CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
30
Yes No
Debate Score:59
Arguments:37
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (18)
 
 No (19)

Debate Creator

debateleader(1350) pic



Are we to use death penalty?

Should death penalty be abolished or should it be used more often?Yell  Innocent

Yes

Side Score: 29
VS.

No

Side Score: 30
3 points

1. Its cheaper to kill a guy than to pay for him being in prison.

2. Its unfair and unjust to let a killer off with just life (25 years)

3. Its a powerful deterent to all (except terrorists and suicide bombers)

Side: yes
LoveU(348) Disputed
1 point

We shouldn't kill people because of money.

.

It's not alright aswell to kill a killer and then become a killer.

.

Alright, stopping killing by killing is a inhumane powerful deterent.

Side: No
3 points

The death penalty is the best possible deterrent for crime. Also, it is much cheaper to kill someone then keep them alive for fifty years.

Side: yes
3 points

The death penalty establishes a zero recidivism rate. No criminal that is executed can ever commit a crime again.

Side: yes
1 point

Sure, the death penalty establishes a zero recidivism rate, yet it also applies for those who are innocent, it takes the life of innocent people of committing a crime again. Oh, wait innocent people commit crimes.

Side: No
sirius(367) Disputed
1 point

yet it also applies for those who are innocent

In American court, the chances of executing someone who did not commit the crime are almost non-existent. There are so many safeguards against executing a person that it can almost NEVER happen. In fact, nobody has ever been proved to have been wrongfully executed in the United States. Convicted killers, however, have killed more people after they were released from prison. Robert Biegenwald, for example, was convicted of killing an additional four people after serving just eighteen years in prison. I guess the question comes down to this: would you rather take away any chance that murderers have of killing again or would you allow them to have a chance at getting back into society again?

Side: yes
3 points

We are way too easy on the killers. I mean a needle and their favorite dinner, say good- bye to their family. What kind of non sense is this? The victim was probably shot and shoved into a garbage bag. Or raped and then killed. Much more painful.

Side: yes
1 point

Lol!! "A needle and their favorite dinner" Haha. I know what the hell is that!??

Side: yes
2 points

We (US) should definetly use the Capital Punishment.

I don't want to pay taxes for some asshole to live in a prison.

Side: yes
2 points

Well, if I guess you want to pay more for taxes to kill rather than live in prison, that is your prerogative.

Side: No
Sulith(508) Disputed
1 point

Please prove that it cost more to kill rather than to keep someone alive for life sentence?

Side: yes

Yes, but we must have exceptions.

- Only adults

-painless executions

- those that killed more than 3 people.

- Only murderers

_ etc.

Side: yes
Troy8(2431) Disputed
2 points

Make it as painful as you want! Their murders were probably just as painful!

Side: yes
Cicero(239) Disputed
3 points

It's illegal to make it painful. Eight Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Side: No

If their murders were just as painful . we give them painful executions

Side: yes
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
2 points

"Only adults"

A 15 or 16 year old can willingly take a life

"painless executions"

boring. show them the pain that they caused

"those that killed more than 3 people"

the deaths of 3 people are only worth one person?

"only murderers"

what about terrorists?

Side: yes

I agree with you but what you are saying but it won't convince anyone into bringing capital punishments back and i consider terrorists to be murderers in my country an adult way of imprisonment is used on 16+.. if you look at my previous argument I talk about letting them die the way they killed their victims. And Please excuse me for my mistakes.

Side: No
The Phantom(453) Disputed
1 point

Only those that killed more than 3 people?!?!?! Wtfreak type of sense does this make? What if you saw someone with a knife stabbing people to death, and you had a gun, what would you do? He slits the first persons throat "Ok that was only 1. I can only kill him if he kills three." He stabs the second one in the gut and leaves him in a pool of blood. "That was 2. 1 more to go." Then finally after he throws the third dead in the pile with the other 2 you would pull the trigger. Or would you not shoot at all? Just call the cops and let him continue his carnage until the cops get there?

Side: No

ok the death penalty exactly to the victim death. BTW if someone shoots two the man will still suffer but not death that was what I meant with my old statement its not what you think.

Side: No
1 point

'YES' Here's my arguement, if 'I' kill someone in cold blood I should be killed! You have my approval to kill me

Side: yes
1 point

why use taxpayer money to feed life prisoners when we can just kill them?

Side: yes
1 point

I also believe, in all cases, it should be the victim — not 'society' or 'its' district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment.

This for every crime serious or minuscule.

Side: yes
3 points

no.

but yes only in extreme cases, and only if we can prove the person is guilty without a doubt.

Side: only in extreme cases
2 points

In the court of law, a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and not guilty beyond no doubt. There is a difference, and since without a confession, it is unfair to put someone to death by only a reasonable doubt.

Side: No
2 points

I don't think that killing people as a form of punishment is setting a very good example to the rest of the world - if the public start to see authorities giving people death penalties, everybody will just think that killing is ok and it will be a vicious circle! The best way to get through to people, i think, about what they've done wrong in society is by teaching/encouraging/inspiring them, not killing.

Side: No

Exactly, this is how the government says one thing but does something different. How hypocritical? Murder is wrong, yet justified when the state does it.

Side: No
Sulith(508) Disputed
1 point

"Murder is wrong, yet justified when the state does it."

I quote "The liberal thesis that capital punishment is brutal because it condones murder is fallacious because it takes the isolated act of killing the murderer out of context."~Murray N. Rothbard

Side: yes
Sulith(508) Disputed
1 point

If we killed more people that were guilty of their crime more people would not want to commit the crime because of the circumstances. If they don't care about the circumstances they are insane.

"i think, about what they've done wrong in society is by teaching/encouraging/inspiring them, not killing."

So you want the government to brainwash them?

Are you kidding me? What planet do you live on?!

"Oh, you killed someone but we're not going to punish you at all you just have to go to therapy."

You're joking right?

Side: yes
2 points

Personally, I believe that everybody deserves to be killed for the sins they have committed though humans do not have the right to judge who deserves to die or not, only God does. If you give the power of life to a human not only could it be abused, but it could take away the value of life. As Stalin once said, 'one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic' and I think this holds true. Also, where would we draw the line? Who gets to decide who dies? How will we check for innocence effectively? There will always be mistakes in the system and a mistake with regards to the death penalty is an irreversible mistake.

Side: Not us personally

The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and it should be abolished.

Side: No