Instigator

Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

Debating

Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Description
Rules
NO FORFEITING
NO WAIVING- UNLESS DISCUSSED VIA PM's/COMMENTS
NO EXCESSIVE CUSSING
Violation of these rules will result in full points awarded to the opponent of the rule breaker.
FORMAT:
Round 1: Opening Statements
Round 2: Rebuttals/Added Arguments
Round 3: Closing Statements/Rebuttals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Definitions will be provided in R1, so the opponent can object as soon as he starts his arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Round 1
Published:
As always, thanks christopher_best for taking the time to take me on in this debate!
PRELUDE
---------------------------------------------------------------
0.1 DEFINITIONS

Capital Punishment/Death Penalty- “Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
My opponent may object to this definition if he feels it is necessary.

Moral- “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.”
Again, my opponent may object to this definition if he feels it is necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2 BURDEN OF PROOF

The BoP is shared. Both are “innocent until proven guilty.”And this case, we are both right until proven wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3 FORMAT

Just to make sure PRO is familiar with the format, I will state it once again.

R1: OPENING STATEMENTS
R2: REBUTTALS
R3: SANS REBUTTALS and CONCLUSIONS
IF THE FORMAT IS VIOLATED, CONDUCT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPONENT OF THE RULE BREAKER.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.4 ACRONYMS 
CP/DP-Capital Punishment/Death Penalty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5 NOTICES
I would like to apologize for the quotes not being in regular format. The copy-and-paste from Google Docs to DART prevents me from using the DART quote tool correctly. I have put the quotes in bold for easier reading for both my opponent and voters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENTS

  1. A VIEW FROM AN ETHICAL STANDPOINT
    1. The ethics of CP are not just questionable, but are completely violating natural human ethics. Society will not benefit nor take into account any form of profit. As a Santa Clara University paper stated: “The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved.” Not only is CP not achieving the greatest balance for the inmate, it is not achieving the greatest balance for the victim’s loved ones either. It will not bring the victim back, it will only serve as a method of revenge. Hatred is what CP symbolizes. The satisfaction of killing someone as revenge will not last long. The effect of it will. Killing someone puts a dent on someone’s live, killing someone will leave a lasting impression of sadness, anger, and most importantly emptiness in someone. Not only to mention the victim’s loved ones but the inmate's loved ones. They will have to pay, not in money, but in memories, feelings, and years of time spent together. They will have to pay in love. They will never ever get to feel the reason why they loved the inmate again. Why should the family of the inmate pay for something the inmate did? Even if the inmate committed a wrongdoing of ending someone else’s life, nothing should result in his/her’s death. It harms two sides of the courthouse to an extent that should never be allowed. Or as famed ethicist Mahatma Gandhi put it “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”.
  2. COST
    1. Now onto the statistics of CP. The costs of CP are eye-watering. In Maryland, a single death penalty case will set you back a whopping 3 million dollars. . Which is over 3 times as much as a life imprisonment case. Pennsylvania alone has spent $350 million on the death penalty. This money could be easily forwarded to the often overlooked historical monuments in Philadelphia. Most people who commit murder are also of the poor community. They cannot afford an attorney, so the state or country has to pay for one. It is also extremely hard to find impartial juries that have no bias to the death penalty whatsoever. The guards also have to serve 23 hours a day in a special solitary confinement cell which costs extra. This results in unnecessary costs that could be reduced drastically with a switch to life imprisonment. (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs). 
  3. EFFECTIVENESS OF CP
    1. Despite it being commonly referred to as a very effective, that is a complete utter and blatant lie. According to a recent study done by the ACLU states that “No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.” This proves that the death penalty is the same or less effective than life imprisonment. But, as proved before, the death penalty has a lot more cons than pros. So, let me ask PRO, why would you use something so torturous, so evil in place of something better? Life imprisonment is obviously the better choice.
  4. PAIN OF EXECUTION
    1. Executions, even if they’re not botched, are never painless. Many people mistake the process of being executed to be quick, but this is not the case. Many patients might be on death row for years. Jack Alderman was awaiting his death for 33 years. Knowing that you are going to die by the hands of the government is certainly cruel and unusual for the mental health of the inmate. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_row) . But, if the execution is botched, the inmate feels a lot of pain. This is the case with Angel Diaz, who’s execution took a whopping 34 minutes (it usually takes less than half that time). “During the execution, Diaz appeared to be in pain and gasped for air for more than 11 minutes. He was given a rare second dose of lethal chemicals after the execution team observed that the first round did not kill him. A medical examiner reported the second dose was needed because the needles were incorrectly inserted through his veins and into the flesh in his arms. Not only did Diaz die a slow and excruciating death because the drugs were not delivered into his veins properly, his autopsy revealed that he suffered 12 inch chemical burns in his arms by the highly concentrated drugs flowing under his skin.” (https://www.aclu.org/other/death-penalty-questions-and-answers) Botched executions are terrible for the medical examiners and the inmates to feel. Why risk it when there are several less harsh, but more rehabilitating options?
  5. DEATH ROW PHENOMENON
    1. As stated in IV, being placed on death row has harsh psychological effects on a human. If their sentence is changed, then it can affect a person permanently. This is known as the “death row phenomenon.” “This bleak isolation and years of torturous uncertainty can result in a sharp deterioration in a prisoner’s mental and physical state, often making inmates suicidal. Many have attempted suicide in the weeks and days leading up to their executions, only to be ‘saved’ and brought back to prison so their sentence can be carried out by the authorities” (https://reprieve.org.uk/death-row-phenomenon-psychological-impact-shadow-execution/). Basically, people can suffer serious mental damage on death row, sometimes even resulting in suicide.
  6. DEATH ROW CONDITIONS
    1. It’s not only because of the time spent in the cells that prisoners go mad. It’s the conditions of the cells. As I stated before, prisoners are kept in their cells for as long as 23 hours sometimes. They aren’t educated or spoken to. Visits from the outside world are rare and usually restricted. It’s basically solitary confinement, and I can hope that we both agree that is cruel and unusual. (https://reprieve.org.uk/death-row-phenomenon-psychological-impact-shadow-execution/
  7. POLLS.
    1. A poll of more than 1500 registered voters came up with a conclusion that 61% of people thought that death penalties should be replaced with alternatives such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment without parole and restitution for the victim’s family. Many people thought that more money should be contributed to other government departments such as emergency services, and public-health. (https://www.amnestyusa.org/most-voters-prefer-alternatives-to-the-death-penalty/
  8. CONCLUSION
    1. The Death Penalty ought to be banned because of the many imperfections of the conditions of the cells, the families of the victim and crime commiter, the psychological effects on the prisoner, and the pain that is inflicted on a prisoner during an execution. The death penalty is not what the people want, and is not what the people need.
   

Once again, thanks to both my opponent and thanks to voters. I hope you will see my points.

Published:
Thank you for the opportunity to debate this, AvoidDeath!

Opening:

I would like to add a definition to the others that my opponent gives.

When a crime is committed, it is the moral obligation of society to institute justice. (In other words, in order to achieve morality as my opponent defines it, we must institute just punishment.)

“Just” will be defined as considered post fact; as a means of reciprocity – correcting the scales to provide some equilibrium of fairness. In other terms, justice means giving giving each person his or her due

Contention 1: Effectiveness

Subpoint A: Plea Deals

97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. (1) As my opponent himself points out: trials are expensive as hell. Thus, the cost saved by these plea bargains is utterly astronomical. 

Attorney Robert B. Evnen elaborates more:
“Claimed 'cost studies,' often performed by or at the behest of death penalty opponents, are frequently so incomplete as to be false and misleading. For example, they don't take into account the increase in the cost of life without parole cases if there were no death penalty. Criminal defendants who are facing the death penalty — which today must be pleaded by prosecutors up front — often want to make a deal by pleading guilty to first degree murder in exchange for a sentencing recommendation of life without parole. The existence of the death penalty as a possible sentence leads to guilty pleas that save the money spent on trials and limit the opportunity for appeals." (2
Further, if a case goes to trial, there is the risk that prosecutors may lose the case and result in a criminal being allowed to roam free. Thus, the deterrence from trials that the death penalty creates is cost-saving and crime-solving. 

Subpoint B: Further Crime

Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. The parole system is a complete joke.
For example:
back in July, “six homicides were allegedly committed by five Pennsylvania parolees over two months, including the slayings of two children and a Pittsburgh police officer.” 
Just locally in the state: 
“Last year, 6,526 people under parole supervision were arrested, or almost 16% of the more than 41,000 total, according to Department of Corrections data.”
This included 93 for murder. 
On the broader scale, it gets much much worse:
As it stands nationwide, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in May 2018, from 2005 onward an estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
One can imagine the violence these released prisoners commit. 
“At the end of the 9-year follow-up period, 79% of prisoners released for a violent offense had been arrested for any type of crime. Prisoners released for a violent offense were more likely to have been arrested for a violent offense.”
With executions, it is fairly obvious how this problem would be thwarted. As Donald Trump has said on Fox & Friends: 
“They say it's not a deterrent. Well, you know what, maybe it's not a deterrent but these two [men convicted of killing two police officers in Hattiesburg, MS] will not do any more killing. That's for sure."
Lastly, even if prisoners were imprisoned without parole, violence can, will, and is committed in prisons. Death penalty being an option does indeed deter these prisoners from committing violence as to not make their sentence more serious. 

Subpoint C: Deterrence

It is largely thought that capital punishment deters further crime. Indeed, what deters more than the threat of death?
My opponent will try to twist this into a one-sided issue in his favor, but the literature is rich in favor of capital punishment!

Here is some for your pleasure:

“Our research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.” (5)

“Each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. “(6)

“We find a significant relationship among the execution, removal, and commutation rates and the rate of homicide. Each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while one additional removal from death row generates one additional homicide.” (7)

Indeed, David Muhlhausen, PhD, concludes the following:

“recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates... In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.”

This does not appear to be “one-sided,” now does it?

Contention 2: Morality and Justice

In order to achieve morality, justice must be given. Remember my opening statements: in order to achieve justice, we must take reciprocal action to the crime. 
Execution being the highest level of punishment, reserved for the most heinous of crimes, is the fitting reciprocal action for those condemned to death row. 

It is clear by modern literature that many are starting to feel a sort of twisted, deranged compassion for the condemned rather than the victim. In this twisted compassion, many forget the reason behind their condemnation to begin with: crimes against humanity. 

We must remember! 

In March 2017, the LAAPOA states the following about death row inmates JUST in California! 
“Giving up on the death penalty would mean giving up on justice for crime victims and their families. The prisoners currently on California's death row have murdered more than 1,000 people. Of those, 229 were children, 43 were peace officers, and 294 of the victims were sexually assaulted and tortured.”
Why have compassion for these criminals? 

Just like Atul Gawande, I am not troubled that Timothy McVeigh was executed for the 168 people he killed, or that John Wayne Gacy has been executed for committing 33 murders.

Just like Immanuel Kant, I do not deny that it is the moral responsibility for a society to execute the actors of these heinous acts. 

This compassion is disturbing to me, but it is even more disturbing to those families who have been victimized by these criminals.

Kermit Alexander, a former NFL player who lost his mother, sister and two nephews when they were murdered in 1984 put it well: 
“Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing most people will never know is the pain experienced when a family member, or in my case, family members are brutally tortured and murdered. In 1984, my mother, sister and two nephews were cold-heartedly shot to death by an 18-year-old gang member named Tiqueon Cox...Cox, while on death row, attempted a violent takeover of the Super Max Adjustment Center at San Quentin with a goal to kill as many guards as possible.”
 You can criticize it as “revenge” or as “too stressful” for the families involved, but what kind of closure is it to allow such monsters to live?

Justice is not satisfied by forgotten memories. 
 
I do hope that, upon review, judges have determined negation is common sense and moral obligation. 

Thank you. 


Round 2
Published:
Thanks christopher_best for your reply! I greatly look forward to this debate. I’ll begin my rebuttals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPENING/DEFINITIONS:
I agree to your added definition of just. However the death penalty does not uphold justice and morality. I would like to add one more definition: ‘right’. It will be defined as “in accordance with what is good, proper or just.” My opponent may object to this definition if he feels necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 Effectiveness, Subpoint A ‘Plea Deals’

“97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. (1) As my opponent himself points out: trials are expensive as hell. Thus, the cost saved by these plea bargains is utterly astronomical. 

Attorney Robert B. Evnen elaborates more:
“Claimed 'cost studies,' often performed by or at the behest of death penalty opponents, are frequently so incomplete as to be false and misleading. For example, they don't take into account the increase in the cost of life without parole cases if there were no death penalty. Criminal defendants who are facing the death penalty — which today must be pleaded by prosecutors up front — often want to make a deal by pleading guilty to first degree murder in exchange for a sentencing recommendation of life without parole. The existence of the death penalty as a possible sentence leads to guilty pleas that save the money spent on trials and limit the opportunity for appeals." (2
Further, if a case goes to trial, there is the risk that prosecutors may lose the case and result in a criminal being allowed to roam free. Thus, the deterrence from trials that the death penalty creates is cost-saving and crime-solving.”


REBUTTAL 1: PLEA BARGAINS CAN PLACE INNOCENT PEOPLE IN JAIL.
My sincerest apologies if I am interpreting this wrong, but DP cases that end in plea bargains often result in a switch to a sentencing of “life without parole”, according to your source. But plea bargains have their disadvantages too. Many innocent people agree to a plea bargain to cut their losses in a trial. This results in innocent people being sent to prison, and that is not just. (https://vittana.org/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-plea-bargaining).



REBUTTAL 2: PLEA BARGAINS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”
The pressuring of the defendant to engage in a plea bargain to keep away from a trial can be viewed as illegal or unconstitutional. The accused shouldn’t view a trial as a bad thing, "A defendant must always have the right to take their case to trial for a plea bargain to be an effective tool.” (https://vittana.org/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-plea-bargaining). 



C1 Effectiveness, Subpoint B ‘Further Crime’


“Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. The parole system is a complete joke.
For example:
back in July, “six homicides were allegedly committed by five Pennsylvania parolees over two months, including the slayings of two children and a Pittsburgh police officer.” 
Just locally in the state: 
“Last year, 6,526 people under parole supervision were arrested, or almost 16% of the more than 41,000 total, according to Department of Corrections data.”
This included 93 for murder. 
On the broader scale, it gets much much worse:
As it stands nationwide, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in May 2018, from 2005 onward an estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
One can imagine the violence these released prisoners commit. 
“At the end of the 9-year follow-up period, 79% of prisoners released for a violent offense had been arrested for any type of crime. Prisoners released for a violent offense were more likely to have been arrested for a violent offense.”
With executions, it is fairly obvious how this problem would be thwarted. As Donald Trump has said on Fox & Friends: 
“They say it's not a deterrent. Well, you know what, maybe it's not a deterrent but these two [men convicted of killing two police officers in Hattiesburg, MS] will not do any more killing. That's for sure." 


REBUTTAL:
A simple solution to this would be to offer a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. 


“Lastly, even if prisoners were imprisoned without parole, violence can, will, and is committed in prisons. Death penalty being an option does indeed deter these prisoners from committing violence as to not make their sentence more serious.”


CLARIFICATION AND REBUTTAL:
I need an exact figure and sources. You seem to care for these criminals, if violence is committed in prison and it results in an inmates death, wouldn’t that essentially be the same thing as the DP? And, according to your view, violence in prison is inhumane, which means the DP is inhumane as well.




C1 Effectiveness, Subpoint C ‘Deterrence’

“It is largely thought that capital punishment deters further crime. Indeed, what deters more than the threat of death?
My opponent will try to twist this into a one-sided issue in his favor, but the literature is rich in favor of capital punishment!

Here is some for your pleasure:

“Our research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.” (5)

“Each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. “(6)

“We find a significant relationship among the execution, removal, and commutation rates and the rate of homicide. Each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while one additional removal from death row generates one additional homicide.” (7)

Indeed, David Muhlhausen, PhD, concludes the following:

“recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates... In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.”

This does not appear to be “one-sided,” now does it?”


REBUTTAL
My apologies in advance, as some of your sources require a subscription which costs money. But in fact, this is a pretty much one sided argument.

most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory.  In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder—a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change.” -(https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/, https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf ). 

Basically, most scientists agree that the death penalty does not deter crime. My opponent is looking at a slim minority that believes that it does. As stated by my source the agreement is at  “a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change.” 



C2 Morality and Justice


“In order to achieve morality, justice must be given. Remember my opening statements: in order to achieve justice, we must take reciprocal action to the crime. 
Execution being the highest level of punishment, reserved for the most heinous of crimes, is the fitting reciprocal action for those condemned to death row. 

It is clear by modern literature that many are starting to feel a sort of twisted, deranged compassion for the condemned rather than the victim. In this twisted compassion, many forget the reason behind their condemnation to begin with: crimes against humanity. 


REBUTTAL
Execution is the highest level of punishment, but it is a punishment not suitable for even the most heinous of crimes, it does not give the inmate/criminal the time to rehabilitate themselves and reflect on their crimes. It does not give them the humiliation that they need so badly. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of just. 



C2 Morality and Justice Section 2


We must remember! 

In March 2017, the LAAPOA states the following about death row inmates JUST in California! 
“Giving up on the death penalty would mean giving up on justice for crime victims and their families. The prisoners currently on California's death row have murdered more than 1,000 people. Of those, 229 were children, 43 were peace officers, and 294 of the victims were sexually assaulted and tortured.”


REBUTTAL 
And how would we be giving up on justice? If we give these criminals the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, they will face a more justifiable sentence because, as stated before, they have time to reflect on their choices and they can’t harm anyone. Obviously, that is a better choice.



C2 Morality and Justice Section 3
Why have compassion for these criminals?”


REBUTTAL
I am particularly troubled by this statement. They are human, they have the same rights as you. Even if they have committed a wrong doing, they deserve to live



C2 Morality and Justice Section 4

Kermit Alexander, a former NFL player who lost his mother, sister and two nephews when they were murdered in 1984 put it well: 
'Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing most people will never know is the pain experienced when a family member, or in my case, family members are brutally tortured and murdered. In 1984, my mother, sister and tw nephews were cold-heartedly shot to death by an 18-year-old gang member named Tiqueon Cox...Cox, while on death row, attempted a violent takeover of the Super Max Adjustment Center at San Quentin with a goal to kill as many guards as possible.'
 You can criticize it as “revenge” or as “too stressful” for the families involved, but what kind of closure is it to allow such monsters to live?

Justice is not satisfied by forgotten memories.”



REBUTTAL
Kermit Alexander himself said that Cox “attempted a violent takeover of the Super Max Adjustment Center at San Quentin with a goal to kill as many guards as possible.” On Death Row. Voters, he was on death row. Proving that death row conditions can cause a man to react hatefully, and proving that the death row and DP should be banned. It’s hateful closure, justice is satisfied by giving a person his or her due.

The DP does anything but that.
Thank you.




Published:
Thanks, AvoidDeath! I will begin to rebut.

  1. Ethics:
As my opponent agrees, in order to achieve morality it is necessary for justice to be given. Justice is, as agreed, an inherently reciprocal notion. In other words, if I stole a dollar from AvoidDeath, I would owe AvoidDeath exactly one dollar in order to achieve reciprocity. Normally, I would have a right to keep my money, but in stealing I have forfeited my right to do so as I have violated AvoidDeath’s right to keep his money. This is reciprocal justice at its basic form. With murder, one has forfeited their right to live as they have violated another person’s right to live. The murderer sentences themselves to death. This is not revenge, this is simply justice. To NOT execute a murderer is immoral, not the inverse. 

In essence, this basic idea of justice shows why Con’s arguments are fundamentally fallacious: Con’s priority is comfort instead of justice. 

Con argues that those who participate in an execution trial will feel long-term negative effects emotionally. Well, potentially. However, to halt justice for the sake of ease is a major mix-up of priorities. Justice comes first, then emotional closure. By this line of logic, I should not defend myself against an assault since the killing of that individual might scar me emotionally. Clearly, the outcome of death outweighs emotional trauma. In the same sense, injustice outweighs emotional stress.

Con, perhaps you should consider the emotional effects of losing a loved one while the criminal that slaughtered them is still roaming, at risk of escape or parole, and committing violent acts within prison. 

Con also argues that reciprocal justice is immoral through Gandhi's quote: “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” 

With all respect to Gandhi, this quote is to be expected from a martyr. However, to expect innocent, normal victims of murderers to be martyrs like Gandhi is an inherently privileged stance. Furthermore, to impose pacifism on the victims of murder is an implied endorsement of violence against them. 

   2. Cost:

As I have already pointed out, the death penalty solves for cost in two main ways:

Plea Deals - Again, the threat of a death penalty convinces many to plea guilty in return for a life sentence without parole. This dramatically saves legal costs!

Deterrence - I have given several quantified results from credible studies that determine there is a deterrence effect of the death penalty. Less crime means less cost to society.

  1. Effectiveness
It should be understood that crime deterrence is only a secondary goal of the death penalty. The primary goal is to serve reciprocal justice. 

That said, I have given numerous, quantified pieces of evidence to back my statements whereas Con has only given broad examples that boil down to “most people say this, therefore it is correct.” 

Here is a particular quote I would like to respond to from Con:
“States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates. This proves that the death penalty is the same or less effective than life imprisonment.”

There are many, many factors involved with crime rates. While the death penalty may work to deter some crime, other factors (for example poverty) will play a larger role in determining overall crime rates. This is not to say that the death penalty does not do its job, but obviously the death penalty is not a “magical quick-fix.”
   
   4. Pain

My opponent’s arguments here seem to show more compassion for the criminal than the victim. Keep in mind that the criminal would not have to suffer emotional stress had they not murdered in the first place.

Furthermore, botched executions are rare and cherry-picked incidents. Even if they were common occurrence, pain should not be something to avoid when it is meant as punishment.
 
   5. Mental Health of Inmates

Most on the death row are dangerous, unpredictable, suicidal, and mentally deranged individuals to begin with. I do not see this as inherently altering anything regarding the inmates. 
   
   6. Death Row Conditions

Those on death row are not in bad conditions. If they were, it would be debatable if that is even immoral to begin with. 

For example, in Florida, inmates are fed three meals a day, given regular showers, given regular exercise, get mail regularly, have snacks, have TVs, radios, and get a final extravagant meal before their execution. Visitors are allowed, and any restrictions present are simply safety precautions for everyone involved.
   
   7. Polls

My opponent's poll comes from Amnesty International, which is a heavily biased organization from the UK. The site claims that
"The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."
Further, surveys hold little weight. Argument from authority is a fallacy, and surveys are heavily flawed in nature. In this case, the authority is misplaced even. Average voters do not know the nuance of the justice system. 
 
Even further, this “recent” poll is from 2010. If my opponent REALLY wants to talk recent polls, according to the results of the more recent 2017 Gallup poll (which polled a similar amount of people), 55% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty. 

To conclude:
While the economics and crime rates are important (and in favor of the death penalty), we must remember the true reason behind the death penalty: justice. I hope judges can clearly see how Pro wins on every point presented thus far. Thank you.



Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @christopher_best
I devote wayyy to much time to this site.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
That was quick. I would've liked a bit more time but this works.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @christopher_best
Cool.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
I shall submit this weekend
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @christopher_best
4 days
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
Asking for feedback is always allowed.
Regarding your preamble:
1. Restating the format seems a waste.
2. You did better than anything the quote tool would have done (I'm a firm believer in formatting quotes, but that tool usually just makes things harder to read).
I only skimmed over the rest (wouldn't be fair to your opponent to give your case a more in depth reading of yours when his is not available to do likewise). It looks good, touches on many of the main points to be expected, putting a .edu paper near the start was wise and the other sources seemed fine (they can be mitigated if their bias is brought up, but that doesn't change their factual information unless their bias is proven to be overwhelming enough to cross into propaganda).
#2
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @Ramshutu, @oromagi
Calling upon to the gods of this site. I don't know if this is illegal or not, so don't respond if it is, but what do you think of my arguments?
Instigator
#1
No votes yet