 months ago
BenJWasson
Do you really still think I'm a Republican? ...The only reason i'm debating this is because I have to debate it in my league.
Posted by migmag 10 months ago
migmag
The problem with Republicans and their need to KILL People is it's a DOUBLE STANDARD, they are COMPLETELY against "killing" babies, but they LOVE to PLAY GOD and KILL people with the Death Penalty
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by nikhilworld123 10 months ago
nikhilworld123
BenJWassonmigmagTied
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: This could have been an excellent debate if not for Con's arguments and conducts. From a debate discussing the death penalty, it became a personal one, which makes no sense at all.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 10 months ago
zmikecuber
BenJWassonmigmagTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments completely obliterated Con. Con didn't even muster a response other than personal attacks. Pro argued on several fronts, that of recidivism, justice, deterrence, and protecting other prisoners that the death penalty should remain in place. Con didn't even attempt to refute all these. Also, s/g to Pro since he had such a nice organized round, while Con used ALOT of CAPS lock TO ENUNCIATE his POINTS, which GOT REALLY annoying AT TIMES. Also because of the silly ad homs, conduct to Pro. Really impressed by your opening round, Pro.
Vote Placed by Bored_Debater 10 months ago
Bored_Debater
BenJWassonmigmagTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: conduct goes to pro due to con breaking the rules. Arguments goes to pro due to cons rants on irrelevant topics, ignoring the one meant to debate.