The Instigator
nater
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
stropheum
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

the death penalty

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/25/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 3792
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

nater

Pro

hello,
I first want to say I am in total favor of the death penalty. I don't think it is fair that we let guilty murderers free, but i don't feel great about it. Look at it like this you do something kind to someone else, they return the favor. You kill someone and even worse don't feel bad about it then well for shame on you. When you kill someone out of anger it is so unjust, you take a family member and even worse you hurt youself not physicaly but mentally. The rest of your life you have to go on and remember the life you took away.
stropheum

Con

First i would like to say good luck to you, Nater. This should be an interesting discussion.

-->But as pertaining to the argument at hand, you are stating that you are in favor of people receiving the death penalty. Is this the penalty in general, or one in particular? As of yet I will assume you mean the two biggies at the moment; lethal injection and the electric chair. Both of these penalties have interesting aspects about them, which not many people take into consideration. I'm also going to assume that your opening argument is in essence the biblical "eye for an eye" statement? That a good deed deserves a good deed in return, and a sin deserves a sin. I agree with this statement completely, but i think that the consequences of the death penalty are not entirely appropriate. This really falls within the realm of perspective of not only the victim, but the murderer, and even the judge and jury.

-->What if the victim were to be, say, a devout Christian, who led and entirely sin-free existence, and was assured that they were going to the kingdom of god? In this case, it seems that the victim was a victim of nothing more than an accident, one that turned out very well for him or her, in which case, the murderer should be rewarded for shortening the lesser existence of the man and progressing him to absolute peace for eternity. Does this seem to be the appropriate act to be punishing?

-->Also, in the perspective of the murderer. Say he belonged to one of the many religious extremist groups, wherein they whole-heartedly believe that if they die for what they believe in(say, for example killing this person), then they would also be sent to a place of absolute peace where everything is wonderful. Are you saying that this is a fitting punishment? Giving a murderer what he believes to be an eternity of peace?

-->Finally, my third point on this matter, do you find it appropriate to just enforce the death penalty as the law abides? In the case of lethal injection, the law merely states that the criminal is to be given the predetermined dosage of sodium penathol. I do not know of any situations in particular where a person has survived the lethal injection, but to my understanding it is completely plausible, and i have heard of it happening from several people. Do you think that these people have served their debt to society, because according to the law, they have been given the lethal injection, and that's all they had to do.
Debate Round No. 1
nater

Pro

Ok I can see what your saying, however, isn't kinda a casual approach. And you are saying a devout christian "sinless" let me just say no one is sinless, but anyhow i am in fact talking about injection. Now I am not saying a sis deserves a sin because that is kinda being unfare. this is a hard topic but my debate club is debating this subject.
ok let me put it this way. If I was saying a sin deserves a sin. Let's say you stole from your girlfriend would you want her to do the same to you. God said do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you.

You also said what if he belonged to one of those religous groups where they would be sent to absolute peace. Now that can be said, so say if the person did die "justly" he was convicted and found guilty and he was a Christian wouldn't the death penalty fit him well
stropheum

Con

-->I'm sorry, but either I am reading your response wrong or you're contradicting yourself. You responded with "Now I am not saying a sis deserves a sin because that is kinda being unfare", but then you go on to say "Let's say you stole from your girlfriend would you want her to do the same to you"
If theft is a sin, which in the Christian sense of the word I am almost sure it is, then by that statement you would be saying that theft, in return, deserves theft. And of course, if theft is a sin, then you're in fact saying that sin shall be dealt with with more sin.

-->Coming to this conclusion I am ever more confused by your response, because you quote the bible with "God said do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you". This is taken severely out of context, because this is meant to express that one should not commit any of the sins upon his neighbor, not that people require equal retribution for any act committed upon him. But suppose this were taken in the context that you're assuming, that every act of kindness deserves an act of kindness, and every sin deserves a sin. I'm not well versed in the bible, but i do recall Jesus dying on the cross, eternally absolving mankind's sins so that we could all go to heaven. If Jesus, and the holy trinity(assuming you're of that specific faith, appealing to your perspective specifically) has already purged these sins, then there is no need for this punishment.

-->Also, what of other religious beliefs aside from Christianity? In Bhuddist beliefs, if one commits sin in their lives, then they will be reincarnated as a lesser being, such as a plant or a fly, and after that retribution has been paid, they will be reborn again as humans, or perhaps something else.

-->Since you stated that you are in fact, talking about lethal injection, perhaps you could answer my question from the previous round. If one were to have the lethal injection administered to him/her and that person were to survive, would you consider that to be justice? Because according to the laws of our country, they have filled their requirements to repay their debts to society, and they will be let out of jail and welcomed back into the community.

-->This is why the death penalty is flawed, which i stated from the beggining of this argument, which for some reason you shrugged off as a "Casual response". You're argument is merely a misinterpretation of the bible, which is clearly contradicted by Jesus' acts on the cross, and is further contradicted in the sense that sinners are sent to hell, where they will be eternally punished for their sins. You could argue that we should send them to hell immediately to start their eternal suffering as soon as possible, but again, not everybody is a devout Christian, and I don't think think that many Americans are entitled to that sort of divine justice. If that is the point that you're arguing, I think that those decisions should be left to your god, not congress.
Debate Round No. 2
nater

Pro

nater forfeited this round.
stropheum

Con

It seems that my opponent has forfeited this round, or somehow forgot about the debate, so instead of bringing up any new points, I will instead summarize why i have clearly won this debate.

1:My opponent has argued the moral side of why the death penalty should be enforced, but has not offered a global perspective of morality or contested the contradiction i made against his perspective of moral correctness. This for the most part negates his entire argument

2:My opponent has not clearly addressed any of my arguments or counterarguments, leaving his responsibility in this debate flawed and choppy

3:I have more than sufficiently explained why it is not always a morally correct choice to kill every murderer. In fact, part of my argument suggests that humans have no right to decide who lives and who dies, regardless of the crimes that he/she has committed.

4:My opponent has contradicted himself with his own words, showing that his argument is flawed and poorly organized.

I don't think that this will be a very hard decision for all of you. Vote CON

Also, i would like to thank nater for participating in this debate, although i would have liked for it to have been formally completed. I'm sure it was out of your control though.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
I come from Texas and people in our state enjoy a good electrocution or two but if the government was real concerned about its expenditures it would focus on how much it's spending on the unnecessary wars we're currently fighting so it's not really a case of money but of the morality of it all
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Economically speaking, the death penalty is not the method which should be used to deal with criminals. If criminals commit crimes that are capital (i.e. have the ability to receive the death penalty), then they should get life in prison instead. Using the death penalty is very ineffective and does not deter anyone except the criminal. The death penalty costs (on average) SIX TIMES MORE than keeping a person in prison for life. If the U.S. is so concerned with the finite resources available in the criminal justice field (law enforcement, corrections, courts, etc.), then why doesn't the U.S. stop wasting resources?

The U.S. is practically the only industrialized, developed state to still use the death penalty. It doesn't have a positive effect on recidivism, so why is it used?
Posted by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
the way i see it is you can either get the death penalty or life in prison so either way the persons going to die in prison but rather than have them commit suicide and go to hell they can still have a chance in heaven.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
naterstropheumTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
naterstropheumTied
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 Bridge 8 years ago
Bridge
naterstropheumTied
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 Tavadon 8 years ago
Tavadon
naterstropheumTied
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 brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
naterstropheumTied
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 Issa 8 years ago
Issa
naterstropheumTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
naterstropheumTied
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 stropheum 8 years ago
stropheum
naterstropheumTied
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