Instigator / Con
Points: 6

Death penalty solely for murder

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
3,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 21
Description
No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all others rounds are okay. The BoP is shared. I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round.
Round 1
Published:
Round waived.  I wish oromagi good luck, even though based off of his record, he probably doesn't need it.
Published:
thx, Alec


DEATH PENALTY SOLELY for MURDER


OBJECTION: Ambiguous thesis.  CON's thesis sentence has no subject and no verb.  Under ordinary circumstances, the instigator's first round argument would provide enough context to resolve this ambiguity but CON has elected to forego R1, forcing PRO to define the topic

  • Most CP questions are public policy debates, PRO will assume public policy
  • Both debaters are US residents so let's make the subject US Federal policy
  • Because there's no verb, we can't tell what "solely" is supposed to be modifying.
    • Shall the USFG reserve DP exclusively for murder cases (not treason, espionage, etc as is current law)? 
      • or
    • Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?
      • PRO elects to toss out the adverb out as unparsable
    • PRO's sense of CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment, so PRO offers the following reframe of thesis:
RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

DEFs:

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA [US] is "a federal republic and a representative democracy consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions"

RETAIN is "to keep in possession or use"

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT [CP] is "a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime"

MURDER is "the crime of deliberately killing another person without justification"

CON has defined the BoP as shared.

PRO interprets the resolution to mean that CON will demonstrate why CP should be abolished as USFG punishment.  PRO will defend status quo

ARG 1.1

  • In a democracy, public policy should reflect the majority's will
    • DP enjoys majority support in US.
      • 2018 Pew: 54% of US favors the death penalty for people convicted of murder
      • 2019 Gallup: 56% of US " " " " " " " "
ARG 1.2

  • CP is explicitly sanctioned by US Constitution
    • 5th AMD "No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime...without due process of law"
    • 14th AMD "No State shall...deprive any person of life...without due process of law"
ARG 1.3

  • The 8th AMD  forbids "cruel and unusual punishment"
    • By any measure, long imprisonment inflicts more suffering (cruel) than a quick death
    • CP has "been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations"
      • prison=less usual
    • In the land of "give me liberty or give me death," deprivation of liberty is crueler
ARG 1.4

  • As far back as Hammurabi, justice is defined as proportional retribution, "an eye for an eye"
    • CP is the only truly proportional retribution for murder available to courts
ARG 1.5

  • CP deters crime
    • Although there are many studies supporting both sides, a major meta-analysis of 104 studies found
      • "a statistically significant deterrent effect"
    • Dead murderers can't re-offend
ARG 1.6

I look forward to CON's R2 reply
links to sources in comments








Round 2
Published:

If we let the murderer live, we can force the murderer to donate blood 6x per year, the legal limit for how much someone can donate blood(https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html).  500 ml of blood saves 2 lives on average, and can save up to 3 lives(source needed), so forcing 1 murderer to donate 500 ml of blood every 2 months can force that murderer to save 12 lives per year as merely an average.  Multiply this by the 1500 murderers per year that murder in the US(source needed), and we’re looking at 12,000 lives saved in the first year. However, the murderers wouldn’t donate blood for merely one year, they would be giving blood the rest of their lives.  Therefore, a mathematical pattern would develop, since the murderers would accumulate with time. One year after forced blood donation of murderers (FB DOM) is implemented, 18,000 people would have their lives saved from people who are going to be doing this the rest of their lives.  In the 2nd year after FB DOM is implemented, since the number of murderer convicts would double in that time, so would the number of lives saved in that time. Since I’m a math guy, given that the average murderer lives to be about 75 years old, and dies after that, assuming the average age that a murderer commits their murder is 25, we can collect blood from them for 50 years.  In 50 years, or sooner if we force existing murder convicts to donate blood to save other people, we can save up to 900,000 people per year, simply by letting murderers live and taking their blood every 3 months.  
 
Only 60,000 people in the US die a year from lack of blood(source needed).  Therefore, we would have more blood than we know what to do with in terms of saving Americans.  Maybe some could be sent to Iraq as an apology gift because we destroyed them in the Iraq war. Maybe some of the blood can be traded to African nations in exchange for natural resources that would make America rich, and it would help save some Africans in the process.  This sounds like a better punishment for murder than the death penalty, an our current life imprisonment without parole, which makes murderers leeches to the state because the murderers would be giving back to a society that they have murdered from.

Thoughts?


Published:
thx, Alec

RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

  • CON has expressed no objection regarding PRO's reframe of thesis. 
  • CON has expressed no objection regarding PRO's definitions
  • PRO assumes the resolution and definitions are agreed as presented

ARG 1.1
Popular Support

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.2
Constitutional

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.3
CP Unconstitutional

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.4
Proportional Retribution

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.5
Deterrence

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.6
Savings

  • CON has made no reply
PRO assumes that CON has conceded all of PRO's arguments.

If we let the murderer live, we can force the murderer to donate blood 6x per year, the legal limit for how much someone can donate blood
COUNTER 2.1

  • According to CON's source,
    • https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
      • "Persons who have been detained or incarcerated in a facility (juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison) for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days) are deferred for 12 months from the date of last occurrence. This includes work release programs and weekend incarceration. These persons are at higher risk for exposure to infectious diseases"
        • By definition, life imprisonment in a high security Federal prison disqualifies the incarcerated on a permanent basis
      • The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in the blood of prisoners made wholesale exclusion a prudent protection beginning in the mid-1980's
COUNTER 2.2

  • A donation cannot be forced
    • A DONATION is "a voluntary gift or contribution for a specific cause"
      • but PRO's plan is to "force the murderer"
        • FORCE is "power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power; violence; coercion"
          • PRO suggests CON needs a new verb:  "extract" as in "extract blood from prisoners" or suck could be used colloquially if the vampiric associations are not too contrary to CON's intent
COUNTER 2.3

  • PRO has already argued that life imprisonment is more cruel and more unusual than the traditional death sentence and thereby violates the convict's 8th AMD protections
COUNTER 2.4

  • PRO and CON agree that CON has a whole lot of sources needed
    • 1 pint of blood save 2 lives, maybe 3
    • avg murderer lives to age 75
    • avg murderer is convicted at age 25
    • 60,000 US people die from lack of blood
      • PRO is unable to verify any of this
COUNTER 2.5

  • Noting where sourcing is required is worse than not noting.  CON demonstrates awareness that the argument is unsupported without offering any satisfactory remedy for that lack of support.
COUNTER 2.6

  • Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
COUNTER 2.7

  • Africans don't want US murder-blood

Round 3
Published:

      • "Persons who have been detained or incarcerated in a facility (juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison) for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days) are deferred for 12 months from the date of last occurrence. This includes work release programs and weekend incarceration. These persons are at higher risk for exposure to infectious diseases"
I didn't find the quote from the article and I don't even think the article mentions criminals.

The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in the blood of prisoners made wholesale exclusion a prudent protection beginning in the mid-1980's

The reason why the prisoner group is more likely to have STDs than anyone who has never been a prisoner has been due to the fact that people have been jailed for drug use, and injecting drugs into someone makes them more likely to get STDs.  I don't see any evidence that confirms that murderers are more likely to have STDs than non murderers, the BoP would be on you for this.

Any murderers with no STDs can be forced to give blood every 2 months to save more people.  The murderers with treatable STDs can still give blood once we treat them or their blood for STDs, and the murderers with untreatable STDs can have their blood taken, stored in a way that their blood can last for 10 years or so, and if we find a cure for the diseases in that time frame, then more lives are saved from the treated blood.

PRO very much doubts that forced bleedings can be defended as a necessary infliction
It's necessary to save other people.

  • PRO and CON agree that CON has a whole lot of sources needed
    • 1 pint of blood save 2 lives, maybe 3
    • avg murderer lives to age 75
    • avg murderer is convicted at age 25
    • 60,000 US people die from lack of blood
I forgot to include the sources.  They are:

https://www.bnl.gov/hr/blooddrive/56facts.asp(1 pint of blood saves up to 3 lives)
2 and 3 are estimates.
The 60,000 number I found was a different number.  My fault.  It turns out that the number is 4.5 million (https://www.bnl.gov/hr/blooddrive/56facts.asp).

Africans don't want US murder-blood
They would if it saves their lives.

One thing we disagree on is what is harsher, death penalty, or life in jail plus forced blood giving.  Death is scary, especially since a lot of prisoners are religious and they don't want to go to hell and while prision isn't a good place either, the notion that you get to socialize with other prisoners and enjoy their company with time would imply that life in jail is definitely a less cruel punishment than putting someone to death.  Making them donate blood every 2 months, which is barely additional punishment, would be less cruel than a death sentence and would help society by saving 900,000 lives per year, and the only ones who suffer are people that were going to suffer more by putting them to death.  To live anyhow is better than to not live at all.

I am out of space.
Published:
RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

5 of PRO's 6 arguments have been ignored by CON and according to CON's rules may not now be addressed in the conclusion

ARG 1.1
Popular Support

ARG 1.2
Constitutional

ARG 1.3
Life Sentence Unconstitutional

  • CON argues death is harsher punishment than life + forced blood extraction
    • Death is constitutional, life + forced blood extraction is not constitutional
    • The USFG ought not be compelled by considerations of murderer's salvation and/or comfort

ARG 1.4
Proportional Retribution

ARG 1.5
Deterrence

ARG 1.6
Savings

CON has only made one argument:  US should forcibly extract 6 pints of blood from convicted murderers

COUNTER 2.1

  • I didn't find the quote from the article and I don't even think the article mentions criminals
  • I don't see any evidence that confirms that murderers are more likely to have STDs than non murderers, the BoP would be on you for this
  • Healthcare providers reject blood from any and all US prisoners, the nature of the crime is irrelevant.  The point is that there is zero demand for the commodity you plan to extract from these murderers
COUNTER 2.2

  • PRO argued that it's not a donation if blood is taken by force
    • CON has made no reply
COUNTER 2.3

  • PRO argued forced blood extraction is an unnecessary and wanton infliction in violation the 8th AMD prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment
    • CON argues that punishment by blood extraction is necessary because potential blood beneficiaries need blood
      • Some blind people also need eyes: shall the eyes of murderers therefore be likewise forfeit and forthwith extracted?
      • Respect for each individual's autonomy and welfare irregardless of the greater good is a core principle of ethical medicine
        • BMC Medical Ethics writes: 
          • "The frequent focus of public health on benefit for populations holds the potential for concern with individual welfare to be side- lined. Embedding respect for autonomy firmly within public health ethics teaching and learning provides a fundamental reminder that every person has a high value – qua her or his autonomy – and cannot merely be treated as a means to the end of others’ good"
COUNTER 2.4
COUNTER 2.5

  • CON cites list of facts offered by a US Dept. of Energy blood drive, rather than any healthcare or HHS stat

COUNTER 2.6

  • Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
    • CON has made no reply
COUNTER 2.7

  • If US healthcare excludes USFG prisoner blood as tainted, exporting bad blood to foreign nations must be poor foreign policy
CONCLUSION

  • PRO has offered 6 good reason for USFG to retain CP as one constitutional remedy for murder.  CON's plan to commodify convict blood is unethical, unconstitutional and medically unsafe.  VOTERS should award argument to PRO
thx, Alec











Round 4
Published:
Sorry, but my parents won't let me do DART.  Because of this, I don't think I can post.
Published:
Per debate rules, this round is waived.

Thanks to Alec for debating and thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE PRO
Added:
--> @Nevets
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
There is no argument to be had. Pro forfeited and got banned from debateart by his parents. That means even the Con could argue for just about anything and be considered to have the better argument
>Reason for Mod Action: To vote solely off the basis of forfeits, it must be a full forfeit (FF) debate where at least 50% of the rounds were forfeited by one side. Only one round was forfeited, so this vote is insufficient. There was no concession either, just a small blip about not being able to post. This violates the Voting Policy and is thus subject to removal. Sorry for the inconvenience, but feel free to case another vote.
************************************************************************
#25
Added:
--> @Trent0405, @Nevets
Thanks for voting
Contender
#24
Added:
--> @Alec
PRO's R3 sources
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/manage-my-donations/rapidpass/what-you-must-know-before-blood-donation.html
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/
Contender
#23
Added:
--> @oromagi
Sorry I ran out of space again.
Instigator
#22
Added:
TBH I think it's necessary in times of war to combat desertion and cowardice.
#21
Added:
--> @oromagi
I figured I'd do counterarguments in the 2nd round. I was out of space with my response, so that's why I didn't address those other points.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Alec
PRO's R2 sources:
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/donation
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._McMillian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @oromagi
I have a good alternative punishment to the death penalty.
Instigator
#18
Added:
--> @Alec
I neglected to link the line
"been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations"
to (of course) Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#History
(PRO regrets the error)
Contender
#17
Added:
--> @oromagi
I now can't read the debate without thinking about DP the wrong way... Or maybe the right way...
#16
Added:
I chose the initials CP in preference to DP because I didn't want to write any hysterical double entendres but now I note that I didn't double check that I changed all the DPs to CPs. Now I'm cracking up at:
"Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?"
(and shall we put in on pornhub?)
"CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment"
"DP enjoys majority support in US."
two-to-one, at least
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Alec
PRO's R1 sources:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329028740_The_Deterrent_Effect_of_Executions_A_Meta-Analysis_Thirty_Years_after_Ehrlich
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09062/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fdpc2010.pdf
Contender
#14
Added:
--> @Alec, @oromagi
Ok! I'm looking forward!! @Orogami - go ahead and take it!
#13
Added:
--> @oromagi, @Virtuoso
I'd prefer it if oromagi took this debate. I want to try and beat him. No one has so far.
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @Alec, @Virtuoso
Alec-
If Virt doesn't take the D.A. position, I would be willing.
Contender
#11
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: Pro offered multiple, credible arguments which Con allowed to stand without rebuttal. Points to Pro
Sources: Pro had many sources. bot for argument and rebuttal. Points to Pro
Conduct: Con forfeited two rounds - automatic fail
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Well Pro made some good points about bad effects forcing blood donation and the health.
Pro made some points that Con did not see or deal with. Thats the issue here Pro made a bunch of points and Con did not even pretend to see them
I dont buy the cost saving aspect. A few of those comments I dont agree with. And Pro did not qualify them but the points are clear. With evidence.
The entire debate was Pro --- Here are reasons (like em or not) Con --- Nah let them give blood instead
Better sources by Pro
Spelling and stuff. Well con missed a bunch of spaces before brackets and that was very distracting. Made it hard for my simple brain to read.
Conduct. I dont think its dudes fault mamma kicked him off the komp. Cant fault him.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
ARGS

For one, I will see the resolution as-”The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER.”Pro offered this resolution and Con never objected. I will also view this debate as being centred around the United States of America, Pro stated that this debate should revolve around the United States and Con never objected.
How Realistic is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
It is clear that the American constitution endorses the death penalty. As a result of Con not responding to this argument, I am left believing that the American constitution would side with Pro. Moreover, the American people seem to side with Pro as Pro pointed out in R1 with his Gallup polls. Seeing as Con failed to respond to this point, I have to believe that the American people wouldn’t endorse Con’s position. Also, it’s clear that an inmate donating blood is not permitted in the United States of America. In short, it’s clear that the Americans and their constitution would not support Con’s position, as a result, I am left with the impression that Pro’s position would be much easier to implement in the United States of America.
How Effective is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
Con’s argument revolves around extracting blood from prisoners to save American lives, and to try to sell or donate this blood to foreign countries. But, killing the murderer instead of extracting blood would also come with its own monetary gains. Providing for murderers is very costly as Pro points out, costing tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner. Moreover, because extracting blood from prisoners would not be permitted, it appears that the potential monetary benefits would be very hard to capitalize on. We also see that killing murderers significantly lowers crime rates, this point gets dropped by Con. But, Con was able to establish that blood extraction could save lives. However, seeing that extracting blood from prisoners is illegal, this point gets knocked down a bit. So, crime sides with Pro because Con never contested this point. The fiscal benefits side with Pro because killing murderers to save money is much more practical than selling blood to foreign countries. But, if it could be implemented, Con’s position could save many lives.
I believe Pro won arguments because his position is much easier to implement, along with it deterring crime and saving money. Also, while Con’s position could save lives, it seems like that would be very hard to capitalize on as a result of the barriers to implementing Con’s position.
SOURCES
No problems from either side.
CONDUCT
No problems from either side.
S AND G
No problems from either side.