Should we use the death penalty at all?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I support the death penalty for murder and treason. My opponent must be against the death penalty for both of these crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all others rounds are okay. The BoP is shared
In this debate, pro must show that there is some compelling reason to use capital punishment. Con must show that there
Is a compelling reason not to.
This debate starts off with a pre-rebuttal of arguments against the death penalty by pro. That there is no correlation with murder rate and death penalty (this seems to be a reason against the death the penalty), that while its expensive, that can be paid for: with a rather ridiculous argument about public execution, and and argument that it isn’t wrong to kill people in some cirumstance.
Even if I accept all of these on their face - none are compelling reasons to have the death penalty. Pro should be providing an argument of what the death penalty provides, what is the impact of not having, or the impact of having it.
The only example that came close, was pros argument from treason which felt highly speculative and ungrounded in reality.
Con starts off much better. Con explains his notion of what should be present instead, but pro doesn’t really explore or explain the impact of rehabilitation. Why is it preferable? What does it gain.
Cons death argument is much more solid ground, though very tentative: con argues that innocent people are being put to death, he states 14 people have been wrongfully executed (he omits the statement in his source that up to 4% of inmates in death row could be innocent), the idea that making a mistake is final is the first genuinely compelling and evidenced harm either side have brought.
Con rounds out with rebuttals. Con argues that the death penalty doesn’t lower homicide rates; but I can’t really understand what his argument was due to phrasing, or why it was a straw man.
Con strangely appears to try and argue against pros position that the death penalty is expensive: this seemed an easy way of turning pros argument. But con does do well pointing out pros unsupported points.
Con argues that pros argument on wether the death penalty is ethical is illogical. My issue with pros argument is that it doesn’t show the death penalty is moral, but that one specific argument against the death penalty being moral is wrong. This point is getting pretty meta at this point, and while con does well pointing out that pros source disagrees with him, the whole point being argued is largely moot considering the debate itself.
Con finishes off by pointing out that pros treason example is simply what if speculation, that doesn’t appear grounded on facts - I agree.
Pro begins his final round with speculation, that if Dylan roof escaped jail they’d kill more black people. Pro doesn’t begin to support this if, to show me its possible, or probable. I can’t weight the potentiality of a speculative argument that you do not base on facts.
Pro goes on to shoot himself in the foot by raising the number of innocents put to death. Pro goes on to say that the alternative is to just make the police force better... how? Robots? Will that work ? What are the deficiencies that can be addressed? I can’t weight such an arbitrary and unexplained plan.
To be honest, this whole argument from pro seems like it’s meant as a joke.
Pro finishes his rebuttal by arguing that the death penalty prevents future deaths. He doesn’t appear to explain how many deaths being prevented, or support his notion that those in prison for life could escape.
Pro finishes off by arguing his treason case “could happen”. I could grant that this is a potential impact - but if the chances of it happening are 0.000001% it’s not a big impact, it’s really hard to weight speculative what if cases like this.
Cons reply says much of the same thing: pointing out that pro is simply speculating. That his harms are based on what ifs that he is not supporting. Con lists some of the issues pro doesn’t explain, and while I think con spent far too much time pointing out that pro is simply engaging in idle speculation; he does this pretty well.
Con could have done a bit more here to show that almost no one escaped prison. If he had done this, he would have gotten source points.
In terms of cost and treason points - there wasn’t much added to these points, pro didn’t present much more than speculation on either.
all in all pro didn’t support his case as much as simply try and preemptively refute the other. There were almost no harms presented of not having the death penalty, and the ones that were, were speculative and largely unweightable due to the lack of objective support.
Con presented clear harms of innocent people being out to death, quantified it; and explained that pro had no factual basis for asserting his what if cases.
Out of the two - only con really presented quantifiable harms: and while con missed several key opportunities to twist the knife on this one: the harm itself and the lack of a cohesive framework from pro means that his harms outweigh pro.
Arguments to con.
Bump.
No I'm sorry, next time remind me a little earlier, so I can work around my schedule
Im not at my house, so all I have is a phone. I don't think so :/
Can you vote on this debate?
Can you vote on this debate? Timer is about to run out.
"I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative"
This approach is wrong for a number of reasons. The main reason is you can find flaws in any position. For example it is pointless to point out the flaws of capitalism, if you do not propose another system for critique and convince your opponent is has less flaws. You need a solid base of knowledge to do that though, but as your profile says, you hate reading.
I assume it is because of reading comprehension problems. You need to have sub vocalization while reading for good comprehension as well as being able to visualize in your mind's eye what was written. I suggest practicing sub vocalization as well as visualization while reading. Most people also only retain 40% of what they read the first time but it jumps to 80% on the second reading. You should always read things twice. I think if you do those things, you'll find reading more enjoyable, which will help you expand your base of knowledge. Also reading your opponent's arguments in that way will also help expand your base of knowledge and make your next opponent more predictable.
I should have already knew what debating was about but I had a different aim. When that comes into contact with lets say what debating is actually about. I run into a problem. I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative. Debating is a popularity contest and I should tailor my arguments to that but I don't really want to. I think I would feel scummy and too ideologically bent to see the other side if I did that. Doesn't stop others using the same tactics but that just means I would have to work even hard. 30k characters is enough to make that happen. It is only me not using the entire amount to thoroughly dissect my opponent.
That is a healthy attitude to have. If you lose to me, it is never my fault but yours.
Virt does most of the voting moderation atm, but if I am online, I am happy to check votes which have been reported.
I am going to keep messaging you until you reply.
I want you check late votes as in 1 hour or less before the voting period closes. I will be flagging them and I want you to make sure they are sufficient. Someone really late voted in earlier debate and since it was after the voting period a moderator couldn't address it when they saw it.
Probably by the time the timer runs out. Not tonight
Can you vote on the debate?
Certainly had nothing to do with not addressing his points. Calling sources outdated or unreliable without explanation is good enough
I'll pass on a debate.
You won because I didn't argue against other flaws in your border wall argument. I should have. My mistake and you won because of it.
A voter bringing up gish gallop is incompetent.
Those are mostly forfeited debates. 2 I should have won, and gish Gallop can't harm you in this debate format unless you overdo it
Wylted is wrong. There are times when you should semi-forfeit Rounds because of what you prevent loading the opponent with or accusations of voters of doing 'gish gallop'.
It's not a clear 'jam more text in that Round' Wylted's Rating reflects his advice's quality.
First I look at how informal logic is applied and then creativity 2nd and depth of knowledge third in last place is rhetorical ability. I have seen people be incredible in one skill where they can be weak in others but it is more common to be good at all of those to be a good debater. I am willing to mentor you in one debate against a competent debater of high skill. Allow for 2 week arguments and limit characters to 10k.
How you defining skill?
When somebody gives you an extra round, take it. Especially when they are more skilled than you. It can be the difference between a win and a loss and they don't need to be punished for conduct if you punish them by defeating them with extra characters
Okay.
I told you in messages. You can rebut if you want.
Can I rebut in Round 1 or am I only allowed to make arguments?