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

The 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 49990
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will argue against the death penalty and I would like to debate an individual that disagrees with my view. I would like to keep politics out of this debate and I would prefer this to be a philosphical debate. This debate will follow a specific structure and will have certain rules implemented.

The debate structure is the following:

Round One: Acceptance only
Round Two: Main arguments only
Round Three: Rebuttals and supporting arguments
Round Four: Rebuttals only
Round Five: Conclusion

The specific rules of this debate are:

1. Sources, if any, must be cited using the MLA format.
2. There will be no forfeitting.
3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
4. There will be good conduct.

I look forward to this debate.


Hold up. you don't want the death penalty. someone who kill some one should die. you got me ok then
Debate Round No. 1


I would first like to thank greatbigworld for accepting this debate. I do, however, want to warn him of something before we begin debating. One specific rule I have implemented states that "[p]roper spelling and grammar will be used." My opponent has already broken a crucial rule. I will give my opponent an opportunity to better himself. I will, however, continue doing what I do best: debating.

Main Argument
I will put aside political affiliation and focus on the facts. Before I begin, however, I would like to state my philosophy: It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed." Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice.

I am a firm believer in the principle of democracy. states:

Support for the death penalty has fallen sharply by 23 percentage points since 1996, reaching its lowest level in almost two decades, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. The 2013 poll also found a 10 point drop in just the last 2 years in respondents who say they "strongly favor" the death penalty, from 28% to 18%. The percentage of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. In 2011, Pew asked respondents about the reasons behind their views on the death penalty, finding that the top two reasons for opposition to capital punishment were the imperfect nature of the justice system and a belief that the death penalty is immoral. The drop in public support coincides with an overall decline in use of the death penalty during the same time period, with both death sentences and executions falling dramatically since the 1990s. Six states have repealed the death penalty in the last six years, and three governors have recently imposed moratoriums on executions.

Don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe in the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The death penalty is a direct violation of the rights acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence. If you are at all human, you will understand that all of us have basic rights. If you at all empathize with your fellow members of humankind, you will acknowledge the fact that the death penalty does not serve true justice; it serves injustice. Often, innocent people who have never committed a wrong are put to death because of a mistrial. Can you let this pass? I say no. And even when the person has committed murder or another hideous crime, the death penalty is out of the question. Life in prison is the suitable punishment. I have a challenge for you: refute my points.

MLA Citation
"National Polls and Studies."DPIC. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <;.


Im sorry. I just don't like the fact that you don't want this. The death penalty is good because what prison would want a crazy dude in the prison doing stupid things. Plus if I was somebody that killed and had life in prison id be upset. Why? I wouldn't wanna live my life in front of bars. id wanna die.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has not made strong enough arguments to support his claim. However, I will gladly refute what he has actually written. My opponent writes that if he were somebody who killed another person and received life in prison, he would be upset. He says that would not want to have to live his life behind bars and that he would rather die. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I must accept my opponent's personal view. However, he fails to realize that the death penalty serves injustice rather than justice. Justice is served through acts that are justified. Justice is served through a moral punishment, not a death sentence. Life in prison is a direct service to justice. The death penalty is a direct violation of our unalienable rights. Until he can refute all of the points you have made, I am afraid his points are invalid.


If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession. this is exactly what Capital punishment does. Capital punishment lets all murderers know that they will have to abandon their lives if they take the life of someone else. More than 20,000 people are killed each year and to let the animals (you can't even call them humans) survive is unjust. The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair.

For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims.

Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals.

How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people? We have to enforce the Death penalty, because once again, life is the most precious thing one can receive.
Debate Round No. 3


I must say that I agree with you on one certain aspect. You write that "[l]ife is our most precious possession." I concur. However, the fact that an individual killed another is not a legitimate reason to end his own life. As you believe and as I believe, taking a life is wrong. However, two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is intolerable, but ending the life of the killer is just as wrong. This is injustice. You say that "[w]e have to enforce the Death Penalty" because "life is the most precious thing one can receive." Granted, life is the most precious force in existence. However, there are other methods to stopping crime. We must pass gun control of some type and we will need to pass immigration reform so that we can ensure drug cartels do not massacre innocent people. We have an obligation to our ideals. Just because a life was taken, another life must not be taken as well. Life must be preserved at all costs. We shouldn't kill anyone for any reason. Even the most evil men in our history (Hitler, bin Laden, etc.) should have gotten a hearing and life in prison. The death penalty, whether you accept it or not, is immoral.


im ending this on a high note. If someone killed someone I know, I'd rather the murderer be dead too. A life for a life. End of. We don't need or want people like that existing on this planet. And I'm talking about convicted with DNA proof, etc. otherwise someone can be falsely accused.

For some crimes, when someone murders loads of people, definitely yes. Because they're going to be behind bars for the rest of their lives, for what, all those people? Why should they live and other suffer? It's not fair. I don't think you should be told when your death penalty is coming, it should just happen randomly - because imagine the psychological damage it would do to them if they found out only 5 minutes before - good, they should suffer mentally before and panic.

It's only bad because the victims want to see their attacker suffer behind bars. However sometimes the attacker is too mentally strong and isn't affected by being behind bars, therefore prison is pointless to them because they're not learning from their experience; they're not learning their lesson.
Debate Round No. 4


I believe my opponent is a good person. He firmly believes in the preciousness of life, as do I. That is a good thing. However, my opponent has failed to recognize that causing the death of another is immoral in any case. It is a direct violation of the unalienable rights acknowledged by our Founding Fathers and our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." The death penalty does not protect life. It does not protect liberty. It does not protect the pursuit of happiness. Frankly, it protects nothing. It is an immoral act; an action of injustice. The "life for a life" logic is, frankly, quite heinous. The notion of taking any life for any reason is nefarious. We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. That should be the duty of fate. This is both a question of morality and democracy. As you have seen in my main argument, less and less people like the death penalty. This is for good reason. For one, the justice system is flawed in the United States and, as I have emphasized continually, taking a life is immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I await the beginning of the voting period.


We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. this is what you wrote. we are not in the position of who lives and who dies. we do this because there is crazy people in this world who don't belong. I don't mean special needs I mean people who the feeling of killing people. im probably going to lose I can tell
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 6 years ago
Con bragged about this debate in another debate.. really?
Posted by greatbigworld 7 years ago
he just is rude yo like cant you be fair I steped up
Posted by greatbigworld 7 years ago
how you like dem apples
Posted by greatbigworld 7 years ago
call me anything you want I hate this topic some one kills should be killed
Posted by WilliamsP 7 years ago
Once I complete this debate, I will have the time to do so. I have plenty of other debates to finish first. However, I would like to debate the topic with you later. You would need to remind me though.
Posted by iaminneedofhelp 7 years ago
Seems like you've been stuck with a dud on this one.
I will debate the same topic if you wish to debate with me.
- iaminneedofhelp
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 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 Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I have come to believe that WilliamsP did not intend on debating someone like greatbigworld, who obviously is unaware of how to follow the rules. Pro did not use MLA format, which is understandable because he did not use any sources. He also used dreadful spelling and grammar, which is inexcusable due to the fact that Con clearly warned against this. WilliamsP also made much more convincing arguments, for he wrote more and made more educated, valid arguments. And, obviously, Con used sources while Pro did not, which gives Con the points for that.

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