Instigator / Con
19
1488
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#460

Death Penalty

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
21
Better sources
8
14
Better legibility
4
7
Better conduct
1
7

After 7 votes and with 30 points ahead, the winner is...

Alec
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
49
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Description

First round is acceptance

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 want to grab the easy vote-point.

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:

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:

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:

Pro still has better reasoning and death penalty is immoral.

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:

Conduct to Pro due to forfeit. Null on rest due to lack of debate. I took the time to write out my thoughts on the debate anyway. Just my two cents. I spent more time on Pro’s due to he being more likely to read this as he did not forfeit.

Summary of Con’s argument: James Gilbert’s first two arguments assert that DP is harmful. It is claimed that those who carry out executions often suffer from PTSD and that innocent people have been killed via the DP. Con also argues against the efficiency of the DP asserting high costs and argues that it does not function as a deterrent or bring closure to family of victims. Finally the argument is made that the DP is immoral.

Thoughts on the argument: While many of these arguments have quotes, there are no sources provided except in the argument that the DP is not a deterrent. Thus, that is the argument I would give the most weight to. I personally think the first two arguments were well stated, they would be solid with sources linked. The final argument was intriguing but does not seem to have been fleshed out or given as much thought as the prior arguments.

Summary of Pro’s argument: Alec observes that to win the debate he only needs to show one crime that would merit the DP to win. I agree with this. He argues there are two cases, murder and treason. Pro argues that “DP should apply for treason to the US in times of war because if you impose a lesser punishment then the DP, treason would become more common and the US would lose more wars.” This argument boils down to claiming that the DP is a deterrent. Con argued that evidence shows that DP is not a deterrent and sourced the argument. If Pro does not contend with that source and therefore, in my mind, this argument misses the mark.

Rebuttal to argument 1: This strikes me as a weak response. It all but concedes that executioners do suffer due to the job. Saying they could choose another job does not at all contradict Con’s argument that the DP is harmful to those who carry out the executions.

Rebuttal 2 from arguments 2 and 3: Again, your response concedes the argument con made. To admit that 4% of people convicted of the DP are innocent admits that the DP is harmful. The argument that technology is improving which will cause this issue to go away is a much better approach. If cited with sources and examples, this could be a strong response. The response to cost is also poor. Your opponent argued that the DP is more expensive than life in prison. To simply suggest that not to be the case is a weak response. If you have a source that demonstrates life in prison to be more expensive than the DP, use it. Given Con did not use a source either, it was sufficient to ask, as you did, to see your opponent’s source.

The whole response that a human life is not infinitely valuable goes nowhere because that was not Con’s argument. No one in this debate argued a human life invaluable. The suggestion that the cost of DP could be offset by making the executions public is interesting, but I do not find it particularly convincing. If you could demonstrate somehow that there is a market for such a thing my mind could be changed.

Rebuttal 3 from argument 4: This was a reasonably good approach. Your thoughts on how to measure deterrence is somewhat convincing. However, the stats you show don’t really help your case. While they do call into question Con’s source, they also don’t provide a good case for deterrence. You than concede as much when you say “The DP has little to no correlation on homicide rates.” That is similar to saying that the DP does not seem to be a deterrent homicides.

Rebuttal 4 to Argument 5: Again I think you are right to ask for citation, but I find your response to the argument lacking. A strong response could have been to give an account or show a stat that victims loved ones do find closure from execution.

Rebuttal 5 to Argument 6: Good response. Both the kritik of two wrongs don’t make a right, and that not all killings are the same.

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:

Full forfeit