Debate Rounds (5)
Ok so I would like to start by giving a brief road map of where I'm going to go in todays to debate
First I will be adressing definitions and a Big picture statement
and secondly I will be outlining my case and since this a Neg first constructive I will also be reviewing the Affirmative case.
Alright so todays resolution is actually just the simple phrase death penalty, I would like to propose that this resolution is to broad and that we create more specific terms.
"Imposing the death penalty in the United states is unjust"
So to quickly define terms
Death Penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.
Imposing: forcibly put (a restriction) in place.
My value for todays debate is Justice because as defined in the resolution it says "unjust" easing me to the conclusion that this rounds value is justice.
My criterion for todays debate is accountability. Which ever team can show you that they uphold justice by requiring accountabilty should win todays debate.
Ok so now that we have a clearer understanding of what todays resolution actually means and how this round will be won, I will be directly jumping into my own contentions.
1. Just desserts
a. They deserve it: To clarify my meaning here I am saying that the people that are receiving the death penalty are not innocent that they have done something awful, in other words a capital offense. Voters what my opponents response to this is going to be that sometimes we get innocent people I challenge my opponent to find one example of an innocent person that has gone through the 5 to 15 year appeals process and still gotten the death penalty.
b: Deterrent: would-be criminal with the death penalty in place will undoubtedly know that they will be tried, found guilty, and put to death should they murder with premeditation, for most this makes them much less likely to commit murder.
a. Victims families/closure: What I mean by this sub point is that simply victims loved ones deserve the closure of watching this monster who killed their family ember see the same end. What my opponent neglects to mention in their opening argument is the simple fact that these people have killed someone that is the only way to get death penalty, these people are not innocent nor are they deserving of our sympathy, what we must remember voters is that these people are MURDERS AND RAPISTS sometimes even both, why should we cultured members of society pay for theses monsters room and board for life? the simple answers of this is that we should not. Murderer have deprived a family and many friends of a loved one.Their grief yes at fault with the murder. Now some may say it won't end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does create a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal a feeling that never really occurs while the murder lives.
b. American court system: The justice system basically attempts to dole out punishments that fit a crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. We see that petty larceny is not treated to the same magnitude of grand theft auto,grand theft auto obviously gets more time in jail and in a higher severity jail at that. The harsher the crime the more severe the punishment its simply how our justice system is fashioned. So if harsh but not deadly force towards another receives you life without parole, then why should we allow murder to be given the same ? If we were to rid or selves of the death penalty we would simply be allowing murders to get away with the same punishment a their gets which is simply not equitable and does not hold people accountable and thus does not achieve our value of today Justice.
What we see through my arguments today is the simple fact that we cannot achieve Justice (our value) through accountability (our criterion) without the death penalty because without it our justice isn't equitable, there is no deterrent to murder, families get no closure, and criminals don't get what they deserve.
My opponent made one opening claim, they didn't back their argument with any sort of evidence, they gave no weigh mechanism/ value (which is in essence the burden of the affirmative team), and My opponent even conceited to the notion that their claim is simply their opinion by stating "I personally think" again i would like to restate the fact that they have no evidence thus their argument is an invalid one and thus I the negation have already proven the resolution false, winning this debate. I urge a strong vote in firm of the negation.
Innocent people are killed for such an act of being charged with the death penalty. And it's always the African American race.
Total number of death row exonerations in the USA since 1973: 144
Approximately 60% of all death row exonerees are non-white
From 2000-2007, there have been an average of 5 exonerations per year
Average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration: 10.1 years
Number of cases in which DNA played a substantial factor in establishing innocence: 18
DPIC's criteria for inclusion: Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either: a) their conviction was overturned AND i) they were acquitted at re-trial or ii) all charges were dropped; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the Governor based on new evidence of innocence
The most common causes of wrongful convictions are; eyewitness error, government misconduct, junk science, snitch testimony and false confessions.
This tells exactly that the innocent is killed. It's also bad because families have to see their children or parents etc. killed, and it is very sad.
Numerous families and loved ones of murder victims support alternatives to the death penalty for many reasons, including:
The death penalty process is a traumatizing experience for families, often requiring them to relive the pain and suffering of the death of their loved one for many years. Life without parole provides certain punishment without the endless reopening of wounds.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on the death penalty each year. If we replace the death penalty with life without parole, millions of dollars could be spent on violence-prevention efforts, solving unsolved cases, and increasing victim services.
The death penalty places the focus on the legal consequences, not the human consequences. Attention is directed on the crime and the accused, instead of where it belongs " on the family and loved ones of the victim and on the community. Life without parole punishes the criminal without putting him or her in the headlines.
I state facts of how this is bad. Of how the death penalty is an act of execution towards the good and the bad.
Plus the Death Penalty is expensive.
The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.
If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families.
*More than 3500 men and women have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence.
California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.
And all of this is study. You may have won the first round, but this is all mine !
due to my researches , this is all fact !
- I will be strengthening my own case (affirmation).
- I will be addressing negation contentions.
Alright so just to clarify the Negation didn't state this in his speech but he must agree with my definitions because he hasn't provided any of his own and thus my value, criterion, and clarifying definitions stand.
Ok so to jump right into my case my opponent hasn't directly hit any of my points which is the whole point of debate! A term we often use in parliamentary is that if someone doesn't respond to an argument they must agree with it. Even though my opponent didn't actually refute my arguments I will briefly restate them and elaborate on them.
1. Just desserts
a. To summarize what i said in this point is that people who receive the death penalty are not innocent people and how people must go through a strict appeals process that rarely misses innocent people. I believe my opponent tried top respond to this but his lack of sign posting made it fairly unclear if his point about innocence was a refutation or one of his own connotations ether way I'm just going to take its as refutation and show you (voters) why it isn't reverent to my point or even accurate. My opponent states that 18 people have been shown innocent not only is this a false statistic but its also only a part of the statistic this is from 1855 to 2011 ok so this is 18 wrongful deaths in almost 2 centuries. In the past 3 decades we have had no wrongful executions thus proving my point that people go through they appeals process and that effectively separates the innocent from the guilty. Unless my opponent is suggesting that the American justice system is fatally flawed he has no real refutation to my point and if he is suggesting that the Justice system is flawed i would challenge him to show me why and where and if thats so true then why are we ranked number 6th on the worlds scale of equitable court systems?
b. My sub point b is that people are deterred my the death penalty and that it keeps most criminals from actually committing felony crimes that can get them executed. My opponent didn't say anything on this matter at all, he didn't address the argument I also proposed of that fact that we as culture members of society shouldn't have to pay for room and board of these monsters. My opponent again did not refute these arguments and thus he must agree with me
a. Victims families/closure: My opponent basically refutes this argument by making three claims the death penalty reopens wounds, money could be spent on violence prevention efforts, and the fact that the death penalty focuses only on the legal consequences. I can basically address this argument with one point EVIDENCE!!!! My opponent seems to believe that we don't have to have citations and that we can continually just make open claims and this is simply not true in order to have a good, fair, and educational debate you must cite sources for your claim otherwise their just opinions and they shouldn't be held in account when it comes down to voting. The basic argument structure is:
So my evidence for the argument that it doesn't provide closer is
"My family deserves justice, we deserve to have closure," said Jesse Ripley, daughter of Jane Hungerford, who was killed by Cecil Davis, now on Washington"s death row.
Read more: http://q13fox.com...
Ronald Carlson wanted vengeance when his sister was murdered in 1983 in Texas
These are two pertaining examples of families needing the death penalty for closer thus i have sufficiently refuted my opens argument and mine still stands.
b. American court system: So My opponent yet again could not find a refutation to my point about the fact that the us justice system requires fair and accountable punishment for crimes he said nothing in response to this and thus he is agreeing with me.
So now I'm going to move on the Negations case, I will be showing you why its wrong and based on faulty evidence
a. Racial bias: My opponent made the claim that 60% of executions are people who aren't white. This again voters is simply another occasion when my opponent is nay presenting part of the fact. What he is trying to led you to believe is that we are majorly biased and only excite people who are african american. So here is the full statistic and this will simply show you that the evidence really backs my side of the case an less of his.
BLACK 474 34%
LATINO 110 8%
WHITE 771 56%
OTHER 24 2%
So what we see is that the race excited the most is actually white, so this again voters shows you how unreliable my opponent is. He even goes as far is to make the blatant claim "it's always the African American race.". Voters we cannot in good conscious let someone who is going to make out right wrong claims and say that hey are facts wins debate!
a.Puts Criminal in head lines: My opponent claims that by executing people we put them in the headlines. Now this again is simply another pen of my opponents continued falsehoods. Its not the execution that puts someone in the headlines its the crime and the hearing that puts people in the headlines. I can back this up with the evidence of people committing crimes and getting life without parol and still needing up in the headlines.
b. Life without parol: I actually am not quite sure what my opponent was trying to do here because he didn't offer a counter plan, so if he's suggesting that life without portal is his "plan" he has to have the main parts of a plan
1.Mandate:what he's going to change and how.
2. Agent of action: who's gong to put the mandate into effect.
3. cost: how much the mandate will cost.
4. Enforcer: who's going to make sure the mandate is followed.
Because this a value case anyway there really is no need for a plan and it runs counter to what value debate is.
But if you (the voters) decide to say he can offer a counter plan I can show you why his counter plan will not work.
First off this has already been tried to be passed, second it doesn't fulfill todays criterion or value. We can't hold people accountable for murder if were going to let them just get away with living in prison their entire lives and pay for their food and shelter that simply is showing the criminal population that they can get away with murder; this is not punishing them thus we aren't holding them accountable for their actions! The impact of this not fulfilling our criterion is that we don't actually meet our value which is justice and without proper justice for xlll our entire country would fall apart simply because we were founded on the principles "Liberty and Justice for all".
Ok to basically sum up my argument again the death penalty is just because Its Moral, It provides closer, It allows for people to receive true justice, and it is an effective deterrent. Because the Negation has been unreliable with citations, had confusing contradictory case, and because I have been able to provide citations, have followed proper argument structure, and finally have just presented a stronger case overall I urge a strong vote in firm of the Affirmation. Thank you all for reading todays debate hope you enjoyed it!
JJJones143 forfeited this round.
1. Moral and Methodicalness
I have refuted all of their arguments and they cant actually refute my arguments thus i should win
JJJones143 forfeited this round.
KatieKat99 forfeited this round.
JJJones143 forfeited this round.
1. I have won all two of my contentions. And both my sub points
I have won theses simply because my opponent has not been able to refute ether of these with conflicting evidence or even logical ideas
2. My opponent did not fulfill their burdens
Because my opponent didn't give any definitions or weigh criterion he did not fulfill his own burdens so he was forced to take mine he should lose simply on this point.
My opponent has not cited any specific sources thus making him an unreliable narrator and making all of his claims unfounded thus all they simply are is opinions. Debate requires evidence because my opponent has neglected to provide such he should loose because I have provided citation and he has not.
4. So finally i have ,met the weighing mechanism and my opponent has not. i have provided justice and equality for the people of America my opponent has not we have provided net benefits while my opponent has only provided (might a say false) something for a minor portion of the population.
so because of these 4 reasons i urge a strong vote in firm of the propitiation thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this was interesting to read. Conduct point goes to pro for her opponent forfeiting. I undersstand that both forfeited, but pro did so less. Both pro and con provided interesting arguments. By in large, pro provided a more factual and extended argument and used sources to back it up. Good show
You are not eligible to vote on this debate