Instigator / Pro
21Pilots's avatar
21Pilots
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6117

Should the death penalty be abolished?

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Mall's avatar
Mall
1389
rating
424
debates
45.05%
won
Description

Death penalty, a very serious and controversial punishment, one that forever ends the life of a human being.
This argument will be based around both the criminals perceptive and the victim/society’s perspective
Pro- agrees that the death penalty should be abolished for all countrys
Con- disagrees that the death penalty should be abolished for all countrys
Use any facts, statistics to your advantage.

Round 1
21Pilots's avatar
21Pilots
Pro
#1
Sorry for such a late delay I truly apologise, I was kept busy with all the catching up work to do.
That said let’s start the debate: 
Ok, so basically, the death penalty should be abolished because it’s risky, unfair, and doesn’t even stop crime. Since 1973, over 200 people in the U.S. have been exonerated after being wrongfully sentenced to death (Death Penalty Information Center). That means innocent lives were almost lost due to mistakes in the system. On top of that, a 2014 study found that at least 4% of people on death row are likely innocent (Innocence Project). That’s not just a small error—it’s a serious failure.

And let’s be honest—it doesn’t even work as a crime deterrent. Amnesty International confirms there’s no solid evidence the death penalty stops crime better than life in prison. Plus, it’s unfairly applied: in 2024, 54% of those sentenced to death were people of color, and most of the victims in those cases were white (deathpenalty.org). The system clearly isn’t neutral.

So yeah, the death penalty isn’t justice—it’s outdated, dangerous, and unjust. It’s time to end it.

Mall's avatar
Mall
Con
#2
You saw the arguments, you could have started out the gate trying to refute them.

So I'm just going to repost the points.

Due to the limitation of rounds, if you desire to run a part 2 to the topic, I'll set it up.

I'm going to start with this point as this is the bottom line where conflict comes into play and how I prove that there should be death penalties or obvious fatal executions.

Not even solely for crimes committed but for the safety of society. Now the truth is, the death penalty is not justice for the victims or the slain or fallen . The slain is gone. Nothing further can be justified for them.

But we can still orchestrate justice for those that it can protect and serve which are the living. This gives the basis for having prisons, right. The prisons are there to contain and restrain individuals from doing any further harm or damage to individuals undue it ok.

Now the question is, if the prison system fails and there is an escape, some type of an appeal or re-trial, whatever the factors are that enable the perpetrators to be free and the heinous crimes are committed again, what can you do if you have nothing to stop the perpetrator?

What do you do in perhaps a hostage situation when your choices are to allow the assailant to slaughter a victim or execute the assailant?

So if you're in favor of prison systems to stop individuals from committing crimes, cohesively and consistently to be without conflict you have to permit executions.

That's really the reality right there which is the truth which is the evidence.

I will say that the death penalty could be reevaluated, recalculated as to the parameters I've specified that could make a difference in expenses. However this would mean that the death penalty, fatal executions are still of reality. 

Now we ought to keep in mind of probabilities such as more and more repetitive successful prison breaks and any other factors legally or illegally, technicalities that prevent people from rightfully being imprisoned or being contained therein or people that are perhaps untouchable, legally immune that perpetuate crimes of harming, the serial undue slaying of others.

So basically if the recidivism problem can only be resolved by individual case with the execution of the individual, you have to allow for a capacity of the death penalty or death row in that measure for such individuals.

 A person that is not innocent and cannot be stopped unless the person is physically stopped, obviously fits the penalty, reaps the consequence of being ceased. Particularly, mortally stopped. The person has drew these ramifications upon him or her.

I don't consistently draw from films but I thought of this from the film "Lean on me". The main character's decision was to execute a ramification that is characterized as a permanent cutting off from education from the institution they've proven to be beyond redemption to receive.

So all in all, the opposing side has to reconsider that in order to push to still have prison systems in existence, it still requires a capacity for fatal execution.

I should have been more thoughtful for the opposing side. Giving this individual more days of time to consider points and making a response. Just 24 hours may enable more hasty poorly considered retorts. But again, I'm up for a part 2.

If the opposing side would like a live debate on discord, send me a message. I have recorded debates posted on this YouTube channel which you can view by going to website address:

There have been debates and topics posted recently from religion to slavery and some politics. Let me know if you have questions on those and or wish to open them up here online, explore further.


Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet