Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD for Capital Punishment

Posts: 5,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debate is here:

(Con) subhapriya v.s. Pro missbailey

This is a very rushed vote. If you don"t understand some parts, PM me and I will fix it or do something later on

I: The Burdens

Because there is no acceptance or mentions about the burden, I will assume it is shared.

II: My way of voting

I will give every argument 1-5, 5 being best. So if the argument was rebutted well, I will give the person who made the argument a 1. If the argument is dropped, then they get a 4 or a 5.

III: Con"s arguments/ Pro"s rebuttals

I will first start with Con"s arguments because he is the instigator of the debate.

Argument 1: Grounds of Morality

Con says that the Death penalty is often the only viable option that can be given to a criminal who has not only killed somebody but affected the entire family of the victim. Con gives and good example of how in India, they allowed a 14 year old girl got allowed to kill a 25 week old fetus because they didn't want the girl to go through the trauma of being the mother of a child at such a young age. Con"s main point of his first argument was that sometimes it is suitable for the state to give death penalty to those criminals who are beyond rectification. I still don"t really get why this is such an offensive argument for legalising death penalty, but it was okay.

Pro rebuts this by saying that when Con mentioned that the murder affected the entire family, but then Pro rebuts this by saying that "The death penalty doesn't concern the effects the family in question faced. In fact, in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, one of the families who had an eight year old son killed urged against the death penalty of the bomber in an open letter. [1] Also, a 2008 study suggested that punishing the offender made the victim (or the families) feel worse." This argument is rebutted. I will give Con a 2 for this.

Argument 2: Grounds of proper judgement

Con says that capital punishment is usually planned well, so the percentage of making a mistake is very low, they are not just killing anyone who is a suspect.
Pro says that there can still be mistakes. Pro says that 130 death row inmates have been released. Pro also says that we have to imagine every single person"s death: there is no bringing them back. Argument is rebutted. I will give Con a 1.

Argument 3: Capital punishment as a deterrent

Con says that if there is death penalty, the world"s criminals will think twice of doing a murder. There is no proof in this argument or any sources. Con does say though, "In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed seven lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder."

Pro rebuts this argument by saying that there are less murder rates in countries that don"t have the death penalty. I will say the argument is mostly rebutted, but not fully, so I will give Con a 2.

Argument 4: Kindest way of punishment

Con says that Death Penalty is the best way of punishment, the quickest and less painful. Con says what is the true point of torturing the criminal, and making him ill when you can kill him: the kindest form of punishment as Con says.

Pro rebuts this by saying that you could say Pro"s argument is that all inmates should be put to death. " So should someone be sentenced to death for, say, possession of a crack pipe or breaking into a liquor store?" Pro asks.

I have to give Con a 3 in this one. Pro only gave the example of in little situations, and also Pro didn"t say anything that could make the situation different. So I have to give Con a 3 in this one.

Con gets 8 out of 20= 40%

IV: Pro"s arguments/ Con"s rebuttals

Argument 1: Cost

Pro"s first argument is about cost. Pro shows a few countries, that death penalty costs a lot, two examples are Kansas and California. Pro showed that in Kansas it cost 70% more in a death case then a non-death case. Pro showed in California, it cost 137 million dollars per year, when non-death system will cost 11.5 million dollars. Pro says that it cost more in lawyers, judges and says, "Why waste so much money on one prisoner? Why not give a life sentence?" This is a very good argument.

Con tries to rebut this by showing many cases, and saying that a terrorist was supposed to not take the death penalty, they did it, and it costed a lot. Con says that we need to know the security of the people first.

I will give Pro a 4. Con doesn"t actually rebut Pro"s cases or anything, he just shows a case and says we need to know about the security, in only one case. Nothing bad happened in that case or anything. I will take off one because of Pro rebutting that security is more important than cost, but then he did almost nothing more.

Argument 2: Innocent or Guilty

This was a very good argument. Pro states that 130 inmates were proved innocent, but if they were killed, you can"t bring someone back from the dead, and they can"t be released. Pro says that they were executed.

Con tries to rebut this by saying that it was planned a lot so there will probably be no deaths.

I will give Pro a two. The major point was covered, but then Con fails to rebut about what will happen if there is an accident death.

Argument 3: Racial Bias

Pro shows many studies, and they all come to a conclusion that a victim who was white would be treated or his punishment will be harsher then a Asian, Black, etc.

Con says that their country never had this, but then suddenly he says about lawyers, and useless things.

I have to give Pro a 5. Con really didn"t understand this, he just says this needs to be stopped, but gives nothing two rebut the actually point of the argument. I don"t think Con didn"t even read this argument properly.

Argument 4: Deterrence

Pro states that in countries with no death penalty, they have lower murder rates.

This was probably one of Con"s best rebuttals. He gives many examples of why the death penalty is useful. However, he never rebuts about the murder rates, so I have to give Pro a 2.

13 out of 20


Whatever I gave Pro in the last one, Pro won. He won almost every argument. The debate goes to Pro.

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