frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should the death penalty be abolished?

Debate Information

Position: For
I say it should. Can anyone really commit a crime so great that it costs them their life? I think not. Please be civil and respectful in the debate.



Debra AI Prediction

Tie
Predicted
50%
Likely
50%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

0% (0 Points)


Against:

0% (0 Points)



Votes: 0


Debate Type: Traditional Debate



Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: RS_master

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 7 Days


Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting



Post Argument Now Debate Details +



    Arguments


  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If someone kills 3 people everyone has the right to kill him. Murdering or stabbing is unacceptable. It does not follow rules. I believe make the punishments stricter because that scares thieves or murderers and stabbers. If the punishments are less strict they could repeat the same crime after the punishment in order.
    Laws. Kindness. Karma. These are important things that every human should live with. If you do bad you will get bad. Laws help the world keep in order. Kindness, you have to be kind. The way to prevent people from not doing these is making the punishment even stricter. Which means death penalty after murdering once or twice.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    RS_master said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If someone kills 3 people everyone has the right to kill him. 
    How is this the case? Surely people should refrain from taking matters into their own hands, and instead leave it to the law to decide? Also, how is this a right?
    RS_master said:
    I believe make the punishments stricter because that scares thieves or murderers and stabbers. If the punishments are less strict they could repeat the same crime after the punishment in order.
    Well actually, the death penalty does not make people less likely to commit murder. It does not, as you say, scare thieves or murderers. This is scientifically proven: here. https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/
    RS_master said:
    Laws. Kindness. Karma. These are important things that every human should live with.
    I'm all about second chances, what if someone killed someone because they were under the influence of drugs, or because they were forced to do so by another person but was scared to speak out? I say, give people a second chance, and they will use it wisely.
    RS_master said:
    The way to prevent people from not doing these is making the punishment even stricter. Which means death penalty after murdering once or twice.
    @RS_master
    As I already said, the death penalty does not deter murderers. Here, again, is the scientific evidence. https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/

    Now, onto my own points. We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. This spreads the wrong message. Two wrongs never, ever make a right. This is childhood wisdom. This is elementary.

    Secondly, even if it does deter people from committing murder (which it does not), why should someone have to pay for the future crimes of others? You may as well just kill innocent people if this is your intention.

    Finally, the death penalty is expensive. Prisoners must be kept on death roll for decades as they wait to be killed. The average time on death roll is 20 years and 3 months, as objections must be sorted out. New Jersey spent $253 million dollars on death row facilities in 25 years, and had no executions.

    PlaffelvohfenRS_master
  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If someone kills 3 people everyone has the right to kill him. 
    How is this the case? Surely people should refrain from taking matters into their own hands, and instead leave it to the law to decide? Also, how is this a right?
    RS_master said:
    I believe make the punishments stricter because that scares thieves or murderers and stabbers. If the punishments are less strict they could repeat the same crime after the punishment in order.
    Well actually, the death penalty does not make people less likely to commit murder. It does not, as you say, scare thieves or murderers. This is scientifically proven: here. https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/
    RS_master said:
    Laws. Kindness. Karma. These are important things that every human should live with.
    I'm all about second chances, what if someone killed someone because they were under the influence of drugs, or because they were forced to do so by another person but was scared to speak out? I say, give people a second chance, and they will use it wisely.
    RS_master said:
    The way to prevent people from not doing these is making the punishment even stricter. Which means death penalty after murdering once or twice.
    @RS_master
    As I already said, the death penalty does not deter murderers. Here, again, is the scientific evidence. https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/

    Now, onto my own points. We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. This spreads the wrong message. Two wrongs never, ever make a right. This is childhood wisdom. This is elementary.

    Secondly, even if it does deter people from committing murder (which it does not), why should someone have to pay for the future crimes of others? You may as well just kill innocent people if this is your intention.

    Finally, the death penalty is expensive. Prisoners must be kept on death roll for decades as they wait to be killed. The average time on death roll is 20 years and 3 months, as objections must be sorted out. New Jersey spent $253 million dollars on death row facilities in 25 years, and had no executions.

    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; If you give a second chance someone could get away by killing one person purposefully. Policemen have a right to punish crime-committers. If after a kill you die the amount of stabbers would be lower. In the London bridge 2019 stabbing, that murderer killed someone in 2012. In 2019 he was let out and started stabbing again and the policemen had to shoot him didn`t they?
    Why give the second chance to kill somebody. Lets use maths here for the two wrongs point. Lets say you are x You kill somebody so you become x-y. To make yourself back to x(normal) you have to add y. No opposite gender people would think you are not a murderer so you have to die to become equal.
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Policemen have a right to punish crime-committers.
    You were not talking about policemen. Quoting your earlier post:
    RS_master said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If someone kills 3 people everyone has the right to kill him. 
    You said that everyone has the right to kill a murderer. You did not specifically reference policemen. Do you not admit that one of your arguments was invalid?
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 In the London bridge 2019 stabbing, that murderer killed someone in 2012. In 2019 he was let out and started stabbing again and the policemen had to shoot him didn`t they?
    Those cases are quite rare, and normally people behave better if given a second chance. In fact, states in the US that have abolished the death penalty have much lower murder rates than the states that still have the death penalty.
    RS_master said:
    Let's use maths here for the two wrongs point. Lets say you are x You kill somebody so you become x-y. To make yourself back to x(normal) you have to add y. No opposite gender people would think you are not a murderer so you have to die to become equal.
    This is illogical. If you kill someone, the person you killed becomes 0. You have not changed, you are still the same person, so you are still x. Then, if you get the death penalty, you too become 0. Also, what was that about opposite gender people? I'm afraid I don't understand.

    Now, moving on to my own points. If there is a death penalty, sooner or later innocent people will end up getting killed. This is not retributive killing, this is state murder.

    Another point is that even the guilty have a right to live. It doesn't matter whether the guilty deserve to die, it's about if other humans really have a right to kill them. They don't, as a quick glance at the UN Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms shows. 

    My final point is that the death penalty demonstrates the absolute power of the government. The government should not be so powerful that they can kill someone. The death penalty being abolished would be a much-needed limit on government power.
  • Round 3 | Position: Against
    RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I quickly want to point out punishing and killing are different and robbery and killing are different. In the maths bit:
    You kill someone so you subtract y from him. Because you did that to him y gets subtracted from you because it gives a negative effect if you kill someone. No one will like you because you are a murderer so you have to die to go back to the x who did not kill anyone.
    If you do your illogical 2 chance thing. Someone kills 2 people and goes to x-2y and if they die it will still be x-y so they absolutely have to die even if they are still on a negative score. quoting myself:"Using your second idea lets go back to the December of 2019 that same stabber/murderer stabbed someone in 2012. He was given a second chance after being arrested and in that chance he killed one or two more people so the police had to shoot him down." This is the mindset of a murderer. With the death penalty we are getting rid of murderers and murderers should leave this planet. It is not that easy but we do not want evil in this planet. The best way to get rid of them is to do the death penalty.
    "Now, moving on to my own points. If there is a death penalty, sooner or later innocent people will end up getting killed. This is not retributive killing, this is state murder."

    That is your point. Murderers will be killed. If innocent people do not murder they will not be killed. That point is illogical and it does not work because you have to kill to get the death penalty. 

    "Another point is that even the guilty have a right to live. It doesn't matter whether the guilty deserve to die, it's about if other humans really have a right to kill them. They don't, as a quick glance at the UN Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms shows. "

    The job of a policeman is to punish crime-committers. 

    Law, kindness and karma. Aren`t these words important? They keep the world in place. Everything would become chaotic if they were not there. To link these words: kindness. If you are not kind then karma. If you are bad you get bad. The law decides what is bad and what is not. In karma if you kill you get killed.
  • Round 3 | Position: For
    xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I quickly want to point out punishing and killing are different and robbery and killing are different. In the maths bit:
    You kill someone so you subtract y from him. Because you did that to him y gets subtracted from you because it gives a negative effect if you kill someone. No one will like you because you are a murderer so you have to die to go back to the x who did not kill anyone.
    Your maths debating makes no sense. You are using algebraic values to represent situations. It just isn't that simple. You also said:
    "no one will like you because you are a murderer".
    Wrong again. Adolf Hitler, who commanded the murder of thousands of Jews, was hugely popular. His followers knew this was happening. Just being a murderer does not make people cease to like you.
    RS_master said:
    "Now, moving on to my own points. If there is a death penalty, sooner or later innocent people will end up getting killed. This is not retributive killing, this is state murder."

    That is your point. Murderers will be killed. If innocent people do not murder they will not be killed. That point is illogical and it does not work because you have to kill to get the death penalty. 

    I am saying that innocent people will end up getting killed because there will be an error in the system. 150 people have been wrongly executed in the US. Is this fair? I think not.
    RS_master said:
    "Another point is that even the guilty have a right to live. It doesn't matter whether the guilty deserve to die, it's about if other humans really have a right to kill them. They don't, as a quick glance at the UN Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms shows. "

    The job of a policeman is to punish crime-committers. 
    Perhaps so, but to kill people is not a fair punishment, as I have said many times before.
    RS_master said:

    Law, kindness and karma. Aren't these words important? 
    Karma is a Buddhist belief, it is not a fundamental. Not everyone believes in Buddhism or the concepts that it uses. Your point is illogical as only about 14% of people believe in karma.
    RS_master said:
     If you are not kind then karma. If you are bad you get bad. The law decides what is bad and what is not. In karma if you kill you get killed.
    As I said, only 14% of people believe in karma. If you believe in karma, great. But, our law enforcement system does not rely on karma. Yes, in karma, if you kill you get killed. But, our law system does not work like that. Outside of karma, this is not the case in most countries.

    To summarise my points:
    • We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.
    • Two wrongs do not make a right, whatever maths you use to try to prove the opposite.
    • The death penalty does not stop people from killing. In fact, states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than the ones which do not.
    • Innocent people may end up getting killed.
    • The government should not have unlimited power.
    • Even the guilty have the right to live.
    With these points in mind, perhaps you can see why the death penalty is unfair and should be abolished.
    Thank you.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch