The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 53565
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance ONLY!



Let us begin
Debate Round No. 1


My opening thesis:

If a person has intent and malice to cause mental and physical harm and gets the sensation of enjoyment out of it, that person should be punished by death. Once you murder someone (and feel enjoyment), rape, and touch a child inappropriately; you should not be seen as a human being in the eyes of the law and deserved to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is justified at this point.

Many will argue that killing a human being after he/she killed another human being (with malice and intent, of course) is unjustifiable as it results in the ending of a human life which is illegal and immoral. I, however, (and many more) disagree as that allows that person who ended a human life to still be alive. Many believe that imprisonment is too humane for these people who commit such heinous acts.

Now, onto the subject of rape. Rape is as heinous as murder. You have the intent to cause harm, both physically and psychologically. The result of the rape to the victim is as devastating as murder. You have to live with the thought of being raped and not trusting another human being after the act. Now, onto the physical harm of it. The physical harm of rape is terrible. Rape victims have cuts, bruises, vaginal (or anal for both men and women) damage, and (possibly) broken bones.

Pedophilia is devastating to a child. That child will not be the same as he or she was before the incident. They have to live WITH the rest of their lives psychologically and emotionally broken. Children are delicate people. As soon as a man or women lay a finger on a child inappropriately; they should be seen as an animal for ruing that CHILD's life.

When I say, "animal;" I mean it as you are seen as a barbaric piece of human flesh with a mentally unstable brain. These animals aren't fit for society and should be excluded from it as a result of their heinous actions. Humans are meant to be reasonable and socially fit people.

That is where I end my argument.


The death penalty serves a negative purpose. It does no good. What is the point of the death penalty? To rid the world of a killer? Lock them up and they will never come out. Getting rid of them proves that life isn't all that valuable. If you are willing to kill someone, then you do not see human life as valuable. But isn't the whole point of the death penalty to punish someone the right way for the seriousness of the crime? Well, if the crime is so bad, like murder, then you have killed one person on top of a person who is already dead, proving that life isn't all that valuable. Though life is very valuable no matter who you are.
I will continue my arguments in upcoming rounds. I am very ill and I find it hard to participate at the moment
Debate Round No. 2


Note how Con ignored my points on rape and pedophilia.

My Rebuttal:

A, "person," who can't see it but they choose to ignore it shouldn't be allowed to live. If you chose to ignore right from wrong; you don't deserve to be considered a human being. However, in terms of insanity (They can't see right from wrong); that person should be put in an asylum. If that person cannot value the person's life that he/she ruined or ended should not be a human being and therefore should be put to death like an animal.


As I mentioned, I have been under the weather and have been in no shape to debate. However, I do not want to disappoint the audience, so despite my illness I shall not disappoint.
A person who does not value a life like they should should not be here? Well then if you're willing to execute someone, kill them, end their life, then a human life is also provably not valuable to you. If you are willing to end a life, then you have proven that a life is not worth having around. That's rather insulting.
And what about second chances for mentally sane people? Even mentally sane people reach a snapping point and react outside of their normal self and end up killing. I know this first hand. I don't care to get personal. I reached my snapping point in life, and I was ready to kill... myself. I am normally sane, and now very happy, but so much stress entered my life, and I was ready to kill myself. Should I have just done it anyways? Because I have been proven harmful and provably valued life less than I should have. And that is the question I want answered. If nothing else, the last paragraph I want a response to. Tell me that because I stopped calling life for a period of time because I snapped, that I ought to be dead. Tell me that. If you do, I won't report you for hateful talk. I will forfeit this debate and encourage a unanimous, seven points to be awarded to you by each voter. So go on.
There's not enough character space for me to address every argument and then finish what I previously wanted to finish had I not been too ill to participate sooner.
Debate Round No. 3


*Note how Con, yet again, ignored my points on rape and pedophilia.

A Mentally Sane Person's Breaking Point:

I, somewhat, agree that if a psychologically sane person snaps that they should be able to receive a second chance. There should be leniency towards those who snap as he human brain can handle so much psychological stress at one time. IF it reaches its limit then the brain loses its control and has the person kill. That's what sucks about being human.
"Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order..." (

I extend my arguments of rape and pedophilia.


Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by frozenheart 7 years ago
The Death penalty is inhumane. Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

It is true to say that all the crimes should be punished in correspondence. The Penalty has the task of punishing people for conducting crime, educating people in the sense of law observation, protecting the legitimate rights of interests of citizens and struggling to prevent and combat crime. The East Ancients said that "Pay retributive compensation for a murder", meaning that if you kill someone, you have to die in return. But in practice, the death penalty shall not complete its educating task because the person receiving the death penalty shall have no chance to start his life again and fix the mistake he caused.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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