The Instigator
sarinman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
soccerisfun
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

should the death penalty be harsher

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...
soccerisfun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 81240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

sarinman

Pro

should the death penalty be harsher
soccerisfun

Con

First, should implies can. Source 1:
"Many philosophers use the principle "Ought implies can" as a basic test of moral obligation. If something is a moral obligation (a duty), then we ought (should) do it. The importance of this idea might not be obvious. However, by a basic rule of logic called contraposition, we can turn the principle around, into this second principle: "Can't implies ought not." In other words, if you can't do x, then you have no duty to do x. (And "can't" means you really can't do x because x is impossible, not just that you don't like the results of x.) It also means that we should not blame people for failing to do what they cannot possibly do. Seen in this way, the principle tells us that our obligations are restricted to what is humanly possible. The real world puts a limit on ethical responsibility.
For example, if a kitten is stuck in a tree, then you would be wrong to insist that Pat has a moral obligation to levitate into the air and rescue the kitten. Being human, Pat cannot levitate, so Pat has no such obligation. (...) One of the reasons that we engage in ethical thinking is to choose among our options.
BACKGROUND: Immanuel Kant seems to have been the first philosopher to explicitly formulate the principle: "since reason commands that such actions should take place, it must be possible for them to take place" (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A807/B835, Kemp Smith translation)"

And, since the death penalty ends a person's life, which is a prerequisite to anything else that one can experience, nothing can be harsher than taking one's life. Thus, since affirming is impossible, you have to negate. Thank you.
Source 1: http://web.mnstate.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
sarinman

Pro

say a crazy stalker found and kidnapped your daughter, raped her, molested her, tortured her, then finally killed her by slowly cut her into pieces so she would suffer. he gets caught and is given the death penalty. when he is finally killed, he goes out quickly and painlessly. how is that even close to what he deserves? he deserves a slow and painful death with no mercy. sure that is not humane, but tell me, is what he did to that girl humane? he deserves to regret his decision until his final breath. taxpayers around the world are paying for people to be killed, which a death penalty can cost from $740,000 to $1.26 million for the case. now, how much does it cost for them to use the electric chair? all of $214 dollars. how much does it cost to kill the victim with the firing squad? $514 dollars. the death penalty is ineffective and needs to be updated to this world's new acts of violence. some areas have more crimes because the criminals know that if they do something bad enough, then they get a quick and painless death, that they do not deserve. but on the other side, some people think that the death penalty is too harsh. those people must think like some rioters have seen. to them the penalty is too much, too harsh, too inhumane. those thoughts are a idea that is too outdated for this world new crimes
soccerisfun

Con

My opponent makes a major error in not responding to my argument. Since life itself is more important than anything else, the death penalty cannot possibly be harsher than it currently is. So affirming is impossible, which means you must vote neg. There is no defense whatsoever on this argument, it is cold conceded. So that's going to be sufficient reason to vote neg, but here's more. Nagel: (http://dbanach.com...)
If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, (...) it can be said that life is all we have and the loss of it is the greatest loss we can sustain. (...) If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us of. I shall try to deal with the difficulties surrounding the natural view that death is an evil because it brings to an end{s} all the goods that life contains. (...) They are widely regarded as formidable benefits in themselves, despite the fact that they are conditions of misery as well as of happiness,and that a sufficient quantity of more particular evils can perhaps outweigh them. (...) it is good simply to be alive, even if one is undergoing terrible experiences. (...) There are elements which (...) make life better; there are other elements which (...) make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive. Therefore life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own. The additional positive weight is supplied by experience itself, rather than by any of its consequences. I shall not discuss the value that one person's life or death may have for others, or its objective value, but only the value that it has for the person who is its subject. (...) this can be multiplied by time: more is better than less.
Basically, my opponent isn't even arguing for the affirmative. By prolonging the death penalty victim's life by giving a slow and painful death, you are letting the victim live longer, which automatically means that the victim should be happy. Thus, my opponent is actually making the death penalty more lenient by making it a slow and painful death, so all the arguments flow to my side.
I have conceded terminal defense and I have turned the affirmative case. Judge, this is an easy ballot. Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 2
sarinman

Pro

tell me, how is someone sitting in an electric chain having 2000 volts happy? the present death trial usually takes around 14 years to finally have them get put to death. that is the most enjoyable thing for them. they live for a extra 14 years and not really feel anything other than a I.V. injected into them before they die. you also said that "life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own." most taxpayers are paying, on average $39 billion. why should we pay for those scum to live their life in prison? we should just get rid of them
soccerisfun

Con

The topic is should the death penalty be harsher. Not whether it should come sooner or later. So this argument is completely nontopical. My opponent still concedes my first argument. So since affirming is impossible, you have to vote neg. My responses are uncontested and all aff offense is either turned or nontopical. Vote neg.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sarinman 1 year ago
sarinman
i mean, the penalty is worse for what you do. if you, say kill 20 people and then get caught, then you get some of the worse things, like the electric chair. really this is a idea to get those types of death penalty's on to the rest of the U.S. 2 states are still alowed to use the electric chair and 10 states can still use the firing squad. they just choose not to.
Posted by Mr_bucket 1 year ago
Mr_bucket
Before I accept I want to know what you mean by harsher. Do you mean more do more than the shot? Torture?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by truthiskey 1 year ago
truthiskey
sarinmansoccerisfunTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Dropped Contention