Instigator / Pro

You choose the topic


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
Pick the topic.
let us go with "death penalties are morally right"
Round 2
Topic: "death penalties are morally right"

This topic is very hard to defend because it does not specify which type of death penalty I must defend, so by logic I must defend all of them, even the very painful ones.

So by logic I cannot count on reduction in pain as a basis.

But I can use the system of justice - lex talionis.

It is a principle which says that punishment for the crime should be proportional to the crime in effects.

So equal amount of pain or damage is to be caused to the criminal as punishment.

Since overwhelming majority of those condemned to death penalty have done things which are very horrible and beyond repair, it would be absurd to say they should enjoy peace while being in prison and living without having to work, which some of them will do.

It would be also absurd to suggest that they should be enabled to commit more crimes in prison, which some of them will do.

Since death penalty essentially reduces their life more than any other punishment, it denies them of joy and life and causes them pain, closely to what they caused to their victims.

The prison punishment does not guarantee same, nor does punishment of torture, as prison punishment does not guarantee pain and doesnt cause death, where torture does not cause death, and torture for years is not equal to what they usually cause to their victims nor is it same time of torture.

Why should one uphold lex talionis?

It does not do light punishments and cause victim to be more harmed than criminal.

It does not do draconian punishments and cause that criminal is harmed more than the harm he has done.

It would be absurd to say that person should pay for crime more than the damage caused by crime, or less than the harm caused by crime.

The first means that punishment exceeds crime, therefore making person pay for more than he has done.

The second mean that person pays for less than he has done.

Both principles lead into slippery slope, where punishments are either too brutal, creating unjust society, or too light, again creating unjust society.

Since justice is an important value in a system which is supposed to give justice, it follows that it is morally good as well, since justice is an important moral value.

Now i will start of by thanking my opponent for accepting this topic. 
The first point i would like to put in your perspective is that killing someone is never morally justified here is why --

If i were to find a criminal who has commited heinous crimes, i can come to a very quick conclusion that he commited those for a reason . 
We all are well aware of the fact that no one is born as a criminal and every human has some form of morality and ideals. Usually we humans leave this morality and commit crimes and here i would like to put a very interesting thing into perspective and that is such morality is diminished not entire vanquished and by killing someone as a punishment is going to kill such morality and will remove the opportunity for us to actually bring back such morality. 

Now comes the case of literal psychopaths, they do not commit crimes for a reason, they commit crimes as they want to commit crimes ( it would probably satisfy their inner instincts). If we look deeply in it we will find a very interesting dilemma here and that is these psychopaths aren't mentally well. Killing them becomes unjust because these 'people' are mentally ill are not capable of actually seeing the idea of morality and killing them would mean that we are exterminating those whom we find 'Incapable and unsafe' to live in this society, and by that logic i can place the argument that all crippled and mentally ill people should be killed because they fall in the same category. 
My opponent talks about letting someone live in peace in prison after committing heinous crimes, i would put a very simple argument and that is that no man can stay inside the prison in peace. Prison is an extremely unpleasant place, a place where life is considered absolutely miserable. With the help of prison we can teach the criminals the importance of their freedom and inspire them to not commit such crimes. 

Even after the prison many prisoners tell how their life becomes miserable because of the lack of employment and social discrimination. It is a type of place that is unpleasant when you stay their and unpleasant after you get out of their. 
Such a punishment can be intensified by simply lowering the standard of living even more. (Even though the standard of living in prison is already very low). 
But by killing someone we absolutely free them of their sins in a simple and a quick manner, they never get to experience the punishment and will never feel the damage that they cause at the first place. 
Then their comes the idea of torture and that is a fate worse then death and so it is not the ideal method of it as well. 
Their are painful method of deaths as well which are absolutely barbaric and lethal. 
Prison and other punishment such as fines, putting pain on criminals (not torture) (such as whips on back), exiling etc are better and less barbaric methods of punishment. 
These punishment are far better as they let the prisoner experience the rebuttal of their actions and so death penalty is never the proper method of punishment. 
Round 3
Prison is an extremely unpleasant place, a place where life is considered absolutely miserable
So death penalty is prefered to life in prison then.

And very serious crimes can only be punished with long prison time or death penalty.

Countries which have punishment of death penalty use it for crimes they consider very serious.

Without death penalty, the only alternative is long prison time.

I will make my case simple.

Only death penalty meets "eye for eye" type of justice.

My opponent must ultimately defend a different position, that punishment shouldnt be eye for eye, which means injustice since criminal is harmed more than the harm he caused.
Countries that have a punishment of death penalty use it for crimes they consider very serious.
an elementary and sound idea
Only the death penalty meets the "eye for eye" type of justice.
here my opponent fumbles up, I will give a condition to support my argument, let us assume a man named John, John turns psychopathic and kills 10 people and the government hangs him. now I would like to ask a straightforward question how is the miserable and disgusting guy of John equal to the 10 innocent people he killed? this is not an eye for an eye justice. this death penalty is injustice and the criminal must be punished more severely to provide justice if you are looking for "an eye for an eye" type of justice.
the death penalty is ultimately an oversimplification of punishment, other punishments such as exile, imprisonment are far more flexible and interchangeable, you can modify them to make sure you maintain justice.

the death penalty is very rigid and is most likely to deliver injustice. henceforth it is not morally right.
Round 4
John turns psychopathic and kills 10 people and the government hangs him.
My opponent assumes that in this example, life in prison is closer to "eye for eye" than death penalty, but it isnt.

First, person in prison can commit more crimes and kill more people.

Second, life in prison is much longer in duration than time it took to kill 10 people.

So if person experiences lots of pain in prison for entire life, that is more pain than 10 people experienced for a few moments.

Third, death penalty meets "eye for eye" better because there are innocent people in prison.

It would be very wrong to inflict life time of pain on an innocent, more wrong than it would be to inflict a death penalty upon an innocent.

"Studies estimate that between 4-6% of people incarcerated in US prisons are actually innocent."

But thats for USA.

In less developed countries, trials arent done as good, which likely means more innocent people in prison.
Round 5