The Instigator
King3pic97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ockham
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

should the death penalty exist

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 Ends In
03days15hours01minute28seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 209 times Debate No: 92305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

King3pic97

Con

I think the death penalty should be abolished because even though they are criminals they have rights to and the constitution says they have a right to life liberty and justice if they are killed that abuses there rights because they are stripped of their life right
Ockham

Pro

Your argument is based on the premise that everyone has the same rights, which is false. Criminals give up some of their rights when they commit a crime. For example, if you steal something from a store, most people would agree that you give up your right to liberty and property, which is why we think it's okay to punish thieves with fines and/or jail time.

As for your right to life, this is hard to give up, because it is so fundamental. The only crime that can cause you to give up your right to life is first degree murder (and perhaps certain rare crimes like treason). If you deliberate, think clearly about what you are going to do, and then decide to kill someone else who poses no threat to you, you may deserve to give up your life.

This reasoning is only applicable to the most severe cases, which is why the Supreme Court has held that no crime can have an "automatic" death penalty. In the United States, a person has to be found guilty of first degree murder, and then a subsequent jury has to find that their actions are worthy of the death penalty rather than life in prison.

Here is an example of a death penalty case:

"Michael Bargo was sentenced to death by Circuit Judge David Eddy in Marion County court Friday for the brutally violent murder of 15-year-old Seath Jackson in an Ocala home by five teenagers. Authorities identified Bargo as the ringleader and said he was caught in a love triangle with the victim's ex-girlfriend. Jackson was shot in the face and then his body was dismembered and burned. His remains were hidden in 5-gallon paint drums."

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Isn't this deserving of death? People like this forfeit their right to live.
Debate Round No. 1
King3pic97

Con

King3pic97 forfeited this round.
Ockham

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, please extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
King3pic97

Con

King3pic97 forfeited this round.
Ockham

Pro

My opponent forfeited every round. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: bearski// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con states a position opposed to the death penalty but then bases it on a misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Con doesn't cite those documents but it seems that is where his concept is derived.. Pro gets it wrong as well but not as badly. Pro also gives an example of a situation where the death penalty might be appropriate with a link included. One could easily argue the case references could have been adjudicated and disposed of without the death penalty and would have served society well but Con does not do it. Pro does best where he notes the use of the death penalty is exceedingly limited. Another claim nonetheless which can be rebutted but Con fails to do it

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by DATXDUDE 6 months ago
DATXDUDE
I don't think people who only kill one person should be killed. However, people like John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer don't deserve to live. Still, I don't know if killing them is worth the consequences the death penalty would bring on society.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bearski 5 months ago
bearski
King3pic97OckhamTied
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: Con states a position opposed to the death penalty but then bases it on a misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Con doesn't cite those documents but it seems that is where his concept is derived.. Pro gets it wrong as well but not as badly. Pro also gives an example of a situation where the death penalty might be appropriate with a link included. One could easily argue the case references could have been adjudicated and disposed of without the death penalty and would have served society well but Con does not do it. Pro does best where he notes the use of the death penalty is exceedingly limited. Another claim nonetheless which can be rebutted but Con fails to do it