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

Death Penalty

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 113855
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Hey sup, you're blocking my way of saving lives. I'm going to beat your arguments and make sure you'll agree with me.

No, just kidding. Let's start.


0) I'm going to repeat the argument on the other debate so it is kindof a refresher.

1) Send me the link and I probably can view and analyze them.

2) There is a difference between murder and execution.

3) Given that prison experience for murderers is better then life for many poor people, my analogy is kind of consistent.

Perks of being a prisioner:

-They get 3 meals a day. If they don't like the food, then they often make their own.
-This kindof goes with the one above. They get to participate in the Ramen trade(
-Clean clothes
-Getting paid for stuff

Since murderers are getting these perks that they wouldn't get if they were poor, they kind of are getting paid to be a murderer. This should not be the case. Good things should get rewarded proportionally and bad things should get punished proportionally. Prisoners are in jail because they are accused of doing bad things and the murderers should get punished with death, not rewarded with prison.

4) Murderers tend to be people who didn't do very well in school. Lectures aren't effective for people who didn't do well in school. Besides, murderers would tend to ignore anything that's being preached. If you went into a room that wasn't a church but had a lot of Christians in it and you start ranting about how much you hate god, they will probably ignore you since they disagree with what your saying. Since murderers probably believe killing people is okay, it's fine to believe that if it just stays as a belief, but when you kill someone else on the basis of that belief, just don't be surprised when the law does it to you.

5)I am not welcoming violence. I am punishing it with violence directed against the murderer instead of violence perpetrated against the murderer.

6)Not all types of killing are wrong. Is the military wrong? No. If the US withdrew it's military, then more innocent people would die from the power that fills the vacuum left behind by the US.

7)The bible supports eye for an eye for justice purposes. Any time it tells you to turn the other cheek, this is because there is a difference between being a vigilantic and being an executioner.

A vigilantic does not have the authority to execute, an executioner does. The bible allows the executioner to execute, since he does not have as much stored hatred inside of him.

A vigilantic is more likely to kill an innocent person. If my brother was murdered by someone I have never seen, I may sort through it all on my own, but whoever I think is the suspect, I probably will be wrong. The law on the other hand, gets the answer right much more often because of the following:
a) They have tools that I wouldn't have, like DNA testers, the storage of many people's DNA
b) They are professionals in their field, so they have more experience then a victim like myself.

Because of that, vigilantic people tend to not be the ones who carry out executions, whereas equipped, experienced officials are.

8)It's not the victim's relatives taking the revenge, it's the justice system that performs the punishment. The judge does not harbor as much emotion as the victims. I can also make a case that anti-death penalty people use emotion themselves since they care about the murderer.

9) In order to reduce murder, executions ideally should fill the void.

10) Actually, while South Africa has a homicide rate and Japan has a low homicide rate, South Africa abolished the death penalty while the death penalty is active in Japan (

11)Only 4.1% of convicts for murder are actually innocent. (This is religious) If your executed innocent, since atheist criminals tend to convert out of fear of hell, once they get executed innocently, they would go to heaven. Even if your secular, the innocent inmates would probably be thinking hopeful thoughts at the deathbed.

12) Read #11

13 If I drove my judgment on the sole basis of anger, then I would be wanting them burned alive for killing one person with a gunshot. If someone murdered one person with a gunshot, then I want the murderer to get killed by gunshot.

14) Nice job. I am as well.

15)The government within the United States, if they support the death penalty they almost always want it for murderers because the murderer morally should experience the pain they inflicted on their victim. The government only does it because someone has to kill them, the victim is dead, the victim can't kill anyone.
Punishing doesn't lessen any violence into this world that's why I believe restorative justice and rehabilitation is better to focus on.

16)It is not the only punishment that can deter but it is the most moral and effective punishment for prisoners.

P.S. How do you bold things?
Debate Round No. 1


1. It's a beheaded man bro, look at your own risk.death penalty is doing what you can see in this image
2. Right i admit, there's dfference. Murder is the act of killing innocent. Execution is the act of killing a killer but there's no difference with procedure which is killing, both executioner and the killer is guilty for killing,guilt always exist since killing is always wrong.
3. What, it's just the duty to provide for their citizen including the prisoner. It's the government's problem if the citizen lack of survival (poverty). Death penalty is'nt the right solution for this issue. And you know what, Punsihment don't solve anything rightly, it just cause us to hurt each other.
4. Don't worry, I don't have a book that command me to kill. If the murderers kill because of lack of education then lecture him , that's how you solve problem.
5What, since you do violence then you have accepted it.
6. Yes the military is our advantage, their intention is right but not their action (killing). but yeah, who am I to say this now that I don't have another solution to protect people.
7. Jesus said to turn your left cheek and do not repay evil by evil and he did not do vengeance when he was attack so nope, He's not teaching people to do vengeance or eye on eye. Executors hate killers, there are hatred inside of them, they don't have compassion nor mercy for them.
8. We ( anti death penalty supporters) care both for the victim and murderer. If we only care about murderers we would only want them to live but no, we want them to be rehabilitated and to regret what he did to the victim then change his ways and be a citizen, that's how we want to deter another murder, by changing his mind. We accept that the victim is dead but won't accept that another person will die because of that incident..
9. In order to reduce killing, stop death penalty. We don't stop killing if we kill you know.
10. I know, South Africa's restorative justice need to improve. By the way, Japan just counted the illegal killing not their own killing
11. So Christians should preach more on jail then? already did base your decision on anger. The victim is killed , you want the suspect to experience the same.
14.Nice, i only want the abortion to be restricted but no completely abolish since there are still pregnancy complication that really risk mother's life
15. As i had said before bro, yes maybe they deserve death but no one has the right to be a killer.
16. It's not the most moral for executioner feel guilty with their job. It contradicts the idea of 'for a humane to kill a human is wrong' , 'ending other's people lives is wrong" and "do unto others the way you want to be treated"
PS. You bold things by clicking the 'B ' at the top of the draft box before you type the words you plan to bold. Click it again to not bold the next words


1. When I said link, I meant a link other then a search engine link (google, bing, yahoo, etc). Google is blocked on my computer, as is Bing.
2. Killing is not always wrong. It is justified (right now) to kill animals for meat, albeit I'm mostly vegan. It's justified to kill enemy soldiers in war because when the US fights in wars in the middle east and Korea, they provide freedom from the alternative, ISIS and North Korea respectively. It's also okay to execute as punishment and deterrent.
3. It's their duty to let the citizen provide goods for himself and to punish criminals for their deeds to society.
4. If you lecture him about why killing is wrong, he probably won't pay attention because criminals don't pay good attention to lectures because many of them dropped out of school. Lectures don't work for them.
5) I accept harsh punishments for evil crimes. Read bullet #2.
6. Yeah! Your a military supporter. Lets ditch this bullet point in future rounds to be more efficient.
7. Jesus preached against eye for an eye, but many New Testament preachers supported it. The difference between these supposed inconsistency is Jesus told his followers not to be vigilantic whereas the New Testament authors were saying to let the judges punish those. I have already explained why it's okay for the legal system to execute and not okay for the common person to execute. If you forgot, read bullet #7 of the last round.
8. But if a murderer has to kill someone before they get rehabilitation, then it would do almost no good in preventing future murders because almost all murders happen before a murderer goes to jail for the 1st time. The best solution would be to kill them publicly in a stadium with a consenting owner so people get the message, "Don't commit homicide".
9. Sorry that this bullet point didn't make sense. However, regardless, read bullet #2.
10. "South Africa's restorative justice need to improve." The way their punishment would improve is by killing all their murderers. Japan should count only their illegal killing because murderers don't deserve any rights and if 10,000 murderers get saved at the expense of 1 innocent person, then that would be immoral since murderers don't deserve the right to live. Even if Japan counted there executed population with their homicide rate (which they should not) then it still would be dwarfed by the homicide rate of South Africa. The Japanese homicide rate (including executions, which should not be tallied), is .62 per 100,000. The South African Homicide rate is 34.27 people per 100,000. South Africa has a homicide rate 50x higher if executions count and 100x higher if executions don't count. The death penalty saves non murderer lives, the only lives with actual value.
11. No. The bible says an eye for an eye in many passages. It would go against the beliefs of strong Christians.
13. The judge doesn't have as much anger as the victim's family. The judge is used to people being accused of murder and other crimes. They developed a tough skin that bases sentences on logic and morals.
14. Abortion is a different topic, but it should be illegal in all situations. If a woman's life is in life or death danger, there are other ways to save both lives. That's a different debate though.
15. Read bullet point #2
16. Read bullet #2
"17". These are bolding tests:

B Are these words bolded? B

How about these?B

B How about these?B

How about these?
Debate Round No. 2


1.oh sorry here you go
2.I guess it's okay to kill animal yes, but It's not right to kill humans, it's our own kind. We should'nt kill each other in terms of detterence, trust me there's another solution just agree with me we will find a solution someday if we want to and punishment is nothing but violence. Its not okay.
3. Punishment don't teach anyone good morals, punishment just causes someone to do cruel things for those who does bad action that results no good.
4.You should'nt be confident to that. We don't even know why they do crimes and why they do not change besides killing. So between us, who's not listening? The inmates or the government? Truly there's none of them listening to each other. Both sides don't have compassionate to understand the other side and care about the bigger picture.
5. Isnt harshness also evil? If you keep on being harsh to wicked do you think they will change from being wicked? No.
6. Yeah but still I disagree with it in terms of morality .military is violent.
7. In Christianity who should we listen to? Christians or Jesus? Basically its Jesus so if Jesus disagree with eye on eye then that's the main concept. Christ also said that resist from paying evil by evil but what did the judges do? Judges also sin so who should we listen to now that sometimes judges judge wrongly. We probably have ignored the verses of Christianity which is 'Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord...Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Now you see..... Do you think we love our enemies by killing them? No, so military and the death penalty isn't perfect basis for Christianity. And if we follow 'turn your left cheek' then we will not be hars or cruel instead we will forgive them and be a martyr
8Okay that idea may do tough some people won't follow just because some told so. Educating people that killing and basing their decision by emotion is disadvantageous may do also worries lets just move on to the next number
10. I understand but I'll keep believing on restoratieve justice since it's more moral tham death just need to use our brain not emotion. Right now it's not effective but maybe you'll see it someday acceptable to you. The only problem in this justice is it really dont have much impact on the inmates
11. Please give me example. Don't Jesus disputed eye on eye already by turning your left cheek?
13. Then they failed morality and logic. The contradict themselves thinking ' we should kill a killer . '. If they kill a killer then they should kill themselves because they became a killer. And in morality, they should have understand that punishment is cruel and there's no good at cruelty .
14. Yes I believe so too, scientist now should just not accept abortion but instead discover a cure for pregnancy complications
17. Haha bro, don't click the 'B' on the keyboard. Now that you're on this page. Click the 'Post your argument'. Then analyze the box you are using to write your argument. You'll see a 'B'(Symbol for bold) sign at the top of the box besides the letter 'I' (italic) sign


1.Bing is blocked on my computer. I meant citing a website, not a search engine like Google or Bing.

2.We should execute murderers because executing for deterence is more effective in keeping people safe then putting them in prision for life.

3. The law of economics: The more you reward a behavior, the more of that behavior you will get and the more you punish a behavior, the more of it you will get. Since execution is more of a punishment then life inprisionment, then it is more effective at detering the crimes that deserve such a punishment.

4. Murder happens because of various reasons. However, none of them are justified and people who commit them should be punished by death so they know what it's like to murder. Read #2.

5. Murderers(generally) murder because they get angry about something someone did that was realitively nominal. Read #2.

6. The military(at least that of the US) saves more lives then it costs. If the US ceased to have mlitary presence in Korea for example, then South Korea and Japan would become communist, leading to much more death under a communist rule (since they execute people who openly say they aren't communist). The US military helps prevent this distopia.

7. 'Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord"...Leviticus 19:18.
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
These verses are saying to not take revenge/vengence. However, there is a difference between revenge and justice. Revenge/vengence is vigilantic and based off of emotion. Justice is carried out by a judge and is based off of morality. There is a difference between emotion/revenge and morality/justice. Revenge is patheos since it's feelings. Justice is based off of ethos since it's morality.

8. I don't believe in telling people to base their decisions off of emotion. I was saying teaching murderers about how murder is bad is innefective because it wouldn't reduce murder rates compred to a death sentence. A death sentence prevents murderers from murdering again all the time, since they are dead. All education does is have a possibility of working if murderers are rehabilitated. But if murderers are let out of prision, they often commit homicide again.

9."use our brain not emotion". Given that you tend to simpathize a lot with murderers, it seems that your the one who may be using emotion, since murderers deserve to be executed because of the people they murdered. I resort to claims like Japan has much less homicide then South Africa and Japan is the only country out of those 2 that has the death penelty.

10. Mathew 5:39, NIV, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.". This is saying that if someone hits you on the right cheek, let them hit you on the other one. If someone were to hit someone else, then it would be an anarchy to turn the other cheek. This is why that same author says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Mathew 5:17)(ESV). The law he was refering to was the old testement law, the one that promotes an eye for an eye. “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25)(ESV)

11. I have told you this multiple times. There are different types of killing. I have told you the difference between the two. If you forgot, you can read the previous posts.

12. Many cures for many pregnency complications already exist.

13. I think I can now bold. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


1.Oh haha search 'beheaded man' on a google engine and 'church forgave a killer'
2.But still there's an issue claiming the statement that 'killing is right
3. We will not reward them, we will teach them
4. And the Executioner feel what its like to be a killer.
5. They got anger issues, that's it. If we kill them, we also got anger issue.
6.Yeah sure, you win in number 6 but i still disagree with it
7. What philosophy do you think death penaly base on? Eye on eye. What do you think is eye on eye? Vengeance. The only falacy is thinking 'vengeance and killing is justice'
8..I don't see the government as a good handler of murder rate anyway, they only add up to the 'killer rate'
9.What, I sympathize with the murder by fixing their mental health. I also sympathize with the victim by removing their anger with the victim and gaining peace between them . How about you?
10.I despise that religion who don't love their enemies.
11. I have understand the difference of murder and execution. Murder is 'killing'an innocent while execution is 'killing'an inmate
12. Even ectopic pregnancy?
13. You're always welcome. You can ask me anything
14. Am I convincing you?



I searched beheaded man online and found some ISIS stuff and a kid who got beheaded. ISIS kills people for not being muslim enough. The kid who got beheaded in the 1st image didn't get beheaded as a punishment for a crime. It was for a for profit ritual. While I aggree that nonconsensual human sacrifice is wrong, that's not what is being disputed. Should the person who killed that child be killed because of what he did to the child? I have said yes, you have said no.

As for the "church forgave a killer" claim that you mentioned, this is a reference to people at a South Carolina church forgiving Dylan roof for commiting a mass shooting. However, remember when you said, (In Christianity who should we listen to? Christians or God?). In that context, you were thinking that the Christains tended to support the death penelty whereas God was against it. I then showed in the previous round how God the father and Jesus support a legal death penelty. But ironically, in the example you showed me, it was actually the Christains who are against the death penelty. However, despite this, the bible supports an eye for an eye and it shows that Jesus did not come to abolish any former law.

Previously, you asked me who I would support more, Pro death penelty Christains or an "Anti Death penelty" God. Now I am asking you, would you listen to more, anti death penelty Christains or a pro death penelty god? Because God and the bible support an eye for an eye.

2. There is not an issue with claiming that execution for murderers is right.

3. Criminals don't listen to lectures.

4. No. The executioner's killing was justified since he killed a murderer, and murderers are less valuable then animals. The murderer murdered at least 1 innocent person, often a child.

5. Murderers have mental issues, yes. However, this does not excuse them for murdering. If there is someone with a drinking problem, and he drunk drives and kills someone, is that blamed on his drinking addiction? No. The accident happened from his choices. If he has a drinking problem, he simply calls an Uber. Similiary, if a murderer wants to commit murder, they can call a theropist before the murder happens. This can actually prevent the murder. If a would be criminal gets fixed before a murder happens, they won't have to get punished(other then paying money for theropists, but that is nomonial). However, the punishment for murdering someone should be death.

6. "I still disagree with it" Do you disaggree with the US military, the death penelty or both?

7. I do think the death penelty is based off of the Eye for an eye belief.

8. Execution is not bad. Murder is. It's not about reducing the death rate. It's partly about reducing the homicide rate. Japan has the death penelty and South Africa does not. Japan has a much lower homicide rate. This is partly true due to the fact that Japan has the death penelty and South Africa does not.

9. I simpathize with the victim. The victim can get restitution. This can be paid for by a public execution of a murderer that people pay money to see. Lethal injection is too nice for murderers.

10. "I despise that religion who don't love their enemies.". I think that saying this would be inconsistent with what you said in the previous comment and maybe with your morals in general. (As a metaphor) if a conservative Christain was against illegal immigration and was presented biblical evidence that God has lienent immigration standards, it would be one thing if they interpreted the verse differently and had a conservative interpretation, it would be another thing if they denied Christiainity because of the verse and claimed to be a Christian in every other application.

11. Now that you understand the difference, why is execution for those that deserve it bad?

12. If a fetus is in the wrong place, can they be moved so they are in the right place? I am not a doctor, I don't know if this will keep the fetus alive. I hope it does, but I don't know.

13. No. You are stating the same arguments which I rebuttle with the same basic message.
Debate Round No. 4


1. What I showed you is death, relating to what we are talking about. And forgiveness that citizens fail to achieve.
2.Guess your certain about being a killer worser is no one lecture them
4.It's just on your mind. Killing was just accepted into this world ever since.
5.Blaming a crazy person doesn't make anything better
6. Yes but what can I do
7. I guess your not conscious about the eye on eye's immorality
8 Killing isn't bad? Okay I understand you
9what can you get on being cruel?
10You base on Old testament. I base on New testament
11 because they killed an innocent, what ,even government does that how come they're still alive
12 we taught the same thing.

with what you are standing for you are saving no one. I lost, my main goal here is to change your mind. It's nice debating with you.


1. If that death was executing a murderer, then he deserved to die. The state is not a murderer. They employ executers. Execution is moral, murder is not.

2.No. How did you come to that conclusion? It is not wrong to execute murderers for murder.

3. Lecutres don't work on drop out criminals and evil murderers.

4.Murder has always been a crime in societies so murder has never been welcomed by any government in the world.

5.Yes it does. Harsh punishments and blame can deter people from doing certain actions. While the death penelty should not exist for all crimes, it should exist for murder and a few other serious crimes.

6. The death penelty and a strong military are beneficial because they are based off a good ideology and they save more innocent lives then they cost.

7. An eye for an eye is a moral ideology that makes sense and saves more innocent people then it kills.

8. Why do you lump all forms of killing in the same group? There are different types of killing.

9. You get justice.

10. Both testements must preach non contradictory messages in order for them to be legitimite. So how do they both be correct? The New Testement (NT) says that Jesus came to fufill the law, not to abolish the law. This would mean that Jesus did not want to abolish the law for Christains. This means that he supports the Old testemant (OT) which talks about justice, which is logic and moral driven and carried out by 3rd parties who have less bias. When Jesus said "turn the other cheek", he was telling people to not let emotions judge their vigilantic actions. The judicial system is not vigilantic nor emtional, so they are justified to carry out punishment according to the OT and the NT.

11. This bullet point is confusing.

12. ?????????????

Good debate. I think we both learned a few things as a result of this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
Nice debate.
Posted by unknown777 3 years ago
Haha alright noted.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
P.S. Next time, if you extend the voting period to 6 months, although it will be longer, you will have less of a chance at getting a tie. Quality over quantity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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