Death penalty solely for murder
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't believe 6 times a year is correct. I only do it 2 times a year and it wipes me out when I do. It seems excessive.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
Thanks for voting
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/
Sorry I ran out of space again.
TBH I think it's necessary in times of war to combat desertion and cowardice.
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.
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
I have a good alternative punishment to the death penalty.
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)
I now can't read the debate without thinking about DP the wrong way... Or maybe the right way...
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
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
Ok! I'm looking forward!! @Orogami - go ahead and take it!
I'd prefer it if oromagi took this debate. I want to try and beat him. No one has so far.
Alec-
If Virt doesn't take the D.A. position, I would be willing.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
I tweaked the title to get rid of the word immediate.
It's part of my strategy. I like getting in the last word and I argue primarily with rebuttals.
Take our immediate and I’ll play devils advocate
Why waive the first and last rounds?
I doubt anyone will accept due to the word "immediate".
Practicality. Even though I'm against the death penalty, I don't sympathize with the murderer at all.
Are your arguments grounded in morality or practicallity?
Think anyone will accept or is everyone on this site against it?
Good topic.