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

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,440 times Debate No: 29877
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I am a firm believer in the death penalty and for people who say that it is not fair, i propose a fair argument. This round, for me, will just be a statement of what i believe in, once someone accepts then the argument will continue. Good luck!


I am ready to debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Debate we shall!
First of all forgive any blunders for this is my first debate and i just joined the site.
Okay, the death penalty, in my opinion is completely fair and its hard for me to understand how someone can believe its not. You will more than likely talk about how some people who would have been sentenced to death ended up changing their lives around and even writing children's books, but does it replace the lives that that person took or is it enough to compensate for whatever crime they committed?

The death penalty is more than fair for multiple reasons. For one, lets say someone murders someone else, or even kills multiple people, why shouldn't the killer die also? Death penalty now-a-days is completely painless, the person doesn't feel anything. The people he murdered probably didn't have the luxury of a painless death. On another issue, death penalties take time, the court session and all can go on for years and once someone is sentenced to death they have the luxury of having plenty of time to say their goodbyes. Someone receiving the death penalty is able to straighten their finances, say goodbye to family or friends, and even get saved by a priest in which they would go to heaven (if you're a Christian). The people that died at the hands of the killer did not have that pleasure, they did not have the opportunity to straighten their lives. So if a man can kill another and not die themselves, wheres the justice in that? How is that fair to the family of the ones who are dead?

End of this part for me, i must see what you say.


I negate the resolution that the death penalty is a fair system of punishment. I negate the resolution based on the following [1]:
1.) The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner against United States citizens.
2.) The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars.
3.) Innocent people too often are executed.

As I see it, my opponent's points as are as follows:
1.) A murderer should be rightly punished for his actions; the only way to do this is the death penalty.
2.) Death penalty is a painless and suffering-free way to die.
3.) Death penalties give the criminal enough time to get his affairs in order.
4.) There is no justice in allowing the murderer to live.

Following confirmation from my opponent that these are his points, I will address them in my next post. Thank you.
Sources: [1]
Debate Round No. 2


For the most part, these are correct, although there are some grey areas, but do not concern yourself with that. One mistake i made is that in some cases the death penalty is not COMPLETELY painless, but i was wanting to make the point that in most cases, it's less painful than a lot of deaths.

"The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars".
So you are saying that sentencing someone to the death penalty uses to many tax payers dollars, so keeping them in prisons and feeding them three meals a day along with airconditioning and electricity saves money? How many families struggle to feed their families and keep the lights on, while criminals sit here in prisons for 30 years and have everything some families struggle for, for free, and thats fair? And that doesn't waste money?
If a person is sentenced to life in prison at age 37, at age 77, on average, it will cost a state more than $4 million dollars. (

I would like an explanation on how the death penalty costs more.

"Innocent people are too often executed".
Please show me cases where people are wrongly executed in the last 20 years or so. The death penalty is not used nearly as much, so i would like some elabortation.

"The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner".
I must have elabortation on this also.

Another point i must make, the death penalty is a source of intimidation. If someone kwows the death penalty is strictly enforced, more than likely that person will think twice about committing the crime. Its common sense, if someone knows there are consequences, if a person understands that their life will be taken if they take someone else's life, less crimes will be committed. Now the death penalty is used more and more lightly and criminals know that more than likely nothing too terribly harmful will happen if they were to commit crimes. The justice system is becoming more and more relax and the death penalty is one example. My Dad is a police officer and even he states that the justice department is not punishing criminals the way criminals should be punished.


I will begin my arguments by rebutting my opponents' contentions prior to addressing his rebuttals of my own.

1.) A murderer should be rightly punished for his actions; the only way to do this is the death penalty.
Rebuttal: Let's think of this logically; what is a worse punishment? A quick, painless death after only a few years of confinement, or your entire life spend behind bars, worried every day for your health and surroundings? United States prison conditions are rather horrific[1], making an entire life behind bars a horrible punishment. Life in a poor-quality prison is a much more powerful and punishing way of dealing with criminals compared to the death penalty.

2.) Death penalty is a painless and suffering-free way to die, especially compared to other deaths.
There are numerous instances of deaths being carried out that has resulted in suffering for the prisoner. For instance, if a member of the execution team injects into a muscle rather than a vein, extreme pain can happen as a result. Those who use IV drugs tend to have damaged veins, resulting in a long period of time in search of a vein to cause an injection[2].

3.) Death penalties give the criminal enough time to get his affairs in order.
My opponent states that "death penalties take time, the court session and all can go on for years...". With this statement he accidentally raises another problem with the death penalty: death penalties take up valuable court time. Aside from that, the statement that the death penalty gives the prisoner time to get affairs straightened is one that is inaccurate. Many death row prisoners spend their days alone in their cells, with little time given to anything outside them, with that time decreasing[3]. Death row prisoners may have time to get affairs in order, but the time death row inmates have is almost never used for that purpose, and prisoners suffer greatly on death row.

4.) There is no justice in allowing the murderer to live.
I refer you to my rebuttal to your first contention. Justice also means many things to many people, especially to families of victims; some may wish to kill their loved one's murderer, but others may forgive him/her. In that instance, the death penalty does not mean justice. In order to properly use this point, my opponent must properly define "justice" to something where all people must agree, which is impossible, if not highly improbable.

I will now address my opponent's rebuttals to my points.

1.) Rebuttal to "The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars"
It may sound only logical that the death penalty is less expensive than life in prison, but there is evidence that states the contrary. For instance, in the state of California, the death penalty since 1978 has cost California more than four billion dollars. However, if the governor commuted the sentences to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of 170 million dollars per year. Similiar statistics can be found in a number of other states[4]. As to his remarks on the justice or injustice of life in prison, I refer to my rebuttals of my opponent's first and fourth contentions.

2.) Rebuttal to "Innocent people are too often executed"
If I can satisfy my opponent's criteria (giving cases of people, wrongly executed, within the last twenty years), then this point flows to me. Some examples of innocent people executed unjustly within the past twenty years include James Lee Beathard [5], Ruben Cantu [6] and Girvies Davis [7]. These examples all fell under my opponent's twenty year request as well as the wrongful execution committed.

3.) Rebuttal to "The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner"
The death penalty is often applied to people of color more often than Caucasians, as well as being based on the amount of the money the accused have, the skill of the attorneys and the location of the crime[8]. It is evident then that the death penalty is applied in an unfair manner, based on race, monetary status and geography.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.

Sources: [1]
Debate Round No. 3


There are many flaws in the argument above.
My opponent is using subjective statements instead of facts in some cases. Lets take a look at the first source in your first argument in round 2.
That source is full of subjective statements that have no statistical proof. According to your source, "The Death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized". Actually it is the other way around. The death penalty establishes order and keeps things organized, while barbaric would be to let things go unorganized, unpunished. The statement that the death penalty is barbaric is a very subjective statement and should be completely disregarded but as a mere emotional standpoint.

Now, my opponent states that "the life in a prison is horrific and is much more intimidating than death."
Well this is very untrue. For terrorists and other extremely dangerous criminals, prisons are not very nice, and neither should they be, but the average jail/prison is quite comfortable. Full working electricity, toilets, tv, weight room, a bed, air conditioning, these are things that different prisons have. How is this horrific? Numerous homeless people commit a crime in order to go to jail because there they would have a bed and a solid three meals a day, but yes that is a jail and not a prison for there is a difference. You must remember, many criminals come from poor backgrounds and poor conditions anyways, a lot of these people are use to violent and unsanitary conditions, so prisons must be worse than real life and if prisons are so terrifying, is that why the majority of criminals are repeat offenders?

In source 1, that article is a complete manipulation. Read it, it says that U.S. prisons are worse than prisons in Guantanamo Bay, lets take a look at what the prisoners in the Bay have. " In addition, inmates have free access to a state-of-the-art gym, a number of movies they can watch in the on-site media room, various newspapers and books, and even video games." It then goes on to state that U.S. prisons do not have these luxuries. So are you implying that U.S. prisons should allow of these things? Things that many American families cannot enjoy? In that article there is no evidence that alone states the horrific conditions, it just compares it to the Guantanamo Bay conditions, which are extremely comfortable. That article more states that conditions in Guantanamo are way to relaxed.

You are also missing the point of prisons, prisons are a source of punishment, they are suppose to be somewhat bad, but saying that living in an environment where conditions are controlled, meals are basic, etc. is worse than death? That's not even comparable.

My opponent stated that injections can be painful because sometimes the vein is missed, this is a possibility anytime you get a shot or any type of injections and the ratio in which the vein is missed to where the vein is hit is relatively small, so not many people "suffer" through that pain.

My opponent stated that death penalties take up a lot of court time in which another manipulation has occurred. If someone was being sentenced to life in prison, this would also take about the same amount of time. Either way, the court will take a very long time.

You say that criminals actually do not have that much time to get their personal affairs in order. Your rebuttal is incorrect. Criminals have plenty of time to get their affairs in order, it does not take a lot of time nor a lot of effort to do so, a few phone calls and arrangements and all is good, the people he killed did not even have a minute to say their goodbye's.

You state that too many people are wrongly executed, here's what you're missing. In one source, 2 people went to go commit a crime, one wanted murder and the other for drugs. I'm not gonna explain it all other people can take a look, but in the end the man who went for drugs was executed because the man who actually killed the people testified multiple times that the other one helped. In one of your other sources a man was accused and sentenced to death in 1993 and then another investigation was put in place and he was found guilty again! And finally in case three a man was found to be illiterate after his death and if the jury had known so they would not have found him guilty.

Point one, in case one the man who was executed was planning on committing a crime in the first place, but was caught in a bad situation. It's HIS fault he was going to go commit a crime anyways. He shouldn't have been doing that in the first place, he caused his own death.
Point two, in case two it proves nothing. If an investigation was done and he was found guilty, then 14 years later found guilty again, obviously there is information in the report that was enough, for only one but two convictions. That case does not state enough of the case to make a fair assessment of what actually happened.
Point three, if an entire case can go on and a man be illiterate and it was never discovered then his attorney along with himself need some work, because if that is such a main point it would have been discovered and noted. How did that man sign any contracts having to deal with his attorney? That story seems a bit shady.
Point four, all three cases state very little facts and only tell one side of the story and does not show what each prosecutor used as his case, therefore on all of these cases it's a little unfair to just take the articles word, always two sides to one story.
Point five, on all cases people lied about their testimony, blame society for that. The court simply rules on the amount of evidence given and then it's done. If people lie then it's not the death penalty being "misused", the court decides based on soul evidence whether the accused should be guilty or not guilty.

Another point to make on all cases. You state that it is a much worse punishment to stay in prison for years than to be sentenced to death. In some of these cases, these people were found not guilty many years later. So if death is better than prison, is it not better that they were executed because death is not nearly as bad as prison according to you, is that not correct? Because it would be torture to stay in prison, correct? These people didn't have to "suffer in the horrific conditions of prisons" isn't that right? Instead they died, and that's not nearly as bad, so be happy that they didn't have to suffer, isn't that your view?

You asked me to explain justice. Justice in the court of law has no emotion. It is a firm and fair punishment to a crime. Justice is when a criminal is punished for his crime due to being convicted becuase of evidence. Would it be justice if someone was sentenced to death and it was carried through, but yet someone who commited the exact same crime lived just because a family didn't want him to die? No that is not fair and nor is that justice. Justice has the same punishment for everyone, no exceptions.

You have a concern that race comes into play and that minorites are more likely to be sentenced to death than whites. This is not true. In the court of law everything is based on evidence. Cases all throughout history, even during extreme racial times were still favored to the minorities because they had the most evidence. The statement that vrace comes into play is once again a subjective statement. I also want to go right back to the point that you say prison is so much worse than death. So if these minorities are being sentenced to death and thats wrong, you would rather them be sentenced to life in prison? Your statement about racial affairs is saying that the entire justice system is corrupt and that again is a subjective statement.

I have run out of room for the rest of my argument and all of the sites i used, i do apologize.


I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments, and for starting this debate.

I am now going to try and rebut some of the points my opponent gave.

My opponent mentions that some of my arguments are subjective, instead of using facts. In my second round post, the arguments in which I didn't use evidence had to do with perception of justice, that people view justice differently. This is a common fact, and can be applied to any number of things, such as "right", "wrong" and "truth". My opponent states I use subjective arguments, yet in his very next point he states that "(t)he death penalty establishes order and keeps things organized" without stating any evidence. If my point about perception of justice is subjective, then a point stating that the death penalty keeps organization must be viewed in the same way.

My opponent goes on to state that prison conditions are not as intimidating as I am making them out to be. He states that homeless people commit crimes to go to jail and get nourishment and that prisons must not be so bad because there are so many repeat offenders. Therefore, life in prison is an insufficient punishment. However, these points are oblivious to the causes of crime. The most common causes of crime have to do with poverty and inequality among others [1], and not to get a roof over one's head. Mental illness also plays an important role in crime, including in repeat offenders [2]. Therefore, stating that people try to get into prison for resources and that repeat offenders show that my statements are contrary to reality so life in prison is a bad way of punishment is inaccurate.

My opponent's statement that incorrectly done executions is like getting a missed shot at the doctor's office is incorrect. First, the statement does not rebut my subsequent point, where I mention that IV drug users do not have healthy veins, so it takes much time to find the right vein, leading to mental anguish and possible pain. Second, the statement does not address the fact that many executions are carried out by orderlies and inexperienced technicians, resulting in a higher chance of an incorrectly done execution [3]. Third, the statement does not address the mental anguish that does who are about to executed feel while on death row and on the gurney, in what is called "death row phenomenon" [4]. A prolonged execution, in the case of a needle, by accident, going into the muscle of an excutee, would prolong such anguish, possibly making the anguish greater.

My opponent goes on to state that my statement that death penalties take up a lot of court time is invalid, and that life sentences take just as much time. My opponent, however, fails to give evidence for this claim. Because of that, this point must be discarded.

My opponent again seems to misunderstand a point I am trying to address. He states that I stated that criminals do not have much time to get their affairs in order, but I never stated that. I did state that criminals have plenty of time to get affairs in order, but time is almost never used for that purpose, and in fact, time that could be used for that is dwindling. My opponent also fails to cite evidence for this claim.

My opponent proceeds to attempt to rebut my arguments about wrongful executions. I feel, however, that my opponent's rebuttals are unsatisfactory. He dismisses my first source based on the fact that the man wrongfully executed was going to commit a completely different crime, and he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, so he caused his own death. This does not disprove the source nor does it advance anything my opponent is attempting to say. For my second source, my opponent points to the fact that two different courts found the man executed guilty. While this is true, the evidence for the conviction was based on an identification, which the person who identified the "killer" failed to do twice before. The district attorney is also on record stating that his prosecution led to the death of an innocent man. For my third case, my opponent solely blames the lawyer for his efforts, and states that the case "seems a bit shady". Again, this point does little to anything to rebut the source or advance the points that my opponent is trying to make.

My opponent proceeds to state that the sources tell very little facts and that the death penalty was not being misused as people lied under oath. However, if it hadn't been for the death penalty, then all three would have been merely sent to jail, and found not guilty while they were possibly still alive.

My opponent goes on to state that because "it would be torture to stay in prison", one should be happy because the three wrongful executions didn't have to suffer in prison as they were killed. However, this logic has the fault of, as I have said previously, had those men not been executed, they may be alive--and free--today. That point also does not rebut any of my own points nor advance any of my opponent's points. It simply attempts to twist my view on the issue and state that the government killing three men who were innocent is not as bad as three men being sent to jail and possibly being released.

My opponent then proceeds in an attempt to rebut my point about perception of justice, stating that it would not be justice if one person was sentenced to death and carried through, but another lives because a family didn't want him to die. This point fails to factor in several elements, including differing meanings of justice (as I have mentioned previously) and sincere remorse, which, as found in a nearly twenty-five year study, was seen in the last statements of nearly one-third of death row inmates in Texas [5]. Should these people, who showed remorse for their actions sincerely, be executed, under a "justice has the same punishment for everyone"? Is that justice? As I previously mentioned before, mental illness plays a prominent role in the prison population, including in repeat offenders. Under a "justice means the same thing to everyone" system, people who may not even know what they did would be executed, and those who show genuine remorse for their actions would be as well. Is that truly justice?

My opponent continues, stating that my comments about race coming into play in death sentences is wrong. He states that in cases throughout history courts still favored minorities because they had the most evidence. He states that my claim is a subjuctive statement and should be ignored. Note that while he says this, he gives no evidence to back any of his claims. The evidence, however, states the contrary. Executions for black defendant-white victim heavily outweighs executions for white defendant-black victim and that in several states (such as California and Ohio) there are more blacks on death row than whites. When Latinos and blacks are combined, they outnumber whites in terms of the percentage of prison population [6].

In conclusion, I do not feel that my opponent has sufficiently rebutted my contentions or my own rebuttals to his points.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.

Sources: [1]
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent misunderstood many of the arguments I proposed.

For one, i stated at the end that i could not continue on because the word limit stopped.
Two, my opponent firmly believes in sources. He believes, judging by his actions, that debates are won by submitting sources for everything that is said, this is untrue. My debates previously used more logical reasoning which do not require statistical information. Also, the majority of my argument was showing that while you provide sources, the sources prove very little and that they only show a small portion of everything that happened.
My opponent over and over again states that I did not provide sources, another reason why i did not is that in my previous arguments I was dissecting your sources and explaining their flaws, providing my definition of justice and many other reasons.

"Figures do not lie, but a liar often figures."

For one, I did not say that "everyone should be happy that three men were executed so they did not have to endure the horrific conditions of prison", that entire argument he is referencing to was showing that my opponent is contradicting himself. It was mere sarcasm in which I clearly made sure one could notice. I believe that death is worse than prison, but yet in a previous statement you said it was "torture to stay in these prisons". Obviously as i just got you to prove, death is worse and will always be worse than staying in a prison.

My opponent states that injections can be legal because people who use IV drugs do not have augmentative veins, is it not their fault for using drugs? Unless they were in a hospital, you're implying that these poor people who did drugs like heroin have to suffer through a lethal injections, that person should not have been doing drugs in the first place.

One point in which I apparently needed evidence for is that criminals have time to get things in order, period. As my opponent also just proved for me by stating that criminals do have this time, they just do not use it wisely, means that my point is clearly proven.

My opponent tries to say that i was implying that everyone should be happy that the men did not have to "suffer" in prison, once again that entire paragraph was a sarcastic point in which i showed my opponents contradictions which i stated previously.

My opponent states that because someone is feeling remorse for a crime, it is not fair that they die because they feel sorry for their crime. First, imagine the amount of times even in your life you have been sorry for something, but still did the same thing you were sorry for later on, or something like it. The justice system cannot let someone live just because they feel sorry. Anyone can appear to be sorry, but only two people know if that person really is, him/herself and God.

My opponent stated previously that it is not justice if a person accused of a crime on another family is sentenced to death if the family who lost a loved one did not want the criminal to die. What is not fair in reality is leaving the decision up to the family who just a loved one make a decision on another person's life. Then decisions would be made off of emotions instead of facts.

My opponent states that blacks and Latinos are more likely to be put on death row because of their ethnicity, this is false. Courts decide based on a plethora of matters including previous crimes committed. Courts do not decide who died and who does not just because of a the color of their skin. My opponent states that more latinos and blacks combined out number the white prison population. That is because more latinos and blacks are committing crimes than white people. My opponent states that bad conditions in the economy etc. are reasons why crime is commited. I would like to point out that some of the most rural and poor areas in the U.S. are predominantly black or latino. In conclusion to this of course their are more blacks and latinos COMBINED outnumber whites. Because the amount of crime produced by blacks and latinos out number that of whites.

My opponent stated that sometimes death by lethal injection can be painful if the vein is missed. I want to point out that no where in the constitution does it protect a citizen from a pain free death.

No where did i state that prison is an insufficient punishment, but prison is not worse than death, which you apparently disagree with.

You state how prisons are so horrific, have you ever come to the thought that the conditions in prisons are far better than that of the American soldiers that protect you?

In Conclusion,

From my opponent this has been perceived by what he believes.
1) Justice would be letting the family of the victim decide on if the criminal should die or live. Rebuttal-this would lead to many decisions based on emotions and it is not fair to put the pressure of a family who just lost a loved one decide the date of another human.
2) Prisons are a far worse punishment than death. Rebuttal- My opponent provides very little information on these "horrific" conditions, only comparing it to a prison that has video games and a library, as if all prisons should be that way. He chooses to turn away from how these prisons provide all of the necessities for life, which is more than enough for someone who is a criminal. My opponent then contradicts by saying that prisons torture people yet it's not fair someone was wrongly executed, even since they were "wrongly executed" it spared them the suffering through the "horrific conditions of the prisons". He must concede on one point, either death is worse than prison time, or in reality the "wrongly death" saved the man from suffering. Because according to my opponent people sit on death row for a very long time. In the cases he provided, if the accused had just been sent to prison, those men would have been in prison for 30 years or so in which they would have been "mentally tortured under the horrifying conditions".
3) Race comes into play when someone is sentenced to death row. Rebuttal- That statement is false. By saying that my opponent is implying that the United States justice system is filled with a bunch of only white racists and that race is the soul factor in the decision of someones death. In reality courts take into account repeat offenders and the solid evidence that was provided.
4) My opponent states that to many people are wrongly accused and sentenced to death. Rebuttal- A very low percentage of people this has actually happened to and take into consideration the amount of people that should have been punished but have not been.
5) Someone should not be executed is they feel sorry for the crime they committed. Rebuttal- If criminals knew that, everyone would act sympathetic just to get out of the punishment. In life, whatever decision is made there are consequences, no matter how you feel afterwards, same for the death penalty.

My points
1) The death penalty is a soul use of punishment, period.
2) The death penalty is virtually pain free besides sometimes a small prick in which the vein is missed, but other than that in a lot of cases lethal injection is painless and a much pain free death compared to the death of the victim.
3) The death penalty allows enough time to allow criminals to get their affairs in order while the victims did not have that luxury. My opponent conceded to this.
4) Justice is punishment for a crime, end of story. Emotions are taken out, only evidence and the law determines the punishment and that is justice. The same punishment for the same crime if accused and convicted.
5) The death penalty does deter crime because it stops the criminal from either A- committing another crime once released or B- committing a crime to another prisoner while in jail.

I thank my opponent for his argument.


I again thank my opponent for his arguments and for starting this debate.

Before I begin, I would like to clarify a misunderstanding in this debate. In my second post I did in fact state that "Jail is a more horrible punishment than death" to which I provided several statistics trying to attest this. My opponent has stated that this is contradictory, but this is simply a misunderstanding. I was trying to state that criminals would be more dissuaded from crime by an entire life in a prison rather than a painless death, which was why I asked the "What is a worse punishment?" argument. I was not trying to say that prison is a low-quality, horrific hellhole, I was trying to state that prison would dissuade crime more than death. I apologize for the lack of clarification, and I do not blame my opponent for his misunderstanding.

Now I will attempt to demonstrate why you should try to vote in negation of the resolution.

My opponent has stated frequently, including in his last post, that I am using subjuctive arguments unsupported by evidence. My opponent even goes as far as to say his points do not need opinions. Here are the arguments that my opponent makes that I feel are subjuctive:

*That the death penalty establishes order
*That one shouldn't compare prisons to death
*That life in prison takes just as much court time as death penalties
*That justice has--and should have--the same punishment for everyone
*That race does not come into play in court trials

In just his last post alone he makes numerous subjuctive claims:
*That criminals have time to get affairs in order, they just don't use it (if you see the ABC News article I linked to, it shows that criminals don't use the time because they don't have it and spend almost all of their day alone in their cell)
*That more Latinos and blacks are committing crimes than white people
*That the most rural and poor areas are predominantly minority based
*That a very low percentage of people are executed wrongly (which I refuted by listing three cases according to the conditions that my opponent gave in Round Two)
*That criminals act sympathetic just to get out of the punishment (my source states that the one-third of death row inmates who showed remorse did so sincerely, refuting this point by my opponent)

I ask you, are these points ones that do not need evidence? Does my opponent adequately defend these points with the logic he claims?

He states that he "dissects" my sources and explains the flaws, and thus he doesn't need to post proof, but does that make any logical sense? Why should he get a free pass on backing up his claims even after I explicitly contradicted them by "dissecting"? It's an incorrect assertion.

It is worth noting that several of my opponent's rebuttals neither rebut my own sources/points nor advance his own. An example can be found in the last post, where his rebuttal against my point about people using IV drugs was centered around the point of "that person should not have been doing drugs". Is this an adequate response to my point? He does very similiar arguments when attempting to rebut my first and third sources about wrongful executions. How are those proper rebuttals?

It is further worth noting that my opponent dropped my argument, stating that death penalties were far more expensive than life in prison sentences. This is not addressed once in any of my opponent's rebuttal attempts. Nor is my point about mental illness in the prison population or my statistic that states that black defendant-white victim cases heavily outnumber white defendent-black victim ones.

My opponent also appears to misunderstand several of the points I raised. Along with my "Prisons are a far worse and intimidating punishment" point, he misunderstands my source about Texas death row prisoners who sincerely feel remorse for their actions rather than faking it as my opponent states and my point stating that while prisoners on death row do have plenty of time, time is almost never used for this purpose and time that could be used is decreasing (prisoners are not misusing the time because they have little control over what they do, had my opponent read the source he would have seen that) in his last round post alone.

Now let us look the points of this round, mine and my opponent's:
1.) The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner against United States citizens. I stated numerous statistics pointing that many death penalty decisions are based on race. My opponent states that it isn't true without citing any statistics, simply stating that cases all throughout history prove me wrong. He does not even go so far as to cite a single case. My point still stands.
2.) The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. My opponent didn't even attempt to rebut my point. My point still stands.
3.) Innocent people too often are executed. My opponent tries to rebut my sources, but the rebuttals have numerous shortcomings, as previously mentioned. He then states that a very low percentage of this has happened, but he doesn't provide any sources. Should we put favor on a claim that is backed up by nothing or three examples that were inadequately rebutted? My point still stands.

And now, my opponent's points.
1.) A murderer should be rightly punished for his actions; the only way to do this is the death penalty. My opponent's defense centers around attacking a point that he misunderstands and that a murderer should die too. My rebuttal to this, about the rather high rate of remorse and mental illness, is partly dropped (mental illness) and misunderstood, as previously mentioned. My opponent, thus, is left with little defense. This point falls.
2.) The death penalty is a painless and suffering-free way to die. My opponent's defense is based on a subjuctive statement (that it's painless) and based on rebuttals that further misunderstand the point I was trying to make. My opponent also drops my point about the mental anguish executees face on the gurney and on death row. This point falls.
3.) Death penalties give the criminal enough time to get his affairs in order. Again, my opponent misunderstands my rebuttal, which states that time is almost never used for this purpose as they are stuck in their cell for almost their entire day which they cannot and do not control. This point falls.
4.) There is no justice in allowing the murderer to live. This is a very similar contention to my opponent's first one. My opponent has stated explicitly on several instances that justice means the same thing and should applied in the same way to everyone. I pointed out several instances where this is, or at least should be, to the contrary, such as remorse and mental illness. As previously mentioned, the mental illness point goes unchallenged and my point about remorse is misunderstood. This point falls.

In conclusion, I will try to offer my reasons as to why you should be voting for Con.
1.) My opponent offered only one source in five rounds to back his claims. He stated that this is because he ran out of room, that his points do not need sources and that his attacks on my sources are adequate. I ask you, are these adequate, rational reasons not to back up one's claims with evidence? Are those proper excuses?
2.) My opponent misunderstands several of my points and rebuttals. Disregarding my rebuttal to his first contention, he misunderstands my source on remorse as well as my rebuttal to my opponent's third contention.
3.) My opponent's rebuttals are inadequate. These include my opponent's rebuttals to my sources on wrongful executions as well as my opponent's final rebuttal to my own rebuttal on his contention about painlessness and one of my opponent's final points about conditions in prisons and soldiers.
4.) My opponent dropped a number of my points, including my contention on the cost of the death penalty.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by teddy2013 5 years ago
Both sides presented good and lengthy arguments. I was more persuaded by PRO, and share his strong support for the death penalty, his argument of justice being served was powerful. I believe he did an excellent job for a first debate. Con also presented his side well, but if I could vote (I am one debate away), I would vote for PRO.
Posted by TeamSwole 5 years ago
Based on what I've seen from both opponents, I do believe youngpolitician is winning the debate. His opponent tends to be very redundant and contradicts himself on points he tries to make. Though he has points, he expresses them in a very cloudy and unclear way. I feel he could be putting up a much better argument, but doesn't know how based on what I've read so far and the sources he's used. These are my reasons why I believe youngpolitician is winning the debate. #TeamSwole #TeamYoungPolitician #TeamWinning
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a great job of arguing their case, both had good conduct, and it was a good debate. However, S&G goes to con because pro does not capitalize his "I's" and sources to con because he really outnumbers pro on sources.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh, this is a hard debate to judge. Well, first welcome to I am giving conduct to con because he said himself that he was making a sarcastic remark, which is unnecessary and rude in debates. I am also giving sources to con because he had more sources. I am giving spelling to con due to the incessant amounts of uncapitalized I's, which got on my nerves (don't get mad, mistakes aggravate me). It was tough to judge arguments though, but I will give this to Con because Pro said Con's arguments were subjective. However, Pro needs to realize that he needs to prove they are subjective and Con pointed that out as well with all of his subjective arguments. Saying that you need no evidence to prove arguments kind of hurt your side as well Pro. However, for your first debate, this was a good attempt. Welcome again.