Should the US have the death penalty?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We'll discuss if the U.S. should have the death penalty. I'll be for the death penalty, while my interlocutor is for the opposition of the death penalty.
First, welcome to both opponents to this site. Glad you're both aboard.
Arguments: Pro's R1 argument is supported by the comparison of putting down animals for violent acts, mostly against against humans, but does not draw a distinction between animal kills, and their limited justification - it is common knowledge that animals do not have morality as a guide of conscience - and the willful murder of other humans by humans, who do have the capacity of moral judgment and choose to ignore it. The comparison of animal kills to human willful murder cannot be made. Con successfully rebuts the argument in R1. Con's R1 rebuttal argument re: the prison executioner reviewing his moral standing by doing his job is indeed a personal moral dilemma, but it does offer support against the Resolution that the death penalty should not remain because Con's cited example turns against the practice on his personal moral ground. Con effectively rebuts this argument, pointing out that the moral decision draws the argument subject to Con's BoP. Pro is never able to overcome this dilemma of Con choosing a source that opposes Pro's Burden of Proof. Points to Con
Sources: The argument discussion of Con's rebutting source in R1 carries the day since Pro did have have any supporting soutrcing at all, but merely used Con sources and argued unsuccessfully against them. Points to Con.
Legibility: Both contenders offered adequate description to understand their arguments, but both have some grammatical issues not worth pointing out since understanding was still possible. Both need to improve writing skills, and I'm sure both will. Tie
Conduct. Both opponents were respectful of the other. Tie
Pro's position was unclear and contradicted himself. He doesn't refute that human lives are worth more than animals, and furthermore, that death penalty makes you just as much a monster as the criminal (as Con highlights). Hence, Con wins.
Yeahuh - my daily good deed for the day and all - always on the lookout for new debaters here.
Thank you for the tips! :)
While I do appreciate the traditional way of citing things, it is much more accessible to judgers if you were to hyperlink or link your sources
There is a tool bar that let's you put text into a "quote field" that's gray, its very handy in making things easier to read
I had admittedly much higher standards than what has been displayed...
Welcome to the site, good introductory topic