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

There Should be Gladiator Matches for Prisoners

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2018 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,607 times Debate No: 116753
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)



I'm pro, and I believe that in prisons, there should be gladiator matches for prisoners. This way, the guards and prisoners get some entertainment, and also, it's a way to get rid of the weak, mentally retarded, and stupid people, such as reggee.

For death row inmates it will be a 1 v 1. They will be allowed to use swords, spears, shields, but no guns.

Here is the schedule for the week. Of course, different prisons can revise it as they see appropriate.

Mondays will be 1 v 1 as I stated.

Tuesday will have rabid, ferocious animals while they fight.

Wednesday will be 10 v 10 team fight matches.

Thursday will be fighting with their bare fists. Absolutely no weapons or shields are permitted on Thursdays.

Friday 3 prisoners will be randomly chosen to fight 3 bears.

Saturday will be a tournament. The champion will have their remaining prison time reduces to one-half, rounding down, and the loser will have their heads chopped off and their flesh be sent to feed the polar bears.

Sundays will be a break time.

For the matches, 4 armed guards will be watching the match.

Con will have to prove this is a bad idea.


Hi, I am Con and I will be arguing that there should not be gladiator matches for prisoners. I would first like to thank my adversary for the very unique topic. Looking forward to a fruitful debate.

The following points on why prisoners should not have gladiator matches will be discussed.

1) Economical problems
2) Morality
3) Impact on the society

1. Economical problems

To start off, the notion of having gladiator matches for prisons is unrealistic due to the unreasonable costs it would entail. This would especially be true for the fights that involves animals like bears and polar bears as stated in Pro's schedule. Firstly, let's just take the United States of Americas as an example. According to a 2018 report by Prison Policy Initiative, there are 1719 state prisons and 102 federal prisons [1] . If Pro's plans were to be carried out, it would mean that 1821 prisons would carry out their own gladiator fights with ferocious animals. The price of keeping animals in prisons is exponentially high, for example, lions need an average of 7.5kg of meat a day [2]. Therefore, assuming each prison have their own animals, the costs of meat, room and medicine to house the animal in each prison would be extremely high. These resources can be easily used for other purposes.

Medicine for injured 'gladiators' would also result in money be wasted unnecessarily. Based on Pro's argument that prisoners engage in gladiator matches for the purpose of entertainment, prisoners with injuries would always be treated in Pro's gladiator system; after all, what is the "fun" in watching too injured gladiators rumble? With about 2.3 millions of prisoners, medicine and money that should not be wasted would be wasted on gladiators who deliberately injure each other.

Unlike Pro's argument, I do not believe that prisoners are weak, mentally retarded or stupid. Many prisoners after serving their sentence, can still contribute to the society by offering their services in any work industries. Hence, if almost 2.3 million prisoners are killed off, USA would inevitably lose tens of thousands of healthy helping hands.

2. Morality

Killing is recognised as a heinous offense to commit and yet, Pro is advocating that prisoners who commited crime should be forced to kill one another for entertainment purposes. Firstly, if one were to argue based on the law, wouldn't prisoners who kill animals in gladiator matches be punished for animal abuse? Or worse yet, should prisoners who kill their fellow inmates be incarcerated for murder? Thus, the gladiatorial system that Pro propose would fundamentally defeat the purpose of having prisons altogether.

Murder is the quintessence of evil that should never be experienced by anybody. With Pro's system, people who commit petty crimes perhaps due to a moment's greed would be subjected to a gruesome death sentence. Most, if not all, would be violently killed at the behest of such system. With this, I will leave a question for Pro, what is the rationale behind this macabre massacre and who are you to decide who lives and who dies even if they are prisoners?

3. Impact on the society

The image of having gladiatorial matches in prisons would surely leave nightmares for the general public. If this proposal is to be carried out, what message is being conveyed to the public? Violence would be perpetuated and encouraged just like how it is seen to be beneficial in the system mentioned. It would truly be a case of survival of the fittest; the young and the old would have no place in such a barbaric society where brute strength is all that matters. If senseless brutality is being advocated, people would be desensitized to violence, and this would proliferate aggresive behaviour.


The system Pro has shown would be heavily taxing on the economy, kill innumerable amount of people, promote animal abuse and encourage physical aggression. Pro would have to refute my points in the next round and elaborate on how such genocide would serve to benefit the community.

Debate Round No. 1


Hello thank you for accepting this debate.

The Justification?
The justification is that they are not needed in society. Look at "The Black Dahlia" a woman by the name Elizabeth Short. Her head was bashed,face slashed,body mutilated,and her torso sliced in half. Did that murderer deserved death row? Did the Sandy Hook elementary school mass who murdered his mother,killed 6 adult staff,and killed 20 children before he shot himself. Does that person deserve to be sentenced to death row?. No those people deserve death and this is what the gladiator match is for. A way for a murderer to die and realize his mistakes for killing.

Yes I admit it these gladiator matches can be brutal. But look at the sports people watch. Football people are tackling each other,pummeling people down risking concussions,sports injury etc. UFC we watch 2 men or woman in a 1 v 1 match punching,kicking,hurting one another while we watch. Isn't that basically gladiator matches but less severe? The violence in gladiators matches isn't always too the death.

The cost of the arena will be a mere 80k. If all states pitch in 1600 dollars we can cover the cost of the arena. On Tuesday rabid animals would be dogs,cats,etc. There would only be 4 animals in Tuesday match. We will work with blacksmiths shops. We will be asking them to make spears,swords,and shields. We are than helping business and helping the economy.

How do we cover the cost?
We can cover the cost by selling tickets for civilians to watch the gladiator match. We will allow betting but we will take 5% of the bet. For example a ten dollar bet we will only take .50 cents. This is a way to be able to be self sufficant and not beg for money from the Federal government.

What if they escaped?
"Another practical problem is the danger of criminals or animals escaping. If you set wild animals loose in an arena, there is a possibility that they could escape. It is also possible that the criminals could escape after you give them weapons. This would be very dangerous to the guards, who would be killed in either scenario, and to society, since escaped criminals with weapons or rabid animals could be set loose in a populated area."
As my opponent stated what if they escaped. As I said there will be 4 guards in a tower. While they are watching they will be trained to shoot the animals,gladiators if they try to escape. The gates will be locked so they can't escaped. The people who chooses to watch the match for a entrance fee will watch through a one way bulletproof mirror. This problem is a solved by locking the gates,crowd will watch through a one way mirror with guards in the towers watching the match.

The Animals?
The cost of euthanasia is about 50 dollars all the way to 125 dollars. The cremation cost about 80 dollars if your dog is under 30 pounds. For dogs weighing 101 pounds or more it cost 165 dollars to cremate. Now how is this information relevant. I talked about we will use rabid animals in a arena at Tuesday. The dogs will have a area to walk,run,and fight. Once they die we bury them in a separate location for free. Once your dog has rabies they will have to be euthanized. But some people don't have the money so we send them to the arena for free. We bury them for free.

No weapons and using there fist?
"being beaten to death by another person's bare fists."
No this is merely a UFC match. In sports like boxing we watch 2 men hitting each other. This match is merely a one on one fight where the winner is decided if they are on the ground for 10 seconds or they give up. So no they aren't being savagely beaten to death.

Death row inmates gladiators?
"This system also would only work if there was an extremely high number of death row inmates, which is definitely not something we want; we want to execute fewer criminals. On Monday, you have two inmates fighting, on Tuesday at least two, you have twenty on Wednesday, at least two on Thursday, three on Friday, and there is a tournament on Saturday, meaning there would probably be around 64 gladiators. This is at least 93 gladiators every week. Even if you count out the victors, that's 88 people killed every week (I'm assuming no one will beat the bears because, well, no one will). Do you really think we have or want to have enough death row inmates to make this a reality?"
As my opponent stated we will have 88 people killed a week. We can reduce this number by counting that the Thursday fighting with there bare hands will be 86. Also the bears are a endurance match. three prisoners will fight 1 bear. If they defeat the bear they fight the second bear. This is a way so that way it will be more fair for the gladiators. Also there about 2905 death row inmates currently. So we have enough death row inmates to make this a reality.

Benefits the Inmate?
It makes the death penalty quicker and faster for the inmate. Instead of waiting 25 years like in Texas to be executed they get to wait at a slower time. Look at California for example. More death row inmates die to natural causes. Out of 900 convicted killers in California only 13 got executed. This is a problem and that is how the gladiator matches solve the problem. It lowers the time waiting so they don't die of natural causes.

Good luck to con next round.


Before I continue with the rebuttal, I would first like to elucidate on a few points.

1) Pro's copied from another debate without changing anything which he admits to in the comments section.

As such some of Pro's points are not addressed to my argument and are immediately dropped. For the spirit of debating, I will continue to rebut the argument provided.

2) The topic of the debate is whether 'there should be gladiator matches for prisoners'. Prisoners, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, are people legally committed to prison as a punishment for a crime or while awaiting trial. [1] Having said that, Pro's argument that gladiator matches should be held only for death row inmates is irrelevant and is dropped as well.

Next, here is a summary of Pro's points.

i) Justification
ii) Brutality
iii) Costs
iv) Cost coverage
v) Escape of animals ( A point I never mentioned so this problem brought up by Pro is dropped )
vi) Sources and costs of animals
vii) Death row inmates gladiator ( Point completely dropped due to the scope of the topic )
viii) Benefit for inmates


i) Justification

Pro stated that murderers deserve the harsh penance of death as they are not needed in society. However, as stated in my argument before, this idea is morally flawed. I will once again repeat my question, "Who are you to determine who dies and who survives?" The punishment for such crimes is controversial and should only be left for the law and judges to decide. This is because of different perspectives, the victims of a murder would want the perpetrator to be dealt with as painfully as possible while some would feel that murderers should be given second chances as they may have been forced to sin in certain circumstances. For instance, should a teenager that murdered his abusive and drunkard father to protect his mother or even siblings be immediately sentenced to death or be given a new lease to life? Admittedly, this is very controversial and my opinion would be worth as much as yours. Hence, we are in no position to decide penalties for other people; it is up to the law.

On the other hand, Pro's justification is logically flawed as well. If we were to agree with Pro's reasoning that people who murder deserves death, wouldn't Pro deserve death too as Pro determined that murderers should die and this is akin to taking away other's life and 'murdering' them?

Additionally, even if we were to implement gladiator matches for death row inmates as they have no place in society, this would not justify carrying out such matches for other prisoners. Death row inmates account only for the minority of prisoners. And due to the topic, Pro only debated on how death row inmates should partake in matches while completely neglecting or other prisoners. Hence, I believe Pro owes an explanation on why other prisoners deserve death in gladiator matches.

ii) Brutality

Firstly, that the violence in gladiator matches isn't always to the death. Pro is contradicting himself here, it was clearly stated that Pro believes for matches to be organised to deliver death to death row inmates and yet Pro is trying to say that gladiator matches are not to the death.

Secondly, Pro compared gladiator matches to UFC and football games in terms of physical contact. This is a very poorly made comparison. The clear distinction between the sports mentioned is in the presence of weapons and need to kill. With spears, swords, rabid animals, bears, and high potential for dismemberment and gore, I will let the audience be the judge of gladiator matches' brutality.

Lastly, Pro agrees with me that gladiator matches are brutal, which means that even he himself supports my point that this aspect of gladiator matches is detrimental.

iii) Costs

Pro blatantly stated the cost of the arena with no evidence whatsoever. The cost of building an arena should be clarified by Pro, and until then, Pro's point is ambiguous. Besides, Pro stated how buying weapons from blacksmiths shops will help the economy. Unfortunately, this is only one side of the coin, the price of building up an arena would greatly outweigh the economic support that buying spears swords and shields from vendors.

In retrospect, Pro has not refuted my argument on how the price of medicine has to be accounted for and that prisoners who are released can contribute to the society if they are actually alive and released instead of being dead in a gladiator match.

iv) Cost coverage

Pro's argument about cost coverage is completely unfeasible. Not only would there be little to no audience for gladiator matches which are comparable to the violent acts committed by terrorists, but even if there were an audience, how much would 5% of all proceedings really amount to. To scale this amount, $100000 earned would only to amount to $5000, a meagre amount that may not even be enough for maintenance.

vi) Sources and costs of animals

Once again, the crux of Pro's argument is fundamentally flawed. It is observed that pets are treated like family by many. Despite this, Pro assumes that pets that suddenly get rabies would be thrown into a savage and relentless fighting pit by their pet owners who adore them very much. I think that the problem of the argument can be easily seen now - there is simply not enough rabid animals to support Pro's gladiator matches as nobody would be willing to sacrifice his or her beloved pets for an easily obtained proper burial.

vii) Benefit for inmates

The benefit that Pro states here is subjective. The idea that Pro is trying to propose is that prisoners with death row can die faster to the death penalty instead of a natural death. The catch, however, is that the prisoner would have to die a diabolical and torturing death. I don't know but if you ask me, I would very much prefer living a life with food, water, and shelter and die to natural causes to being mercilessly ripped apart by others with the sadistic laughs of spectators being the last thing I hear.

Moreover, other inmates with no death penalty should definitely not be subjected to such mishappenings. Regardless, Pro has failed to show why these prisoners should be sent to gladiator matches like lambs to the slaughter.

With this, I conclude my rebuttal of Pro's argument. I hope Pro would provide his valued viewpoint on the matter and refute my argument. Looking forward to a fresh and enlightening conclusion to this debate.

Good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by hopefullycalm 3 years ago
Ummmmm cruel and unusual punishment?
Posted by What50 3 years ago
I appreciate it, but don't copy it, make your own twist.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
i just copied from what50's debate
Posted by Zombieguy835 3 years ago
oh, boy. Another strange debate, another strange debate indeed
Posted by asta 3 years ago
I meant mass murder.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
Maybe that's just for people who committed a massive amount of murder.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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