The Instigator
Topaet
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
kyleniel
Pro (for)
Losing
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 1 vote the winner is...
Topaet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 117803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Topaet

Con

My position as Con will be to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed while Pro will have to argue that it is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is.

Pro has to post his opening argument in round 1 and skip his last round.

Thank you for accepting this debate and have fun.
kyleniel

Pro

The Death Penalty is worthwhile as it punishes those that deserve it.
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Con

“Of two methods which are equally effective in preventing murder, The one involving least harm to the murderer is to be preferred. The harm to the murderer is wholly regrettable, Like the pain of a surgical operation. It may be equally necessary, But it is not a subject for rejoicing. The vindictive feeling called ‘moral indignation’ is merely a form of cruelty. Suffering to the criminal can never be justified by the notion of vindictive punishment. If education combined with kindness is equally effective, It is to be preferred; stillmore is it to be preferred if it is more effective. ” (Russell 2009, P. 358).
Therefore, The death penalty is a form of cruelty and "punishing" criminals in the worst way possible instead of trying to rehabilitate them is immoral and inhumane.

My opponent has claimed that the death penalty is worthwhile as it punishes those that deserve it.
This is however refuted by the fact that the death penalty is responsible for the death of innocent people:
In a report that was published by the National Academy of Sciences, It was “conservatively” estimated that at least 4. 1% of those sentenced to death in the USA are innocent (Gross, O'Brien, Hu, & Kennedy, 2014).

Actually, At least 74 cases where wrongful executions have most likely taken place in the USA have been identified [1], One such example is that of Jesse Tafero who was wrongfully convicted of having murdered two police officers and who was subsequently executed in 1990 [2]. During his execution, The electric chair malfunctioned thrice which "caused 1 foot high flames to shoot from Tafero's head" and which resulted in the death chamber filling with smoke and "two dozen horrified witnesses". A lawyer who was witnessing the execution described it as "burning Tafero alive" and further told that "you could smell burning human flesh" [3].

In conclusion, The death penalty does not just punish those that some might argue deserve it but also innocent people, That most certainly do not, In an inhumane way that simply disregards human dignity and therefore, The death penalty should be abolished in the 31 U. S. States where it has not yet been abolished.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

Russell, Bertrand (2009). The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. Routledge.

R Gross, Samuel & O'Brien, Barbara & Hu, Chen & Kennedy, Edward. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111. 10. 1073/pnas. 1306417111.

[1]: The-slammer. Org. (2009). Wrongful Executions: “Fail-Safe” Judicial Systems Do Fail. [online] Available at: http://www. The-slammer. Org/carousel/wrongful-executions-%E2%80%9Cfail-safe%E2%80%9D-judicial-systems-do-fail [Accessed 19 Aug. 2018].
[2]: Lairdcarlson. Com. (2018). Jesse Tafero - Case Summary - Innocence Project by Claudia Whitman sponsored by Equal Justice USA. [online] Available at: http://www. Lairdcarlson. Com/grip/Tafero%20Case%20Summary. Htm [Accessed 19 Aug. 2018].
[3]: Washington Post. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/archive/politics/1997/03/26/flames-shoot-from-convict-at-execution/2391d686-7bc9-4bc0-af33-4db43cc98490/? Noredirect=on&utm_term=. 9766ef44ec42 [Accessed 19 Aug. 2018].

kyleniel

Pro

Human DIgnity has a moral basis, It is entirely possible for morals to approve of the Death Penalty as an exception. And shouldn't human dignity be applied merely to dignifiable (in a rather broad sense of the term to indicate non-criminals).

As for the innocents, The death penalty should be used in no question scenarios, Which shall become more and more common in our world.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Con

“As for the innocents, The death penalty should be used in no question scenarios

As I have specified in round 1, Pro’s position in this debate is to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is, Therefore, Pro’s argument that the death penalty should only be used in no question scenarios is irrelevant in this debate as he has to defend the application of the death penalty in the USA where, as I have shown in round 2, One innocent person is killed for every 24 guilty people.

Thus, My main conclusion that the death penalty does not just punish those that some might argue deserve it but also innocent people that most certainly do not deserve it and, Therefore, The death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed from round 2 remains uncontested.

Furthermore, Pro’s argument that human dignity should only be applied to non-criminals is as Bertrand Russell has called it “merely a form of cruelty” (see quote in round 2) and Pro has so far failed to explain what advantage punishing criminals with the death penalty has compared to a sentence of life in prison where the criminals can, For example, Be questioned at a later point, Studied for psychological research or possibly be exonerated if they are innocent at some point of time.

Additionally, I should like to end this round with a famous quote that is often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. ” [1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

Quoteinvestigator. Com. (2018). An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind – Quote Investigator. [online] Available at: https://quoteinvestigator. Com/2010/12/27/eye-for-eye-blind/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2018].

kyleniel

Pro

Well, I can't have a meaningful debate under those restrictions.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
"Death Penalty" = You have to die because I think it would make me feel better. + cost / bennefit
The murderer probably did kill because it made him/her feel better. + cost / bennefit.
Posted by kyleniel 2 months ago
kyleniel
Canis The murderer probably killed someone innocent. Death Penalty kills the guilty (at least most of the time).
Posted by Topaet 2 months ago
Topaet
"These restrictions" were clear from round one. . .
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
"Death Penalty" = You have to die because I think it would make me feel better. + cost / bennefit
The murderer probably did kill because it made him/her feel better. + cost / bennefit.
Posted by Topaet 3 months ago
Topaet
He is meant to skip the last round as in writing "I skip this round" because he would otherwise have one more round than me to argue as he was supposed to formulate his argument in round 1.

Dead murderers definitely can not learn and I will address whether the death penalty is a deterrent in my final round.
Posted by watziznehm 3 months ago
watziznehm
Why does Pro have to skip their last round? We can't vote if he does. And your views are pretty stupid. Murderers have to learn the hard way.
Posted by Topaet 3 months ago
Topaet
I wish debate. Org would stop messing with my capitalization. . .
Posted by Topaet 3 months ago
Topaet
Oh sorry, This is a misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to imply that you were trolling.

I specified that the death penalty as it is currently applied in the USA is wrong as I didn't want this debate to be accepted by someone who wanted to win this debate by either trolling (e. G. Saying that the death penalty in game of thrones is not wrong or something similar to that) or someone who is way too specific (e. G. Saying that Hitler is the only person that would have deserved the death penalty and that I thus have to prove that it would have been wrong to execute Hitler).

My offer still stands:
If you would like to debate about your specific DP-inclusive penalty code, Feel free to challenge me to a debate and outline your DP-inclusive penalty code in round 1. I'm going to take the debate seriously and will debate you if I think that I have a reasonable case to make.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 months ago
RMTheSupreme
How is it trolling what? !
Posted by Topaet 3 months ago
Topaet
Because I do not want this debate to turn into a troll debate and I would like to use this debate as a practice debate to summarize relevant sources and create simple arguments that I can use in real debates (real as in real-life) and on other debate websites.

If you would like to debate about your specific DP-inclusive penalty code, Feel free to challenge me to a debate and outline your DP-inclusive penalty code in round 1
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 2 months ago
RMTheSupreme
TopaetkylenielTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro intentionally ignores the rules of the debate, doesn't use a single source while Con uses arguably god-tier reliability of sources and then to top it off we have Pro relying on 'should be' and 'deserve it' as their fundamental foundation on which they build a sham of a case. End of the line Pro, you hung yourself in a DP manner from the moment you posted your Round 1 to the moment you posted your troll of a Round 3.