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

There should be no prisons

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 79079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Prisons cost money to uphold, they take people out of work, they are simply a burden on society.


Thank you for posting this debate, I accept.

Let's get right to the chase. While I do agree that our prison system is broken, to say that there "should be no prisons" is too much. Likewise, there are a few problems with the pro's proposal.

First, the pro has not proposed an alternative to prisons. They're bad and all, but from what I can tell, the only other thing is capital punishment (ie. the death penalty), which is always not an option. While it's true prisons will take up more money than the death penalty, using death for each and every single crime just isn't right.

Second, prisons don't necessarily represent a burden on society, in that they're something we constantly worry about every day. In fact, we fantasize about them in a plethora of television shows about prisons (eg. Law and Order, Orange is the new Black)

Third, the people who "are taken out of work" aren't regular people like you and me; these are convicted criminals-- maybe that's a good enough reason to keep them out.

Thus, my Counterplan is that the USFG should substantially increase its support of prisons inmates through increased maintenance of those prisons, and release of unwarrented prisoners.

The definition of "unwarrented" (entered as unwarrentable) is "not justifiable." [1] Prisoners that fit this category are those who shouldn't even be in prison at all, or were unjustly sentenced and put into prison. Here is an example: John Oliver's Last Week Tonight episode on Bail showed that a frightening proportion of people were sent to jail simply because they can't pay their bail. One man under this category was given two options: bail, or RIKER'S ISLAND.[2] These aren't convicted criminals (yet, but that's not the point), these are simply poor people. To give them the same level of justice as a convicted criminal is just not right.

The Counterplan solves for the pro's points by a) not drastically changing the justice system, b) limit the amount of people in prison, thus c) limit the cost to maintain those prisons through less prisoners. The pro's third point on "burden on society" just isn't true.
Debate Round No. 1


Death penalty is the only fair solution. First, everyone in the country should be informed and know that the death penalty will follow if such and such crimes are committed. This would prevent people from doing these crimes, and the ones that do them with the knowledge that they may face the death penalty are dangerous enough only by this fact, not to mention the crimes committed as a plus to that.

If smaller crimes are committed, there should be no death penalty, only daily work for the community, the judge decides how long the person should work and what job the person should do based on the crime.

This approach would save us money, it would increase work force, it would make all those prison guards receive another job that is more efficient for the advancement of society. It may sound harsh to liberals, but it's the best approach if we look at it this way.


Side-note: I note I forgot the citation for the Last Week Tonight episode, it's here:

The order is: counterplan, then case.

The pro has conceded the majority of the counterplan, especially the net benefit of unwarrented prisoners. Thus he concedes the CP solves the case.The only thing the pro has contested is the issue of prisons itself, which I will address on the case debate.


The pro contradicts himself. First, he says on his first point that "death penalty is the only solution." But in his next point, he goes on to say that "if smaller crimes are committed, there should be no death penalty." The definition of only as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is "solely or exclusively" [1]. He advocates death penalty only, then he says no death penalty in this exception. We'll concede that the only alternative aside from jail is the death penalty, as that means the pro must explain death for petty crimes such as littering.

On the first point, the pro says everyone is afraid of death, and thus is a good deterrent. That is not the case. Allow me to bring to this debate the case of September 11th, 2001. Jihadists stormed 4 airplanes, striking them into the heart of New York City, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, without a regard to death. Death wasn't even a worry for these people. If these people can overcome the fear of death, what makes the death penalty any good as a deterrent.

Second, the pro says community service solves lower crimes. community service is something that's already in place in crimes like littering. It's jail that serves as an impetus to finish the community service.

Third, the pro extends his primary points. Now given his confirmation that the only alternative to jail is death, this extensions sounds sick.
1) "save us money." The pro's advocacy will save money at the cost of a lot more graves and widows, and will put us on the same level as places like Iran, who use death indiscriminately.
2) "increase work force". Not really, if those that are supposed to increase the work force are dead.
3) "prison guards get other jobs." It basically means they're fired, which means LESS JOBS! Even if some do get other jobs, it's still a job deficit, exactly the opposite of what the pro said would happen in his first speech.

Debate Round No. 2


zname forfeited this round.


forfeiture on pro's side, con wins
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
If the death penalty is the only fair solution and we abolish all prisons that means everyone who goes to prison has to die. That's ridiculous. What if someone mugs someone to try and feed his kids? Death. What if someone shoplifts some diapers and baby food for his newborn son? Death.

You get parent less kids left and right.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF