CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
14
Yes No
Debate Score:28
Arguments:25
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (11)
 
 No (12)

Debate Creator

BenWalters(1513) pic



Does anyone deserve to die, for any action?

Past, present, or hypothetical future, does anyone deserve death for what they've done?

Yes

Side Score: 14
VS.

No

Side Score: 14

This is my opinion obviously (and I didn't always feel so strongly about it) but I think that child rapist and abusers deserve to die. I heard a story the other day (on the news) about a young stepfather who was arrested for beating and sodomizing his two year old stepson, I heard another story a while ago of a mother who put her infant in a microwave and nuked it till it died. How can anyone think that people like that can or should be allowed to live in society again?

Side: Yes
AREKKUSU(275) Disputed
1 point

People like that are generally raised wrong. What they do can't be fixed. But you can stop future actions from happening with rehabilitation of sorts. Make him a better person, don't stoop to his lever by killing em.

Side: No

If you killed, murdered, tortured and raped, then why on earth do you deserve to live? when you have taken others' right to live?

Side: Yes
AREKKUSU(275) Clarified
1 point

Yes, It's true that they don't deserve to live, but why stoop to their level by killing them.

Side: Yes
2 points

Honestyly, If someone beats and murders a child the only punishment that is fair is death.

Side: Yes
AREKKUSU(275) Disputed
1 point

If someone killed or 'got revenge' for that type of murder would it not just make them 'just as bad' as that person. What should be done is rehabilitate the person and help them become a better person who wouldn't do that again. Yes he should be punished, but killing people is just wrong.

Side: No

Yes (Osama) If you are a terrorist, who killed thousands of people, and planned to do more damage... yes, if that isn't a reason to die, I have no clue what is...

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

if that isn't a reason to die, I have no clue what is

The point isn't to find the worst person and say that they deserve to die. The point is to think about whether or not anyone deserves to die.

Side: No
1 point

In situations where a person is violating someone else's right to their body, I think they forfeit their own. People have to be able to defend themselves, and sometimes that means killing someone, even if the offender didn't intend to kill their victim.

Beyond that, I would answer no. Killing a person doesn't alleviate any of the suffering or damage they caused in the past.

Side: Yes

Beyond that, I would answer no. Killing a person doesn't alleviate any of the suffering or damage they caused in the past.

What about potential for suffering and damage in the future? I know that prosecuting based on future crimes is silly, but at the point someone is already facing life in the system for absolutely horrendous, inhuman crimes, why not?

I would just hate to end up in prison for tax fraud or something and end up with a mass-murdering child rapist for a cellmate. And I would hate to be a prison guard having to handle someone who is beyond redemption, shows no remorse for their crimes, and has nothing to lose because they are already facing life imprisonment. If we dont have that one final say in the matter, the death penalty, what's to stop a killer from killing after he's been convicted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law? We could put them in solitary confinement for life, never let anyone close enough to get hurt, but that seems to me to be more a cruel and unusual punishment than death.

And I think for the families of the victims, knowing that some kind of substantial justice was dealt does bring peace of mind. At least, it's better than dragging the grieving families back to court every year to listen to the criminal appeal to the judge on why he should be let out early for good behavior.

Side: Yes
zombee(1026) Disputed
2 points

What about potential for suffering and damage in the future? I know that prosecuting based on future crimes is silly, but at the point someone is already facing life in the system for absolutely horrendous, inhuman crimes, why not?

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be in a situation where they don't have the opportunity to hurt anyone. Once they're in that situation, then I don't see the point of killing them except to solve the problems of cost and space, which aren't invalid, but are secondary to the principle of not allowing anyone to choose what deserves death as a punishment and what doesn't.

We could put them in solitary confinement for life, never let anyone close enough to get hurt, but that seems to me to be more a cruel and unusual punishment than death.

If a criminal were to be in this situation and decide they would rather be dead, that should be an option.

And I think for the families of the victims, knowing that some kind of substantial justice was dealt does bring peace of mind. At least, it's better than dragging the grieving families back to court every year to listen to the criminal appeal to the judge on why he should be let out early for good behavior.

As much as I can't even imagine how difficult it is to lose a loved on like this, I think it's dangerous to base a justice system on retribution instead of prevention. There are lots of terrible things we could do to criminals that would make their victims feel better.

Side: No
1 point

Those who cannot care for themselves and do not contribute to the rest in some manner should not be allowed to live.

Rapists, child-abusers, and criminals who do not stop what they do should either be killed or put to lifetime forced-labor.

And all those should also be banned from having children (rapists, child-abusers, some other extreme criminals and people whose DNA is too far messed up).

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, to prevent them from doing it again. I mean, letting a serial rapist sit in jail. Using my money to feed, bathe, and clothe him is something I don't want and I don't think anyone wants their hard earned money going towards the same cause.

Side: Yes

No one is ever beyond retribution, and therefore we should never consider them 'eternally damned', and kill them.

And there are many instances where killing is perfectly logical. Killing in itself is not bad, it just is 99% of the time. But, that is the right thing to do, where killing one will save many others, the killed does not deserve death, it's just a necessary action.

Death is eternal, it is forever, and it is permanent. No one is ever bad eternally, forever, or permanently. Death is only deserved where there is no good left, where someone is spent, and this is impossible to know. Therefore, no one deserves to die.

Side: No
pbhj(2) Disputed
1 point

If one chooses to kill another person you've shown by your actions that it's defensible to take another's life. Thus taking one's life under that assumption is not immoral it is only applying the chosen morality of the killer.

So whilst you consider that killing is always immoral I contend that to one who believes it to be moral - enough to perpetrates a murder - it is also moral to use their morality in judging them.

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

If one chooses to kill another person you've shown by your actions that it's defensible to take another's life.

No, I said that killing is sometimes defensible, not always. There is a big difference.

So whilst you consider that killing is always immoral I contend that to one who believes it to be moral - enough to perpetrates a murder - it is also moral to use their morality in judging them.

You need to stop using absolutes. I believe killing is bad. However, it is not always the worst choice, and in those instances, I do not feel it is immoral. If someone believes that killing is moral, and they kill someone, it is most probably immoral: only in certain circumstances is it appropriate.

Side: No
1 point

Killing someone for a crime is hypocritical, you killed someone so we will kill you. And like america says, do as I say but not as I do

Side: No
pbhj(2) Disputed
1 point

Assuming a person is aware that the punishment of society for cold-blooded murder is to die then the person who commits the crime condemns themselves. They chose to die in order to murder. It is then merely a matter of following through on their choice; they killed themselves.

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
2 points

That's not how the world works. If I tell you that if you punch me, I'll kill you, and then you punch me, and I kill you, you have not killed yourself: I have killed you. There is no middle ground simply because it is the actions of a government.

Side: No
1 point

possibly in gods eyes but as a human how does one have the right to say you deserve to die. it is not humanly possible to judge someones right to live. who is some judge to say you deserve to die.

Side: No
1 point

i really believe that there should be a consequence for every bad action so you may learn from it. Depending on how bad the action was the consequence should also be greater, but as far as taking someones life away i don't think that part is right. What human being is that much more superior that they can take the most precious thing to another person, their life. no one but god himself should be able to do that, but then i guess that goes into a whole other argument in whether or not you believe god exist. even still, murder isnt justified by killing off another life though, and also, when we commit sins, we are to repent and be forgiven for those sins to make amends and to start over. god is a forgiving god, of course there will be consequences and possible guilt you will have to live with for the rest of your life, but if the higher power is willing to give another chance then why are we so quick to strip a life away. theres always another way besides murder.

Side: No

Everyone should live. No one should have to lose his/her life regardless of any situation.

Side: No