The Instigator
lifesaglitch911
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DP8184
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

the death penalty is a reasonable punishment

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
DP8184
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 18692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

lifesaglitch911

Pro

I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes
DP8184

Con

I entirely disagree with the death penalty both on moral reasons as well as on industrial reasons. Even the worst criminals may be reformed into productive members of society if the proper techniques in re-education and propaganda are applied. By killing the criminal we are assuming an authority reserved to God, in my religious opinion, and we are assuming he or she is undeserving to live any longer, which I see as wrongly judgmental. Just as well, the 'criminal' may be found to be innocent.
Debate Round No. 1
lifesaglitch911

Pro

The bible also teaches the eye for an eye theory.
If a person has taken a life they deserve there own life to be taken, they shouldn't deserve another chance to become a good person.
DP8184

Con

Indeed they do deserve death for murder, but, as the Bible also states, if one even gives in to the thought of murder, in the heart it has already been committed, and that is where it counts in relation to Christianity, so therefore, almost all people deserve to die. But this is something we are not punished with by God directly. Why? Mercy. God has the mercy to forgive again and again and to toil and work on reforming the individual. Should we not also exercise mercy and do the same?
Debate Round No. 2
lifesaglitch911

Pro

Yes we should have mercy for people for making mistakes. But in my opinion, murder is to much of a heinous crime, to be forgiven for. And besides, when did this become a debate about the Bible. Although I am christian this is a debate about crime not god
DP8184

Con

Well, its hard not to mention religion on this issue, especially between two believers. My secular basis is this: Death is not a proper punishment for murder because, essentially, it is a waste of resources. So long as it is possible to reform people and put them to useful and productive work, we should attempt to do so. Dont kill them, and dont lock them away for life. I believe all criminals should work off their debt, doing actual work for the betterment of the community and the nation.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
In round one, Con wrote,

: By killing the criminal we are assuming an authority reserved to God,
: in my religious opinion, and we are assuming he or she is undeserving
: to live any longer, which I see as wrongly judgmental.

Pro responded to that by saying, as his opening to round two,

: The bible also teaches the eye for an eye theory.
Posted by SK 2 years ago
SK
"So the claim that the bible forbids executions is offset, canceled, refuted."

Except that claim was not made by Con at the point you ascribe the claim.

Yours is in the 3rd statement. Con had not even referenced the Bible.
Posted by DP8184 2 years ago
DP8184
I never attempted to make the argument that the Bible opposes the death penalty. I am a Catholic and I view the Bible, as we know it, with MUCH skepticism. Its the Protestants with their 'Sola Scriptura' and 'Sola Fide' nonsense that leads to 'literal interpretation', and thats why many fundamentalist protestants are beer-drinking, meat-eating, supporters of the death penalty. Oh, its such an unhealthy worldview, and I could have argued my point much better if I had been given more than 500 characters per round. And I would like to start a thread on this, its one of my favourite issues. Ah, I remember arguing the same side in my 9th grade sociology class. I won over ten people, about half the class, and was about to make some excellent points, but then the bell rang. On another note, I am new here, so go 'easy' on me, if you will. Thanks and its great to be here, peace!
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: Posted by SK 1 hour ago by SK
: "The bible also teaches the eye for an eye theory."
:
: The bible also teaches stoning for adultery. So what?

So the claim that the bible forbids executions is offset, canceled, refuted.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Pro and Con, if you'd like, we can start a thread in one of the forums. I can show you what I think would be much more effective responses to each others' arguments.
Posted by SK 2 years ago
SK
"The bible also teaches the eye for an eye theory."

The bible also teaches stoning for adultery. So what?
Posted by SK 2 years ago
SK
How exactly is it solace?

Besides if it deterred, why has the rate of executions in Texas the state that uses it the most. If it deterred anything, we'd see less of those crimes be committed.
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 2 years ago
poorenglishspeaker
Thank you for nice debates.

The death penalty is not only to deter crime such as murder,assault,etc but also to solace for the bereaved.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 2 years ago
kkjnay
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Having previously debated with lifesaglitch911, I'm assuming he set a character limit. I managed to refute his arguments, and make two arguments with a 500 character limit. This is just... a terrible debate. Wow. I thought I'd give Con 3 points. I can't.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's hard to give any point an argument, since both side continued to give opinions and personal beliefs. But, since Con's arguments, which if formulated and elaborated--would be better, were not addressed by Pro (ex. Con argues about rehabilitation but Pro responds with an indirect response of an 'eye for an 'eye' policy) and since Pro never fulfilled his BOP, the vote for arguments goes to Con...
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate it when good topics are argued by bad debaters. Has no one but me noticed the irony in a guy named "DP8184" arguing against the Death Penalty (DP)?
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a troll.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side made good points, but Pro at least addressed some of Con's points. Con ignored Pro's points.
Vote Placed by sammyc96 2 years ago
sammyc96
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: both sides didn't really debate well but pro had significant grammar errors so im giving one point to con
Vote Placed by kohai 2 years ago
kohai
lifesaglitch911DP8184Tied
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: No one fulfilled their Burden. I give one point to con as pro used bible evidence