Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

RFD for Mister_Man v. dswd

Posts: 2,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 2:21:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
RFD for Mister Man"s debate

I will use the 4 point system to grade how effective each argument and rebuttal is, with 4 being the most effective.

Since I"m a gang member of the DK union, I shall not award conduct or spelling.

Money saved in death

Pro"s Argument

In this argument. Pro talks about how killing many of the prisoners for violent crimes, would save around 30,000 dollars per year, and how this money can be used for other things like healthcare. He cites how many America spends 40 billion annually, and by executing criminals who have committed violent crime, we would safe nearly half. I really like this argument. Pro shows how a lot of money is spent on keeping these criminals, and highlights the benefits of the savings.

I give this 4/4 for effectiveness.

Con Rebuttal

First of all, I think it"s worth noting Con believes that it is unfair conduct by Pro, for making a rule that prohibits him from talking about cost. Con was not forced to accept this debate, and Pro clearly mentioned in the resolution, that "we will not use the million-dollar death penalty procedures we have grown to love, " So, I have to ignore Con"s plea because he clearly made the choice to accept the debate.

Now on to rebuttals. Con talks about how Pro the rejection of Pros proposal is not an affirmation of the current situation. This would be a good point, if Pro was talking about the cost of DP. Pro however is talking about the cost of LWP, which doesn"t go in conflict of his resolution. However Con does say that public spending isn"t the same as private spending and does explain a little bit on how it would be different under Pro"s proposed system. Con says that instead of killing them, we could resort to prison labor of some sort. I don"t really buy this, because Con doesn"t specify how, and what would be a net positive of prison labor. Had Con gone more into detail, I could say it was a convincing case, but he doesn"t. He also doesn"t provide sources, so I have no reason to believe what he says is true.

I give Con"s effectiveness a 1.5/4 because he mentions a good idea, but fails to talk more about it.

No more re-offenders

For this argument, Pro talks about the how violent crime reoffending rate is still very high, and that buy executing them, it produces a 0% reoffending rate for violent crime. He then says that the chances of people doing violent crime will also decrease, since it involves death. I buy the first point, but the 2nd point is merely just a educated guess. If Pro showed some study that proves that the DP mentally will discourage them from violent crime, I would also believe that.

I give Pro effectiveness 2/4.

Con"s rebuttal

Not too happy about Con"s rebuttal. He simply says that life imprisonment is also an option, but he doesn"t even go in detail as to how. I"m not even sure how LWP would produce a 0 percent reoffending rate, because it"s not impossible to kill in jail itself. However, Pro didn"t say that. Either way, this rebuttal was too vague, and had 0 substance

I give Con"s rebuttal 0/4

Crime-free Future

Well, Pro"s title does contradict what he says, however he does explain and show how crime would still go down, because 1 million less violent crimes, would be committed by 2020. I have to just assume that this would can a deterrence in future criminals, because there isn"t a direct correlation of the DP instantly putting fear into everybody. Regardless, Pro didn"t give evidence of that either.

2/4 for effectiveness

Con"s rebuttal.

Con literally makes no rebuttal, and just says to look at his previous arguments.


Con"s arguments.

Death penalty is killing innocent people

I like this argument made by Con. He shows that the DP is capable of making mistakes, and gives stats to prove that more than 340 inmates have been wrongfully been sentenced to death since 1973. he also talks about the racial bias, but he says cases with whites result much more often in death sentences, but also says the same for Blacks. I"m guessing Con made a spelling mistake with that, but I"ll give him the benefit of the doubt since he also said "despite being a minority". Con says that the 340 inmates have been sentenced to death, but that doesn"t mean 340 inmates have been executed. He says the DP is killing innocent people, but sentencing them to death doesn"t= dead

I give Con a 2/4 for effectiveness on this.

Pro rebuttal

I like Pro"s rebuttal. He explains how the Pro"s of the millions saved from re-offenders would still outweigh the 70 people who are exonerated, and frankly, I"m buying his rebuttal. Con didn"t really explain how executing innocents is more valuable than saving a million people later on, so I have to go with Pro on this.

2/4 so Pro rebuttal is successful.

More guilty people would be allowed to go free

I really like what Con says here. He gives evidence from a reliable source Justice Ruth Bader, who says that well-represented people, generally do receive the DP anyways. He also provides a bit more reasoning. He does mention that the proposed system is different from the current system, but I still can apply what a lot of what he said to the current system, and I"m buying it.

4/4 on effectiveness for Con.

Pro rebuttal

Pro says that that overturning death sentences may not have a correlation with prejudice or biases, and can simply relate to the crime committed and history of the offender. The key word is "may", but from what Con said, Its more convincing to me that I go with the prejudice and bias part of it. Pro says that putting down the people who have done harm to innocent people, and who are dangerous to society, is not a bad thing, but this isn"t relevant to the argument put forth by Con, because he is saying that those criminals would avoid the DP if well-represented, so part of the rebuttal is off track.

I give this 1/4 for effectiveness.

Death penalty does not reduce crime rates

Con says that states with the DP are more violent than non-DP states, but that doesn"t really prove anything. Maybe the violent crime rate was already lower in some states, and Con doesn"t really explain this point at all. Con says that ost of those crimes are committed by people in extreme situations, but he doesn"t give sources to that.

I give this a 1/4 for effectiveness, because Con does talk bit about a possible correlation, but he does show how it"s a direct one.

Pro"s rebuttal

Pro says his exoneration statistics refute this, and they do. Pro already proved that the DP with his proposed system would lower the DP rate, so this argument is basically lost by Con.

1/4 so Pro"s rebuttal is successful.

Death penalty is condemned by the international community

Con goes with a nihilistic approach on this argument. He just says that the majority of the U,N banned the DP, and that only countries siding with Islamic countries support the DP. This argument is basically baseless, because it doesn"t give me a reason to care what other countries think, and it doesn"t explain how the DP in Islamic countries are the same in the U.S, because Sharia Law isn"t the law of the U.S

0/4 for effectiveness.

Pro rebuttal

Pro didn"t even have to refute this, but he does say it"s irrelevant. So whatever.

So scores

Pro arguments


Pro"s arguments= 6.5

Con"s arguments


Con"s arguments= 3

Sources are tied, because both used them, and they generally were reliable on both sides.

Pro wins 6.5-3

Pro is the winner of this debate.

Good job guys.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k