The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Death Penalties should be abolished

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 60256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




Let's make this a quick one. 1st round acceptance only. 2nd one is argument, and 3rd is rebuttals.


I accept. Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


Let me define the topic before starting:

Death penalties are penalties in which the court agrees to end an offender's life.

Death punishments should be abolished for two simple reasons:

1. A rusty life can be fixed and built into a new one rather than destroyed.

It has been proven that rehabilitation works for 80% of the people who go through it. This means that they become better citizens when they walk out, citizens who are criminals no more. Now what with the 20%? If it doesn't work for them, then they should stay in jail rather than die of forceful causes. This way, that little handful of 20% percent does not affect that raging 80%, and in a way that is still safe too.

If the court thinks life is so precious that humankind should not kill humankind, then don't you think that it is contradictory that they should end lives themselves?

2. A death penalty would lead to more problems:

Death is a big thing. Families of the imprisoned would probably rather them stay in prison forever than die, as many do not yet believe that letting go is for the best.

Killing an offender will trigger anger and excitement in his family, who will probably start working against the law, taking vengeance in the form of purposely bending the law, or maybe commit suicide or turn to drugs for their sadness.

3. Given this, one does not have to kill to solve his problem- he can turn the problem into something better instead.


I. Cross-Examination

1. A rusty life can be fixed and built into a new one rather than destroyed.
It's easier to kill someone than to either rehabilitate the 80% or imprison the 20%. We're talking about objectively easier. So I see no reason to include subjective morality into an objective debate. Killing is faster, and simpler than keeping trying to deal with a past criminal. So why even try to?

Humankind isn't precious. There are 7,000,000,000+ people on this Earth. In fact overpopulation will become an issue soon. At that point human life will will actually be on the negative side of preciousness, meaning that a living person will be causing others pain.
At this point in time, over-valuing humans will be our biggest leap into poverty and starvation.
What we really need to do is focus on killing the criminals to make way for the better-fit civilians to carry on our fast-growing species. That way, not only do we only have trust-worthy people surviving, we also take care of overpopulation. It's a win-win. Even for the guy dying, because he's too dead to care.

2. A death penalty would lead to more problems

Who cares what the families think? That's emotion you're talking about, not objective consequence.
As for the triggering anger and excitement, where's your proof? I'd say the families will be happy that their delinquet child got what came to him, but without evidence it doesn't matter what you or I think.
Support your claims.

II. Construct
I do actually have a point to make for my side of the case.
That point being that there is really no con to the death penalty besides the slightly higher cost.
Think about it, the only people that are affected are the guy's family and the guy.
The guy is dead, so his feelings are non-existent.
As for the family, they aren't really relevant. Their grief has nothing to do with the overall well being of society. People are sad all the time. That doesn't mean that society should cater to every last thing someone cries about.
On the other hand, overpopulation does have a negative impact on the welfare of humans. Therefore it is more objectively relevant.

Finally, on the issue of rehabilitation. This is a very risky treatment option. For no other reason than you're releasing a man who has done something worthy of the death penalty back into society. Once again, negative impact. There is evidence to show that criminals become criminals based on envirmonmental factors as well as gentic factors. Two things that the criminal doesn't control. Therefore that criminal is still at a greater risk of commiting a crime than your every-day joe.

III. Appendix
Support for my claims; (Easy and simple) (Death is comfortable); (Overpopulation an issue);(Criminality origin)
Debate Round No. 2


Palmo10 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended and unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
Understandable, sometimes it happens to the best of us.
Posted by Palmo10 7 years ago
O shucks! Sorry I was so busy!
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
Can you have intellect without stupidity?
Like you can't have hot without cold.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
For idiocy is the child of death.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Human stupidity should be abolished first.
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
All potential voters. Please do not base your vote on personal bias. If you agree with Pro, there is criteria for you to voice that without giving away unjustified points.

To purpose of a vote is to objectively decide which party made the best argument for his side of the debate. The system relies on you guys being objective and honestly seeing who made the best argument, not who you agree with.
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
Predebate votes? What's going on here?
Posted by CountCheechula 7 years ago
You also have my vote just don't poop on yourself!
Posted by Jaqenhghar 7 years ago
I would join this argument, but I support you in this. You have my vote.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.