The Instigator
trublondedebater
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

the death penalty is justified.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,182 times Debate No: 2130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (12)

 

trublondedebater

Con

what is our society coming to if we have to kill people who killed other people to prove that murder is wrong? that is total hypocrisy. and what is it actually solving? nothing and that is because killing someone isnt going to bring back the person who was murdered.
Kleptin

Pro

"what is our society coming to if we have to kill people who killed other people to prove that murder is wrong? that is total hypocrisy. "

The death penalty was not implemented in order to prove that the murder is wrong. If we had to prove that murder is wrong, we could not convict or punish a person for murder using the death penalty, don't you agree?

"and what is it actually solving? nothing and that is because killing someone isnt going to bring back the person who was murdered."

This statement is logically flawed. The fact that killing someone will not bring back the deceased does not logically conclude to "Therefore, the death penalty solves nothing".

The death penalty, as with any sort of conviction, has multiple purposes.

First, it is to punish the person who committed the crime.

Second, it is to avenge those who were wronged by the crime.

Third, it is to serve as a deterrent to others in the future who may think of committing the crime.

The death penalty, although it cannot CORRECT the crime, adequately PUNISHES and AVENGES, and also acts as a proper DETERRENT.

Thus, even though it does not bring back the dead, it is useful for the still living.
Debate Round No. 1
trublondedebater

Con

the death penalty is being used to prove that murder is wrong. any form of punishment for any form of crime is proving that the act committed was wrong. thus the death penalty is just a hypocritical thing for our goverment to scare us with. the death penalty isnt even a detterent in the slightest since. in the states that have the death penalty and actually carry it out there are more murders than those states that do not. so how then can u say that the death penalty is a deterrent? ill admit we do live in a world where we feel we must be vindictive towards the people who do us wrong. but does that mean we should take a life? what about the family of the person who was executed how would u think they would feel? dont u think they would want something in return for the loss of their loved one as well? and there are other means of punishing people. the death penalty is more expensive than just keeping them in a high security cell here in a texas prison for the rest of their life. so if we are just looking to punish them we shouldnt give them death that is giving them the easy way out because they dont have to think about the fact they killed someone. so the only good that the death penalty is doing is keeping or let me say attempting to keep our population under control.
Kleptin

Pro

"the death penalty is being used to prove that murder is wrong. any form of punishment for any form of crime is proving that the act committed was wrong. thus the death penalty is just a hypocritical thing for our goverment to scare us with. "

Non Sequitor, Argumentum Ad Nauseum.

Simply repeating your point does not make it any better, especially when I have already made a counterpoint. No punishment ever proves that the crime is wrong. You can't say that my giving you a parking ticket PROVES that double parking is wrong.

A punishment does not exist without a crime.
Thus, a punishment cannot be used to prove the wrongness of an act.
Therefore, the death penalty does not PROVE that murder is wrong.

"the death penalty isnt even a detterent in the slightest since. in the states that have the death penalty and actually carry it out there are more murders than those states that do not. so how then can u say that the death penalty is a deterrent?"

I disagree with your argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent in the slightest sense. Your "facts" compare the murder rates of states with the death penalty against the states with OTHER FORMS OF PUNISHMENT. If you wish to argue that the death penalty is NOT A DETERRENT IN THE SLIGHTEST SENSE, you must compare states with the death penalty against states that have absolutely no punishment for murder. You may argue that the death penalty is not the BEST way of deterring criminals, but it is absurd to argue that the death penalty DOES NOT DETER CRIMINALS AT ALL.

"ill admit we do live in a world where we feel we must be vindictive towards the people who do us wrong. but does that mean we should take a life? what about the family of the person who was executed how would u think they would feel? dont u think they would want something in return for the loss of their loved one as well?"

I'm not dealing with what people may want, or would want. I'm focusing on justice, equality, and fairness. However, I will counter that point by asking you "What about the family of the victim? Who wins, the family of the victim or the family of the convicted? Who gets bargaining rights and is it even ETHICAL for the MURDERER to get bargaining rights?" The answer is simple. The convicted has overstepped his rights and committed an irreversible act. On no grounds can he, or his family, argue that his life should be spared for any reason, because he was not wronged.

"and there are other means of punishing people. the death penalty is more expensive than just keeping them in a high security cell here in a texas prison for the rest of their life."

I don't think money should be an issue when we are talking about murder, human lives, morality, ethics, and justice.

"so if we are just looking to punish them we shouldnt give them death that is giving them the easy way out because they dont have to think about the fact they killed someone."

I find this to be an unconvincing argument. We cannot hope to control a person's conscience, so this is a very ineffective method of punishment. If the person has murdered, there is also the chance that he feels absolutely no guilt. How do you intend to use this argument in such a situation?

"so the only good that the death penalty is doing is keeping or let me say attempting to keep our population under control."

Not necessarily. I feel that the death penalty is still more suited to the punishment than life imprisonment because it is much more severe and appropriate. There are many cases where "an eye for an eye" will not work, but as murder is defined as the deliberate and willful destruction of innocent human life, arguably the worst crime that can be committed. Justice implores that a punishment should fit the crime, and I do not see how life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life.
Debate Round No. 2
trublondedebater

Con

if punishments dont prove the crime is wrong then why do we have punishments? if we look at the majority then we will see that the death penalty doesnt deter as much as we think. thus its pointless to continue to have something that doesnt work compared to other things. if you are not dealing with what people may want or would want then why are you so concerned about the family of the victim?isnt that dealing with what people may want or would want? and yes i do believe it is ethical for the murderer to get bargaining rights. all the other crimes in america get the same thing so its equality. its justice. and most murders are the result of someone being wronged. while the murderer may not have been thinking about the correct way to address the problem he was still wronged as well. the united states just had to borrow money from china for oil and you are saying that money shouldnt be an issue??? if we dont have money then how else will we punish the other people who commit crimes? if this person feels no guilt perhaps it is because he or she is unstable in the mind. in which case they shouldnt be getting the death penalty anyways. this person eventually loses their life too. just not in the brutal way the death penalty is associated with. thus life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life.
Kleptin

Pro

"if punishments dont prove the crime is wrong then why do we have punishments?"

We have punishments because we KNOW the crime is wrong. We then use an appropriate punishment FOR the crime. Your way of thinking is reversed. The crime comes first, a crime that we already KNOW to be wrong. Afterwards, we apply a penalty towards it.

If you were right, then I could make up a penalty, let's say, Slapping you across the face with a rubber chicken tied to a number 2 pencil, and accuse you of dropping an "e" from the word "true" in your name. Although this is not in and of itself illegal, by your logic, the fact that a punishment exists, PROVES that the crime is wrong. Therefore, it is just for me to slap you across the face with a rubber chicken tied to a number 2 pencil for dropping an "e" from the word "true" in your name.

"if we look at the majority then we will see that the death penalty doesnt deter as much as we think. thus its pointless to continue to have something that doesnt work compared to other things."

Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. The popularity of a belief does not make it logically valid or the argument sound. It is a fact that the death penalty does not deter as well as we think, but that is not to say that another method is MORE of a deterrent. Even if you have studies that prove another method is a better deterrent, I doubt it would fulfill the other needs for a punishment (Proper punishment, Proper vengeance) better than the death penalty.

"if you are not dealing with what people may want or would want then why are you so concerned about the family of the victim? isnt that dealing with what people may want or would want?"

I am not. I simply offered that as a counterpoint to your argument about what the criminal's family may want. I am concerned about what people are owed, what they are due, what they deserve, in accordance to justice, ethics, and morality.

"and yes i do believe it is ethical for the murderer to get bargaining rights. all the other crimes in america get the same thing so its equality. its justice. and most murders are the result of someone being wronged. while the murderer may not have been thinking about the correct way to address the problem he was still wronged as well."

If the murderer was wronged, then there will be a separate trial for that, and he will be the victim while the other person will be put on trial. However, if the one who wronged the murderer was the murderer's victim, then justice no longer needs to apply because the murderer acted as judge, jury, and executioner alone.

All the other crimes in America don't end in irreparable damage. Like you said, nothing can bring the dead back. If a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, what right would he have to say "please lessen the sentence to life imprisonment on the basis that my family doesn't want to see me die?" I do not believe there is any basis.

"the united states just had to borrow money from china for oil and you are saying that money shouldnt be an issue??? if we dont have money then how else will we punish the other people who commit crimes?"

This is another debate for another time, but I will answer your question. There are many, MANY ways for the country to make money. Unless you can argue that banning the death penalty is the only way of making money, your point is useless.

"if this person feels no guilt perhaps it is because he or she is unstable in the mind. in which case they shouldnt be getting the death penalty anyways."

I find this to be a very convincing argument. There's unstable in the "He's a cold blooded killer, a despicable fiend, how can he do that?" way, and there's unstable in the "He eats crayons and sniffs used tampons" way. Neither feel guilt, but only the latter is excused from typical capital punishment in preference of a mental institution.

"this person eventually loses their life too. just not in the brutal way the death penalty is associated with. thus life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life."

I just wonder. Wouldn't the victim, the dead person, just absolutely LOVE to be imprisoned for life rather than murdered? I doubt any reasonable person will answer "no", which means the two are absolutely NOT equal. AT ALL.

My opponent has spent a lot of time arguing on the part of the murderer, hoping that justice in some way, shape, or form would shine a light down on them. Justice is not about mercy. Justice is about fairness.

A punishment must:

1. Punish the criminal
2. Avenge the accused
3. Deter the population

The death penalty does all three.

My opponent argues, however, that life imprisonment may be a better substitution, but has not given any solid argument as to why.

1. Punish the criminal

Life imprisonment and Death are completely different and not a fair trade at all. Since the victim's life was stolen from him at an instant, for no justifiable reason, we cannot in good conscience substitute life imprisonment for death FOR NO GOOD REASON. Of course, there are always exceptions, but in the event that there is no exception, there must be no substitution because the punishments are not equal.

2. Avenge the victim

Setting aside the fact that the killer lives, probably a good 30-40 more years while the victim does not, this is also unfair to the victim's family. Think of how traumatic it would be for the relatives of the deceased to know that somewhere in the world, the killer is still alive. The fact that the killer is imprisoned does not completely remove the possibility that the killer is enjoying his life, an activity he has deprived another being of doing.

3. Deter the population.

The fact that the death penalty is a deterrent cannot be argued. The fact that life imprisonment is a deterrent cannot be argued. However, there has been no evidence provided saying that life imprisonment is a better deterrent than the death penalty. In this case, there is also no reason for substitution.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
Con has a really irratiting way of debating, shoving it all into one big lumpy paragraph. It really puts me off reading it
Posted by collster37 9 years ago
collster37
Good work pro--Excellent arguments and counter arguments. Con hung on one thing the entire time and got butchered.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by everseeingeye 9 years ago
everseeingeye
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by collster37 9 years ago
collster37
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
trublondedebaterKleptinTied
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