Instigator / Con
9
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4116
Should the death penalty be allowed
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
21
Better sources
4
14
Better legibility
3
7
Better conduct
2
7
After 7 votes and with 40 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
49
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#2
Thanks for starting this debate.
Until con shows up I will keep this rather short.
Beginning:
This argument is debating whether the death penalty should be allowed; a controversial issue that has become a huge subject for many different debates. Some may agree with my position and find that the death penalty should be allowed, while others think the death penalty should not be allowed. I will be presenting my opposing viewpoint that the death penalty should be allowed. Whereas con must agree that the death penalty should not be allowed.
Argument A: Higher Violence / Further Crime
Parole or escaping gives the high chance of the murder killing again.
Escaping just gives the murder a high chance of killing once again before captured. According to Jeff Jacoby, "Guzman, a narcotrafficker charged with numerous assassinations and acts of torture, had escaped a maximum-security prison. Perhaps he too will be captured or killed before he strikes again, but the last time he broke out he evaded arrest for 13 years."
Furthermore, violence occurs very often in prison. Having death would deter the amount of violence to not worsen their sentence even more. Jeff Jacoby confirms, "And, of course, they may kill behind bars. Massachusetts murderer Joseph Druce was already serving a life term in a maximum-security prison when he murdered fellow inmate John Geoghan, a former priest imprisoned for sexually molesting a child." While even serving time in prison they are still capable of killing others.
Living murders are immobilize to continue crimes.
Argument B: Justice
I don't think anyone would want their family members murder to be walking around alive in jail while their family member is dead. It disturbs me anyone would have compassion for heinous murders. It seems many people have compassion for these murders rather than the victim. Many fail to realize these are crimes against humanity.
Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Conno has spoken his thoughts regarding the death penalty, “The family of each murder victim suffers unspeakable pain when their loved one is murdered. Those wounds are torn open many times during the following decades, as the investigations, trials, appeals, and pardon and parole board hearings occur. Each stage brings torment and yet a desire for justice for the heinous treatment of their family member. The family feels that the suffering and loss of life of the victim and their own pain are forgotten when the murderer is portrayed in the media as a sympathetic character. The family knows that the execution of the murderer cannot bring their loved one back. They suspect it will not bring them ‘closure’ or ‘finality’ or ‘peace,’ but there is justice and perhaps an end to the ongoing wounding by ‘the murderer and then the system." (COW, 2016)
As well as Kermit Alexander stating, "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."
What reason would we allow these murders to live?
References:
Completely forgot about this debate meaning it wont be anywhere too good.
Looking forward to your response.
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:
Full forfeiture
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:
Con dropped all of pro's arguments
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:
Full forfeit.
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:
FF .
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:
Con conceded.
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:
Complete forfeiture by Con.
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:
I vote Pro on a forfeit.
Jumping joyful jubilations!
Utimately undone unexplainably.
You're alright, glad you're back. I'm willing to re-do this debate with you if wanted.
It’s okay
Very good argument though
I apologise I forgot about this
I see.
Guess it just sparked something.
Perhaps..
Might have been the cause or just an amplifier.
Thank you for letting me know. I somewhat knew the idea but it's good to get a more approachable way to understand forfeits.
I think I understand what you mean. I guess I can start to understand why he doesn't vote for spelling, conduct, and sources. To fully understand, he doesn't like voting for the extras; not argument, because of the debate he "rewarded" you for?
Alright, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Though I don't necessarily agree, I do respect your decision.
Short version, grammar, conduct, and sources are problematic and only win/loss debates are justified in my mind. Long version, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4176-resolved-debateart-com-should-eliminate-the-four-points-point-system
If it’s one forfeit, it’s the loss of a conduct point. Two forfeits are usually a full concession.
I have a habit of forfeiting one round in most of my debates, so he was getting frustrated with me for not taking it seriously enough and he felt bad about rewarding me the victory in my debate with Mall.
I have a slight questions for you regarding your vote.
Based on some comments I have seen on other debates that you have commented on, you have stated something such as, "I regret rating them for spelling and grammar, conduct, better sources.." Why would you vote them as a tie on those sections (besides the argument section)? Im genuinely curious whats your reason behind voting like that, mainly because you have nothing to judge from the person who performed full forfeit.
Also, I am not saying your voting is right or wrong just genuinely curious.
Rating constantly fluctuates.
Only make a debate rated if you’re interested in the topic and you’re very familiar with the subject material.
But the drop in rating can be reversed easily.
"I'd suggest making the debate unrated..."
You know... I regret making all of my debates "rated" right now
I'll simply just bump this being an easy vote (ff).
Barney and Oromagi are currently the best debaters to learn from IMO.
When it comes to commentary criticism and getting feedback, I’d say WeaverofFate is the best to ask questions to.
I appreciate your advice.
Before taking this debate with Chloe I have already researched all of the debates (on DebateArt that circles around death penalty) including your tie with Austin. Though I give my thanks for mentioning it, I might have forgotten about it.
I would prefer "Should the death penalty be abolished," with you as CON and I as PRO, since usually policy debates use the term "abolished."
I'd suggest making the debate unrated if it's your first time debating on the subject, so it doesn't affect your rating.
You can also refer back to this second debate between me and Austin as a reference guide.:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3975-resolved-on-balance-the-death-penalty-in-the-us-does-more-harm-than-good
Possibly. I have recognized your debate with RationalMadMan before I started this debate with Chloe_firm.
Seeing that he conceded to your argument makes me uneasy about possibly debating you.
When you say the same "topic" does this mean it consists of the same title, "Should death penalty to be allowed"?
I appreciate this invite.
Would you be willing to debate me on the same topic? I am strongly against the death penalty.
In the end of Argument A, it is supposed to state: "Living murders are not immobilized to continue crimes." I apologize for the misspelling.
I don't actually have an opinion but I can argue for it both ways
Under certain circumstances, yes. Personally, if I was convicted for life without parole and no hope of my conviction being overturned by new evidence (let's say I'm guilty with video evidence of the crime), then I would rather have the death sentence then spend decades in prison. There are a lot of problems with the US prison system in general, so if life in prison was improved from how it currently stands, then I would likely reconsider.
As it stands, there are fates worse than death that I would prefer to avoid if I have a choice.