Instigator / Pro
18
1565
rating
6
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#1235

Firing Squad is the best form of capital punishment

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

bmdrocks21
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

"Best" will be defined on basic pro and con analysis. While other execution types shall be discussed for comparison, our two methods will be the only under consideration for "best".

Round 1: Summary of our proposed form of capital punishment and outline of Round 2 main points.
Round 2: Explanation of why there is a need for reform plus opening arguments(can include pre-rebuttals, but no rebuttals).
Round 3: Rebuttals/Further Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals/Closing(no new arguments)

-->
@Barney

Looks great to me.

-->
@Barney

Love it!

-->
@whiteflame
@bmdrocks21

I'm adding a description to the HOF entries. Obviously, either of you may request changes. For this one, I am opting for:

This was a high-quality debate by two obviously talented debaters--one who I knew well, one who I did not. It clearly generated interest on the site, with a sizable number of comments and multiple votes, and it is a prime example of the civil yet thoughtful debate we want to promote on the site. Lots of interesting clash and clearly well-researched, the excellence of this debate speaks for itself.
-bsh1

...
Other comments I found on it within the voting and nomination:

I can offer this one as simply a pleasant read throughout, straightforward and clear wording
-RationalMadman

Probably the best debate on this website.
-Ramshutu

A fantastic example of what policy debates can be. It came from an exceptionally good starting place of mutual disagreement with the status quo and agreement that either side would be a marked improvement. This was easily among the closest debates I’ve ever graded, with both sides losing some of their points.
-Ragnar​

-->
@Barney
@bmdrocks21

Awesome!

-->
@whiteflame
@bmdrocks21

Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for the best debate experience that I have ever had! Amazing debate, and in my opinion, it was a toss up.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Congrats, man. Solid debate, well earned.

-->
@RationalMadman

I don’t really have time to get into it right now, and I don’t wish to influence your vote while the voting period is still open. We can talk about it after it closes.

-->
@RationalMadman

I don't know if that is the reason behind it. It was mine. Also the torso is a larger target.

-->
@whiteflame

What didn't happen that I said happened?

-->
@RationalMadman

I’m a bit puzzled by some of the things you claim happened (and didn’t happen) in this debate, but I appreciate the vote nonetheless. I will outright disageee that my better tactic would have been shooting the brain instead, though that seems to be a personal quibble.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Now I actually understand the reason behind it, I thought it was because they thought the criminal deserved a bit of pain.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm a bit surprised aiming that aiming at the brain didn't come up. I think from a practical perspective, it would kill the fastest. Perhaps I was a bit emotional, but I didn't want the family to need a closed casket funeral.

-->
@bmdrocks21

You're welcome.

Just to clear something up, in my RFD I say:

"Even if that is all true, why did Pro not focus very hard on the fact that FS"

I meant 'why did Con'

-->
@RationalMadman

Thanks for taking the time to publish a vote! I greatly appreciate your input!

-->
@David
@Ramshutu
@PsychometricBrain
@oromagi
@semperfortis

This is a really good debate which could do with a tie breaking vote (in either direction).

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the vote! It was very detailed, and I appreciate you taking all that time to confer your opinion!

-->
@Barney

Got my disagreements, but nonetheless, appreciate the detailed vote!

-->
@whiteflame
@bmdrocks21

---RFD (1 of 6)---
Let Firing Sqaud = FS, Nitrogen asphyxiation = NA, and Lethal Injection = LI
I should address a couple things about me before proceeding into such a detailed debate: I am no expert on gases or being shot; I am rather fearful of them both.

Gist:
My one problem with this debate is that both methods would be better than LI is a given.
Before R3 I thought this was going to be a fairly straight forward victory for con, but then pro gained some real ground there on the likelihood of poor application of NA. The counter likelihood said what I had just read a minute ago did not occur, which was con kind of shooting himself in the foot if you’ll pardon the execution pun.

1. Pain multiplied by time in pain
I’m not a sadist, so I assume them having any pain and suffering to be a negative thing about any method. I should also clarify that I can separate physical pain from mental anguish. Any method at all suffers... I’ll let con explain it: “the anticipation of pain, by itself, inspires a great deal of dread that can overwhelm even extreme pain.” For every method they will struggle, FS does have a slight edge in that with their struggles not causing any prolonged experience as seen with every other method.

FS: once initiated it takes 35.4 seconds, and apparently feels like someone chucked a pebble at them (I am thinking of this as not an underhanded toss, but some serious speed to a bare chest... not negligible, but only a fraction what would be expected in comparison to the wound). If botched (why the heck aim at someone’s hip?) and not corrected several minutes (of course long enough for serious pain to occur), but assuming correction, two minutes at most.

NA: Ideally a couple of breaths, but they might fight against it delaying this. If misapplied, they might pass out and be able to have it re-administered without increased suffering, or suffer hypoxia which is non-ideal but not awful.

Neither method suffers the problems of LI in that they might need to be given lengthy medical attention and the execution re-administered later, both can simply be applied a second time.

The pain of those who carry out the executions is a valid factor (the suicide example was really sad), which I am unsure how it would greatly improve from any method (31% of them with PTSD under LI, this seems very likely to carry over to NA and FS, but we don’t know if the rates would vary... these things can be weird and hard to predict). As pro countered, the related PTSD source seemed to indicate any exposure to death or exposure to people talking about exposure to death, rather than the sight of blood playing any role. This subpoint to pain became more against the death penalty in general (yes aimed at FS, but if it carried the day, it would be against all executions).

2. Affordability
FS hedges ahead on this, being 1/58th the cost. There will of course be unrealized costs to any method. Plus somehow contractors would probably inflate things massively as if they were buying paper from Dunder Mifflin Inc., but for comparison I will trust the liberal leaning estimates.

FS: Up to a setup cost of $5,318.35, plus $6.75 per execution. (I am not seeing any mention of how much it would cost to establish the firing range or whatever, but I trust there would need to be one established; but it would be cheaper than whatever airlock type room is used for gassing someone)

NA: Up to a setup cost of $300,000 (if assuming the gas can’t be allowed to escape and harm anyone else; late in the debate con rejected the need for such control, but even the final round source did not verify that that the gas is safe, rather I remember it being explained that two breaths is all it takes to knock someone out, and if sustained it will kill), and about $90 per execution (earlier I had guessed a few grand, so this is a massive improvement... Also, the source for the gas price doesn’t work without creating an account with them, but I’ll trust con’s estimate).

LI: Unknown setup, plus $1,300 per execution.

3. Reliability
FS has a proven track record, but there are outlier cases of it being botched to the detriment of the condemned. Con oddly says it was never botched, shortly after pointing out a case where they shot someone in the hip and he took several minutes to die (these types of errors slip into debates, it’s not a big deal, but I consider it worth acknowledging). ... So, an interesting point of contention came up here, “Assuming that this simple procedure is somehow botched, lungs, major arteries, and veins are directly around the outside the heart. They will die quickly, even assuming that the shots missed their mark.” Was almost immediately said to “not acknowledge the possibility that the use of a FS may not result in an individual being shot in the heart.” Pro added on to the pre-rebuttal a reminder of the number of shots which would all need to miss the center of mass for it to be problematic.

NA is unproven, but initially seems like it would do at least as well as the 93% success of LI. The problems of early errors raised by pro seem valid and likely, as are accidents with any potential gas escape only needing a breath or two to harm someone. This is compounded by the single executioner who need but error once to cause a botched execution (vs. four for FS).

“guinea pigs” was a well-used line of rhetoric from both sides.

4. Abundance
FS is very easy to attain, if not for red tape it would be assumed already available.

NA seems easy to attain. Con defends this later, but I did not find pro’s argument against access convincing enough to make serious note (as much as it’s a problem for LI, but we all agree that one isn’t under serious consideration).

5. Training
FS has clear roads on this one, calling for personnel already on hand and trained to do the deed (likely some complications from psych evals in case of PTSD as was raised back in point 1).

NA either needs outside professionals to be brought in for the deed, or else risk a far greater error rate if the guards are trusted to know how to operate things outside their skill set safely.

Let’s be honest, both are going to require the presence of medical professionals. Even a little thing like declaring time of death, isn’t something that will be passed off to any rando.

---

Arguments: pro, but if any point other than argument would be within the tied range
See above review of key points. Part of me wants to vote this a tie, in opposition to any death penalty, particularly in consideration to the PTSD point (which I agree those involved will be pretty sure of their level of contribution, even if onlookers are not); however if one had to be done, I would go with FS. I was kind of left fearful of the gases with NA, and the described implementation not requiring professionals and double checks to make sure it is done right. Were it carried out for as long as FS has been, I would trust people would work out the problems, but it is currently not the superior method. The reliability and safety of FS currently favor it, it even has four built in chances for success at every execution.

I did not give any weight to the public sentiment angle. The debaters could go in a circle on what the public sentiment might come to want, but I consider the priority to be the condemned; with a secondary on those who choose to be directly involved; and third to actual bystanders.

Sources: tied range
Both sides did really well, and source disputes were present in a healthy and not one sided way. A note of extra credit goes to con for using continuous numbering.

S&G: tied
Organization could have been slightly better (I like the heading text to carry over, but this is my preference, and I was able to follow everything just fine in this case due to clear context and numbering)

Conduct: tied
Neither degraded themselves.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks. I had seen the earlier one (I was not assuming a gas leak of it would make people think they were on fire or anything painful), and had not read the final round (going to skim over everything again, read the conclusions, then vote).

This might be the most I've seen fit into 10K.

-->
@Barney
@bmdrocks21

@bmdrocks21

Cool. I'll restrict this as much as possible.

@Ragnar

In terms of safety, I'll have to provide 2 quotes because I'm unclear precisely what you mean.

If you mean safety to those around the person receiving the gas (i.e. those who might unintentionally be exposed):
"78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.[26] A single tank leaking into the environment does not displace enough oxygen to cause hypoxia, despite Pro’s unwarranted claims to the contrary."
If you mean safety to those exposed accidentally to more nitrogen in the air around them in some other circumstance:
"NA doesn’t cause pain, as even the worst symptoms of hypoxia are ameliorated by euphoria and elation.[16]"

-->
@whiteflame

As long as it is in the debate, it is perfectly fine. I don't want to waste the voters' time looking for something they already know is in there.

-->
@Barney
@bmdrocks21

I'm fine providing this so long as you're OK with it, bmdrocks21. I realize I'm just quoting myself, but even putting emphasis on something is going a step further than the debate itself, so I'd like to make sure I'm not doing anything you'd perceive as unfair or unreasonable.

-->
@whiteflame

Would you mind pointing out where in your case is any talk of the safety of the gas in question when not being intentionally administered at a quantity to kill? A one sentence quote would be perfect, and from there I can find and re-read the relevant section.

Bump

Bump for voting purposes. All input is appreciated :)

-->
@Barney

Yeah, there was a good deal of research involved from both of us, and yeah, lethal injection really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

This debate strongly feels like at least one school paper was being drafted. By the end of round one I had lost all interest in the lethal injection side that no one would argue in favor of anyway.

Need votes

-->
@Imabench

Didn't see your response. Thanks! This is a topic that I recently became passionate about, and I do feel much better facing such a skilled debater, rather than someone who forfeits/trolls/sucks.

I honestly surprised myself here.

-->
@Imabench

Thanks for voting! I appreciate the analysis and I agree, this was a very close debate.

-->
@Imabench

It's gonna start early to mid October.

-->
@bsh1

Not sure when the HoF kicks up but Ima tag you in this as my submission for best debate in the event that im on one of my long ass hiatuses from the site whenever that thing starts up

Like this is easily a Hall of Fame caliber debate, and a close loss in a debate as great as this one 90% of the time will feel better than a win in a debate against some regular dingus.

You fuckin SHOULD BE proud of your performance. You did just about as good as anyone could have possibly done in this debate for your side, and you def used a lot of good information in it as well

-->
@Imabench

I am pleased you enjoyed the debate. :)

I knew it would be a struggle going up against whiteflame, but I am quite proud of my performance. I think a lot of good information was thrown out there.

-->
@Alec

I don't think that's how PTSD works. It's not that someone is "scared." It's that someone has recurring mental trauma that seeps into their daily lives. Some people may be more resistant to PTSD than others, but it can affect others regardless of perceived "empathy." In fact, comorbid diagnoses, previous childhood tragedies, lacking social support, and a slew of other factors can affect the likelihood that someone develops PTSD. Even GAD or other conditions related to anxiety could develop under routine methods of execution.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd

In the end, I'd be curious as to who this benefits. A person is still dead regardless of the crime they commit. Rubbing it in by chucking the killer into a bond-villain death pit seems redundant and hard to clean up. Also, as dustryder pointed out, this could violate the 8th amendment. (See cruel and unusual punishment clause.)

In the event that a person is posthumously proven innocent, it would be an awkward thing to discuss with the family.
"Hey, uh, remember that time I threw your husband/wife into the pit of deadly fish? It turns out we might have been to presumptuous. Don't worry. When we find the guy we'll throw him in the piranha tank to avenge you!"

Also, The Shining is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick. Look it up.

BTW, wouldn't the person who has to overlook the execution to make sure it actually works would still suffer from psychological trauma with or without robots? Or are we just going to assume it worked?

-->
@Alec

I would think that setting a swarm of piranha on someone definitely counts as both unusual and cruel. Honestly if you're going down a route that inhumain you may as well go with one of the alleged medieval methods of execution which, while no less cruel and unusual are infinitely more interesting. Bronze bull or rat cage anyone? Also you wouldn't need to import the piranha which I suppose is a bonus

-->
@blamonkey

"If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish."

Some people can handle it better then others. You might not be able to execute a mass murderer in this way, but some people lack the empathy to get PTSD. Since the executioners would be used to being scared of things, they would probably get used to it and would therefore be less likely to get PTSD. If necessary, a robot could be made to be able to deal with executions.

"If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD."

What are the Shining years?

"There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people."

You might be right. Since most murderers only murder 1 to 2 people, my piranha fish execution method would only be used for people like Dylan Roof, that have destroyed many lives and many families. Since few executioners would deal with such executions, most wouldn't get PTSD. Do you know what percentage of executioners get PTSD?

"This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge."

The 8th amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment doesn't have to be overturned. There are many places that execute people for more trivial things, like being gay or committing adultery. Executing a mass murderer, even if that method is painful, isin't unusual and it isin't unjustifiably cruel.

-->
@blamonkey

I agree with a lot of what you said. It has been quite definitively proven there is no causal link between playing violent video games and being violent.

I think that being more independent is good. I'm not sure people have become more independent with all of this growing government and entitled attitudes.

There must be absolute certainty when calling for the death penalty and the crime must be rather egregious.

Thanks for the good wishes! I need revenge on whiteflame. He beat me last time. :)

-->
@bmdrocks21

In general, violent media can desensitize. However, people generally can differentiate between what is real and what isn't. Those that can't are already suffering from immense psychological issues. The bulk of studies on the subject seem to indicate that perhaps violent people play more disturbing video games, but there is still a plethora of perfectly healthy people who enjoy violent content. There is correlation, but causal links between violence and video games are not well established. There is a similar argument often made which implicates porn as a primary cause of sex crimes, which is not convincing to me either.
I think man has distanced themselves from their fellow man. This could be a legitimate good as people become more independent. It could also mean we are losing the ability to empathize with others. In the context of the death penalty though, I have a few concerns with administering such a final penalty at all. Systemic problems related to finding competent indigent legal counsel and implicit racial bias in jury selection has tarnished the criminal justice system with erroneous, fatal verdicts. Even with the amount of experts, DNA testing, and resources dedicated to finding the truth, many still slip through the proverbial cracks and into an electric chair if you catch my drift. But I'm ranting. Good luck! Whiteflame is tough.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

If we are going to mention mental suffering, let me ask you this: what if the family of the victim wants the death penalty? What if it would put their mind at ease? Would you support it then? In that circumstance, it would help mitigate the wrong doing as well as offer a punishment commensurate with their crime.

Eh, I would say that intelligence helps with comprehension. You brought up gardening as a form of intelligence. I would say that is more of menial labor that anyone can do if taught.

I don't know what statistics you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it that rehabilitation can help stop a cycle of crime. I feel that while it won't solve the problem, but it would definitely help. I have seen statistics that once weed was legalized in Colorado, more people smoked weed. That is why I believe that punishment is important. It helps prevent some crime.

-->
@bmdrocks21

>>Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.

Well yeah given it would be equal on both side. The murderer most likely took more.

>>Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.

Can be related. Not are.

>>Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.

I say if people are traumatized and are seeking help from a therapist. That is enough for me. Traumatized can be seen with them crying and a therapist can give evidence of their mentality. Yeah sure we don't understand the mind that much but with what we do understand it is enough to say X was mentally impacted by an event or not.

>>Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.

No. I am saying if we focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation it doesn't actually reduce crime if I am correct on the data so it is best to put little effort in determining a just punishment instead of rehabilitation which can stop a cycle of crime which can be passed onto future generations.

-->
@blamonkey

Yeah, I think that leaving animals to eat someone is quite a bit gruesome... also scary movies probably wouldn't work. I know that video game violence can desensitize us. I think that applies more to hearing about it in the news, not actually killing someone, yourself.

-->
@bmdrocks21

I won't add much to the argument since you are debating it. I was actually refer bring Alec's plan of using carnivorous fish to execute people and using scary movies to desensitize executioners. Good point though.