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

Death penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 1/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 98660
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I am against death penalty. It is like going back to the past, because most of the countries alredy abolish it. Why? Because life is a basic right, not even the government can violate that right, it doesn't matter if the crime is very high. Death penalty avoid the opportunity for criminals to reflect. And if you say that criminals will not change, how do you know that? The government should try to search spirit and psicologist help. I am in favour that maybe people will go out of the jail, but this can change, policemen can construct an alert that sounds an announce then that someone is trying to scape and cameras should improve, so like this it would be impossible for someone to scape. For religious arguments, God gives people until the last moment of their lives to say sorry for their acts and ow are they going to say sorry if they are inmediately killed after they do the crime. Another argument, it is sure that countries that have not alredy abolished the death penalty are the ones in which more criminals are found, because criminals have not any scary feelings for the death penalty. If most of the countries abolish it, it is true that it don't really work. The idea is not to defend life rights by killing others! The government say thet the ones that kill are criminals, they are saying criminals to their own selves! Eye to eye and we become blind! Pay the misstakes in life is a good punishment,but killing is not a punishment, is making the other people to take away the heigh of beeing punished, because he/she is alredy died and will not pay nothing."Never good to take the easy way" and death penalty is the easy way, to kill criminals, so there will be less? Government should try to make criminals change. And last, criminals will not dissapear if they are killed, as I say before, it is scientificly checked that in the countries thatv the death penalty is abolished alredy, there are less criminals! Think about it, don't turn back, death penalty should be abolishe


Although some parts of the death penalty can be unsettling to people, the fact of the matter is the death penalty actually saves net lives.

In order for a government to govern effectively, it needs to be Utilitarian in its approach. Therefore, from the government's stance, as long as at least two lives are saved by killing one person, the action is good in the eyes of the government. According to a study done y Emory University, 18 lives are saved with each execution, and 18 lives are lost for each sentence commuted. Even life in prison resulted in the same 18 homicides. Therefore, from a practical and governing standpoint, the death penalty is not only justified, but good.

The system that you propose with the cameras and alerts is an extremely slippery slope. A real world parallel would be something like the PATRIOT act, or in other words, a surveillance state. This is one of the worst forms of governments, as rights are stripped to defend security and the government inevitably becomes a regime.

The religious argument is irrelevant. There is no study that claims death penalty sentences reduce conversions, and in fact, because of Pascal's Wager, it would make more sense for death penalty sentences to convince people to convert. In fact, the argument you make throughout the rest of your case is refuted by the existence of a God, since Heaven is infinitely better than the Earth, and Hell is infinitely bad. This dichotomy is in fact made better, since Pascal's Wager would allow more people to go Heaven. As you claim, "Never good to take the easy way," the easy way is to in fact let them rot in a prison instead of facing divine judgement.

In short, the government saves lives by killing people, the only plan you offer is an even worse government, and when religion becomes a part of the equation, killing people to force them to convert is the only way that God could have it. This is no different than God and Noah's Ark, and so the Death Penalty is good.
Debate Round No. 1


There are many "crimes" for which death penalty is applied that are not really high. For example, a woman was killed with death penalty in the United States just because she was alone in a mall. Do you think that just because this is prohibided it is a crime? No, it just a violation of laws in the country that she can correct with some time in the jail. With the death penalty many "crimes" like this are beeing punished. A discovery channel investigation shows that countries that alredy abolish death penalty have less criminals, because they have not any scare feelings about it. But some people are afraid of the jail and take out the idea of beeing criminals. How is death penalty not going to be the easy way if you think that the way of having less criminals is take them out of the world? The best way to stop it is to make them change and say sorry and if you try that, even if you don't achieve it, that will not be the easy way. Death penalty is a revenge. Let's suppose that a person violates someone and the victim kills him. Yu will clearly say that it is revenge, but if the government do the same, you will say that not. Human rights are equal for EVERYONE, even if the government is superior, they have to respect human rights of everyone, can not decide what to do with the life of people and can't take revenge replacing another person just because they are superior. If death penalty really helps, why does the countries that alredy abolish it have less criminals? Take the example of Donald Calloway. He was a criminal since he was 15 years old. he scaped from the jail. In a moment when he transformed to catholic religion, he say sorry to God and cry for his criminal acts. He also became priest and tell everyone his story. What would happen if he was killed with death penalty. People, take this story as an example! Death penalty avoid many opportunities for people to change! Thank you opponent for accepting my debate. Vote for me if you wish! Thanks


The idea that the death penalty is unjustified on lower crimes is not the topic of today's debate. The parameters set was the death penalty, which means that any strain of the death penalty can be defended. In this instance, murder/rape only is a reasonable standard to weigh the death penalty on.
The claim made that someone was killed for being alone in a mall can be assumed to be either misinterpreted or false. Since my opponent does not mention a case, and since being alone in a mall is not a crime, that was obviously not the reason for the charge.

My opponent also claims the death penalty increases the crime rate and cites the discovery channel. However, actual studies in the US, which due to their accuracy on US politics ought to be preferred, show that the death penalty is a DETERRENT for crime. (Ex: This is extremely important as it shows that the death penalty is not a way to seek revenge by the state, as stated by my opponent, but rather way to save net lives. I addressed this point in my last speech, but my opponent did not address it which means that it is still relevant in today's round.

My opponent looks at conversion as the only evidence to claim that crime is reduced in nations without the death penalty. Yet, they offer no conversion rates or evidence for this beyond their own words. Donald Calloway would not have received the death penalty anyways because his crime was drugs as a minor, not punishable by death. Unless my opponent means to imply that drug offenders are given the death penalty, which is false, his story is not relevant to the conversation.

My opponent did not attack my arguments which means that they flow through the round, or in other words Round 1 and all that evidence has not been refuted. Vote Pro because the evidence standard and argument standard is only fulfilled on the Pro.

I thank isarica_2001 for this interesting debate and wish them great luck in their future arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: evanjfarrar// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro evidently took the time to ensure his writing was readable and concise, while Con's arguments had little structure other than a few random mumblings without actual evidence; spelling/grammar goes to Pro. Con fails to put forth an extended, comprehensible argument, and none of his contentions were actually synthesized. Pro constructed a coherent argument, but with several key weaknesses. Firstly, I would not argue that the death penalty is a deterrent; it objectively is not. Secondly, when citing statistics in a study, explain how those statistics were derived; it can greatly change the credibility of that source. Pro wins the 3 points for convincing arguments, but I do think the arguments Pro puts forth in this debate would not be able to survive against a more experienced, apt opponent.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. Generalizing about structure and support and providing specific feedback to Pro is nice, but not sufficient. The voter needs to provide specific reasons why Pro won, and examples of weak points made by Con including why they are weak.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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