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

RFD on Death Penalty Debate.

Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 4:37:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a debate between Hayd and bluetree653. Here's the link:

First, I'll analyze Pro (bluetree653) in Round One. Pro only displays bare assertions with absolutely no explanation. For example, they say "For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail." Okay, maybe, but they need to explain it further. That already is a major drawback for Pro.

Round One, Con (Hayd)

The Right to Life:
In this argument, Con says "A government is created by the people in order to protect the people's unalienable rights. If a government fails to secure these for all citizens, then it is an unjust government." He quotes The Declaration of Independence to explain his point further, relating it to our unalienable rights. Overall, it's solid due to the source and the depth he puts into the subject, a far cry from Round One of Pro.

Next, Con says that the death penalty- along with the costs of trials, incarceration, investigation, etc. - costs much more than a life sentence. To support this claim, Con brings in sources from Seattle University, a state budget website, a judge, a professor, and a death penalty information website. These sources confirm the economic benefit of abolishing the death penalty very well. This argument, like the last, was well structured and held weight.

In this portion, Con claims that there is a leaning towards someone who's black to be punished with the death penalty rather than white citizens. He also represents this with a graph showing the percentage of black citizens and black death row inmates in Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, and Missouri. He also states the rates of reversible errors happening to these black death row inmates being incredibly high and the numbers of inmates receiving new trials due to errors.

Overall, it holds tons of weight as the sources seem accurate and it's structure and information is nearly perfect. If I were to pick on anything, I'd say this sentence was placed awkwardly in the middle of the argument.

"The death penalty is a broken system, it punishes not based on the crime, but on your ethnicity, your wealth, and the quality of your lawyer."

Personally, I'd put this at the end of the argument as Con didn't even mention the representation of the lawyer until after this. It doesn't detract from the information, I just think it's an awkward placement. That is reaching for straws though, so really it's a tiny nitpick.

In this one, Con states that we can't know for certain that someone is guilty and that we can't bring someone back from the dead, but we can release someone from a life sentence. He shows the number of people released from death row being surprisingly high and the percentage of innocents killed. This is the most effective argument he presents in this entire debate, if you ask me. I only wish that he put a citation for the quote he used from Freddie Lee. I was able to find this quote online, but the average reader may not check for this.

Con says that Pro's claim are bare assertions, just like I said earlier in my review of Pro's arguments. There isn't much to rebut in terms of Pro's arguments, so the short response Con gave is justified.

Round Two, Pro::
I know, all Con asks is how to upload pictures to his arguments, but he easily could've asked this is the comments or he could've PMed his opponent. I know it's a small gripe, but if he didn't waste his second round to ask this, we could've had an actual argument explaining his points. I believe this all could've be avoided.

Round Two, Con:
All Con did in this round was give a link to help Pro and explain that all of his arguments extend, as Con couldn't present any substantial arguments or even try to rebut Con's arguments.

Round Three, Pro:
All they do is forfeit the round, so I can't say to much about this round.

Round Three, Con:
Con just states once again that his arguments extend because of the lack of evidence or further claims on Pro's part.

To summarize this entire debate, Con won by a landslide. He goes in depth for his arguments and use sources to prove his point, which I definitely can't say for Pro. Everything about Con's approach is almost flawless, while Pro tries to fall back on fruitless statements with no support from any arguments. For obvious reasons, Con wins three points for more convincing arguments. Due to Pro's forfeiture, Con gets an additional point for better conduct.

To be honest, this debate was rather disappointing. Of course, Hayd delivered a great argument like he always does, but this comes nowhere close to Hayd's previous debate with tejretics on the issue. If you're looking for a superior death penalty debate, I'd suggest checking it out at this link:

Anyway, this is a clear win for Hayd. Congratulations!

Thank you.