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

The death penalty should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,329 times Debate No: 15522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The death penalty is supposed to be a punishment for someone that does something very extreme, like a murder or a rape. So for someone who kills, should they be killed? Do we live in an eye for an eye lifestyle? Do people with assault cases get beat up as punishment? Or people that steal, do they get robbed as punishment? NO! There is never a reason to take someones' life. Nobody can be the judge of who gets to live or who does not get to live.


I thank my opponent for the opportunity to have a great, enlightenig debate. The semantics seem pretty straightforward.
I would like to mention that death penalty is only frequent in cases of murder.

  • Death penalty is an ultimate, decisive action, needed to lower crime rates. Each year, hundreds of criminals are re-released to the American public. We must then ask, should such heinous criminals be able to released? It is nonsensical to even risk the chance of a failed rehabilitaion. In fact, ABC News reports that it costs $888 milion a year to support federal and local prisons. The judical system lacks a reason to spend thousands of dollars on individuals who have knowingly broken the most primtivie rule of morality (never kill another human being). As well, it fails to be efficacious in its rehabilitation of murderers. What is the practicality behind spending cash to support a criminal who killed a human being, especially in today's failing economy? There is absolutely none.

Debate Round No. 1


Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no practicality in spending so much money to keep murderers in prisons. However, is money really something that can have as much value as a life? We cannot just say that they do not deserve life. Especially because it costs money. How can we restrict someone from living? The death penaly is a murder against a human. Is there any excuse that would really make a murder justified?


Thank you for your argument, Pro.
Now let's look at this from various aspects, including the ones both the Con and Pro share:

Morality - Pro says that this is not "moral" and that human life is valuable. If so, are we treating a human life any better if we lock up the criminal for his/her decades and rot in jail? Obviously not. In fact, I see prolonged sentences that come with charges of murder, etc. as a much more cruel punishment than ending the criminal's life.

Now, both options are immoral in one way or another. Ergo, we must now focus oneach option's practical advantages over the other. Here are a few primary ones for capital punishment:

I. Death penalty completely eradicates the risk of failed rehabilitation and the criminal repeating his or her actions after release (if there is one).
II. Death penalty saves tremendous money, esp. in today's 1.3 trillion deficit.
III. Death penalty helps prisons learn smoother and have more space.

I urge a ballot for the Con.

Debate Round No. 2


arando319 forfeited this round.


My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his third round.
I extend all of my points across the flow,

I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another.
II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation.
III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources.

Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack.

I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Terminal 5 years ago

Your first link is very questionable. It costs $50,000 a year to house one prisoner in jail. Lifetime sentence, of around 70 years, goes to 3,500,000$. Death penalty costs significantly less than that, including all the court trial costs.

Second link: Again, correlation is not causation. These states are initially high in criminal rates. You should find a source that compares a particular state before and after death penalty, not all 50 states together. That is a fallacious mode of logic.
Posted by chrisp 5 years ago
The money spent for a person to be prosecuted with the death penalty could keep him a prisoner for live:

Also crime rates are higher in states with the death penalty:

I am not sure of how good the sources are but somebody should definitly cross-check them!
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
I would accept but because this is such a controversial subject 1,000 characters is not enough to argue on.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheParadox 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a stronger case (albeit, I would have wanted both sides to have longer arguments if it was not for the character limit), and the Pro lacked fluent grammar, convincing arguments, and Round 3 rebuttal. Vote to Con.