Instigator / Con
6
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#1816

Death penalty solely for murder

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
21
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.