Using the Death Penalty
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: | 2/11/2019 | Category: | Economics | ||
Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 694 times | Debate No: | 120269 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)
The death penalty should be brought back for these reasons:
-Murder -Killing a First Responder -Rape -Child Abuse Reasoning: I believe this because in twenty years once the perpetrator is released, They could just continue to commit the same crimes.
I will be arguing against the use of the death penalty. I'm not going to address the crimes for which you believe the death penalty should be enforced as I do not believe that is relevant to the debate. With that being said; I believe that the death penalty should not be used because: 1) The death penalty has proven to be ineffective at deterring major crime. 2) The death penalty can cause and has caused innocent people to be wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit. Arguments will posted in R2. |
![]() |
To start the argument, The death penalty is a very useful strategy aged back to nearly the 1600's. If has proven to be effective towards keeping a prison population down and to punish someone for doing something cruel. I believe that if someone was to take the soul of another form of life, Their life deserves to perish. Although it may be against our beliefs to take someone's life, At least the person will not get out and do it repeatedly. And let's face it, Most likely if someone murdered another human they are looking forward to 20+ years of prison. If someone is ue to serve life then they should be executed because either way they will be killed in prison.
Contender's Turn
This isn't accepting my response. Sorry about that. I'll try again next round and see if it works, I guess. |
![]() |
Ok that's fine.
Okay, Let's try this again. "The death penalty is a very useful strategy aged back to nearly the 1600's" There's more proof to show that it is ineffective at stopping crime. Over the course of history this has been enforced as means of intimidation by governments to control the populace. Not as an effective means of stopping crime. Going outside of the US, There are a ton of cases of people being wrongfully executed around the world for crimes they did not commit. "It has proved to be effective towards keeping a prison population down and to punish someone for doing something cruel. " Controlling the total number of inmates in a prison is not a justification for taking a human life. There is also no proof that it is an effective punishment for people who commit heinous crimes. "I believe that if someone was to take the soul of another form of life, Their life deserves to perish. " This does not justify use of the death penalty. This is an opinion. "Although it may be against our beliefs to take someone's life, At least the person will not get out and do it repeatedly. " How do you know that they won't change in prison? There are many cases of people seeing the error of their ways and changing their life for the better. Rather than killing them, Why not help them to change their ways? "And let's face it, Most likely if someone murdered another human they are looking forward to 20+ years of prison. If someone is due to serve life then they should be executed because either way they will be killed in prison. " This still fails to justify use of the death penalty. |
![]() |
these_republicans forfeited this round.
Opponent forfeited, Vote con. |
![]() |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
My idea would be a compromise, To use the death penalty in only very rare cases, But torture the criminals continuously during incarceration. That way, The criminal will have a second chance once he/she is released, But will be harshly punished for what they did.