The Instigator
dipdyed_monster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

there should not be a death penelty

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 1 vote the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,368 times Debate No: 29058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dipdyed_monster

Pro

basically we're killling people that killed to show that killing is wrong. just saying
Clash

Con

The resolution of this debate is: "There should not be a death penalty". This is what my opponent said, and I take this to mean that the death penalty should be abolished (to say that there should not be a death penalty is pretty much like saying that the death penalty should be abolished). In this debate, I will negate the resolution by arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished. I will first refute what my opponent said in her first round, and then I will present one argument of my own.


Pro's Case

In supporting her case that there should not be a death penalty, my opponent said: "basically we're killling people that killed to show that killing is wrong." First of all, killing is not always wrong. Murder, however, is surely wrong. What makes murder wrong is that it is the killing of an innocent human being. However, if the state kills a murderer, though it does the same physical act that he or she did, it does not do the wrong that he or she did, since the state is not killing an innocent human being.[1] It is because of what you did that was wrong that killing you, which would otherwise be wrong, is right.

Now, is it true that we are killing people that killed to show that killing is wrong? Well, the death penalty isn't used on people who merely just kill - rather, the death penalty is imposed on people who kills innocent human beings (i.e., those who murder). So, the question should be: "Are we killing people who kill innocent human beings to show that killing innocent human beings is wrong?". The answer is no. My opponent has clearly misunderstood the purpose behind the death penalty. What the death penalty and the people imposing it are doing is giving what the murderer deserves and bringing justice over the one who was unjustly and with cold blood killed by the murderer. This is the purpose behind the death penalty. To say that the death penalty is merely just used in order to show that murder or killing is wrong, is completely false and a Straw Man attack on the death penalty and its real purpose.


My Case


I contend that the death penalty should not be abolished, because imposing the death penalty is sometimes necessary in order to bring forth justice. Indeed, as Jerry Kilgore correctly states, there are some crimes that are so heinous that execution is the only appropriate penalty to be imposed:

"Intellectual honesty requires that we determine whether it is ever appropriate for the state, in the name of the people, to execute a person for his crime. As a former prosecutor, former secretary of public safety and now attorney general, I believe that some crimes are so evil and heinous, some criminals so dangerous and some victims so tortured that executing the criminal is appropriate." [2]

Let us take two examples of people who's crimes are so heinous that only the death penalty would be the appropriate punishment - namely, Adolf Hitler and Theodore Frank. In regard to Hitler, this man and his perverted beliefs was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent human beings; everyone from men, women, children, and even babies. He was also responsible for one of the worst atrocities ever made in the history of mankind, namely, the holocaust.

As for Theodore Frank, this man "...kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured and mutilated a two and a half-year-old girl with vise grips over six hours. Then she was strangled to death. Her assailant, Theodore Frank, according to court records and his own admissions, had already molested more than 100 children during a 20-year period." [3]

The death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for these two monsters and their heinous crimes. If the punishment should fit the crime, then the death penalty is surely what fits these heinous crimes made by Hitler, Theodore Frank, and many more people like them. Anything less than the death penalty would be a failure to approximate justice.

The resolution is negated.

_______

Sources

[1] http://orgs.law.ucla.edu...

[2] http://dir.groups.yahoo.com...

[3] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dipdyed_monster

Pro

I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered. i agree with myself and my opponent. though i meant killing as in murder. maybe some murderers thought "if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers."
Clash

Con

It's very clear, given what my opponent said above, that she has conceded her case that there should not be a death penalty. If it wasn't the intention of my opponent to concede when she said what she said above, then it must be noted that, as it now stands, my opponent has lost this debate anyways. Why? Because my opponent has not refuted my argument which contends that the death penalty is sometimes necessary in order to bring forth justice, and that some crimes are so evil that only execution is the appropriate punishment.

I would also like to respond to something which my opponent said. My opponent said, and I quote, "maybe some murderers thought "if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers." I can't really see how some murderers would think that they could murder murderers because the government kills murderers. It would be nice if you could elaborate on this and give us some reasons as to why you think this is the case. Moreover, I also can't see how this has anything to do with the topic of this debate, let alone how it shows that there should not be a death penalty.

My opponent has not been able to defend her claim that there should not be a death penalty. In fact, my opponent herself agreed that the death penalty should in some cases be considered. The resolution remains negated.
Debate Round No. 2
dipdyed_monster

Pro

dipdyed_monster forfeited this round.
Clash

Con

Well, this was disappointing. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
dipdyed_monsterClashTied
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 - "I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered." + F.F.