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

should there be a 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,251 times Debate No: 20710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




i beileve there should not be a death penalty....mainly for good reasons.


I believe the death penalty should not be outlawed, mainly for good reasons....

Your move Con....
Debate Round No. 1


i think there shouldnt be a death penalty because:
1. i think its an easy way out for criminal
2. fast, painless death
3. i would want him/her to suffer for life in a jail cell

i would want that criminal to stay in jail and die in jail. a death penalty only makes his/her life easier and faster than rotting in prison. thats really the only reason.

your move. pro.


The Con is arguing that the death penalty is too humane and that it should be outlawed to make prisoners suffer more through life in prison, Meaning that my position in this debate is to prove that prison life can be enjoyable and that making the death penalty more painful goes strictly against laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.

There are some kicks to life in prison that are often overlooked when compared to the death penalty. When sentenced to life in prison, you know you will still live for years and years, you will always have a place to sleep, food to eat, not have to worry about bills, being able to exercise or maybe even get a degree (they teach classes in prisons now). Life in prison can be a dream to the most notorious of criminals because they can surround themselves with gang members, control drug operations both within and outside the prison, and knowing your going to be in prison for the rest of your life could cause criminals to become even more reckless since they wont get thrown in jail for their actions since they are ALREADY IN JAIL....

Ever heard of solitary confinement? How does getting your own place to yourself and not having to put up with hundreds of other killers, murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc count as PUNISHMENT for people who commit crimes while in prison? Prison life can be better than normal life if you look at it from certain ways, and that cannot be said for the death penalty...

As for the Con's arguments,
1. I think its an easy way out for criminal
2. fast, painless death
3. i would want him/her to suffer for life in a jail cell

The problem with all of the Con's arguments is because there are specific laws and rules in the US and even within the US Constitution strictly forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, which is what you want you seem to be openly endorsing when claiming that being put to DEATH is TOO HUMANE..... The Death Penalty itself is already argued as being cruel and unusual punishment, and arguing that the death penalty should be outlawed on the grounds that its TOO HUMANE while life in prison somehow is better is completely contradictory to the reality that prison life is somehow worse than peing put to death
Debate Round No. 2


sitting in jail for life is not cruel and unusual punishment. there are already people in prison for life. prison wont be enjoyable at all. sitting in a cell for almost 20 hours a day wouldnt be "fun". solitary confinement would be even worse. sitting there all alone in a dark cell, would drive you insane. the food they get isnt even good. you are right, they dont have to worry about paying bills, etc. they have to worry about what they are gonna do now because their in jail, and teir family is struggling out there. that thought alone would make someone angry. therfor, they are suffering in jail. just because they have a bed to sleep in, doesnt mean its comfortable. and the fact that criminal has a high chance of getting killed in prison, is still almost like a death penalty, while rotting away. not to mention prison rape, fights, etc. so their punishment is far worse and STILL LEGAL, while death penalty is just a way for them to run away from the world, and not have to worry.

i hope you voters understand my point, and vote CON.


My original arguments were to show how the death penalty and life in prison were similar in scope of burden placed on prisoners and show how life in prison can be tolerable compared to being put to death. The cruel and unusual punishment argument was to show how the death penalty cannot be made more cruel and painful to meet the Con's standards since there are laws preventing against cruel and unusual punishment. However there is another scope to this argument I have not addressed.

Even if the Death Penalty is too humane, does that constitute its banning?

The Con claims the Death Penalty is an easy way out for criminals, but rather than waste the last round bickering around that I would like to argue how if in some twisted world the death penalty is TOO humane, does that constitute its banning? Just because something does not meet the standards of cruelty and punishment envisioned by a single person does not mean that the process should be outlawed completely. The Death penalty can be argued to prevent crime by sending a message to felons and killers through intimidation that depending on what state you live in, if you kill someone in society then society will kill you.... Whether it be through a firing squad, lethal injection, or a gas chamber. But the death penalty does have other uses besides being used as a means of punishment
A) Deters crime (arguable)
B) Cuts down on Prison violence (less prisoners stabbing, raping, and fighting other prisoners and guards)
C) Prevents criminals from carrying out drug operations both inside and outside prison by putting them down
D) Brings satisfaction to some of the families of loved ones who were killed

The death penalty has more uses than being just a form of punishment, it has many other uses and should not be banned specifically on the grounds that it is too humane. Banned for other reasons the Con did not mention? maybe. But definitely not banned only on the grounds that it is too humane....
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
Kelsey, if the government doesnt fund prisons than who will? wed have to let prisoners roam free or kill all of them.
Posted by kelsey.elly 6 years ago
I think that the death penalty is too final and that people may want the criminals to be killed for their actions. This is a bad idea because the only other option is to sit in prison. People who get life in prison tend to be better off in than if they were out. They can have more power and control while in prison and they can even better themselves while inside. Prisoners can get a college degree and find faith. The death penalty is a bad thing but we ,as tax payers, should not be paying for criminals education and their lives lived while in prison.
Posted by strangerthanfiction 6 years ago
for anyone who is pro-death penalty ,'s as simple as this,...try, to imagine being on death row , wrongly convicted,...go ahead , and justify your views, on how you will eventually prove your innocence, ... after being executed.

Human systems will never be perfect,and as such, death is too final, and too absolute for an imperfect system.
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
usually though the one starting the debate makes arguments first, that being the con
Posted by Pain 6 years ago
Thif debate so far (posted during round 1) is a fail.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar for uncapitolized I's and words connected to "..."'s. Etc. I wish Pro had used sources... Arguments to Pro because he showed how the death sentence is a better punishment to allowing someone to live in jail.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument while unorthodox doesn't hold water against Pro's refutation where he clearly shows that life in prison is not a free pass and that Con is actually arguing for an inhumane punishment. Fun debate.