Question: Should the death penalty be allowed?

Title: Death penalty should be allowed. Content: I accept

Title: death penalty Content: should the death penalty be allowed?

Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Extend arguments.

Title: The Death Penalty Should be Illegal Content: I accept.

Title: The Death Penalty should be legal Content: I accept.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the "Social Revenge System". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.

Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Hi Sara, I wish to debate this.May the best debator win :D

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: The death penalty is not "wrong". It is just.

Title: should death penitently stay Content: The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.

Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Used Content: Accepted.

Title: The death penalty should be legalized Content: lol

Title: should the death penalty be abolished Content: I accept

Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: I believe the death penalty is not the best way to solve all crimes but in some cases like mass murdering or kidnapping or something else. I do think that killing someone is not the first solution but if they get to live they should at least have some harsher punishments besides just jail because its not that bad. But the main reason i think the death penalty should be allowed is because if someone decided to do something as evil as a mass murdering they shouldn't just go to jail for a life time and get it over with it because its just not fair the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right you need to learn from your mistakes and it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty or harsher and stricter jails. People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done. It also gives closure to the victims families who have suffered so deeply because of your cruel actions, and also i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims. Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us. Overall i do agree with the death penalty but if there we some law that were to be passed that made the jails a bit more stricter and made them suffer more them i would also agree with that as well . Some people may call that mean or getting eye to eye which is also not the best way to solve things and i agree and here your point but its also not fair haven't you ever lost a loved one and if so just imagine the reason they died is because guy was just feeling angry and decided to kill someone that night and its also not only that is just that someone who had the mentality to do something like that clearly needs to get their facts straight and on the right track.

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.

Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: I accept the challenge for the debate. Good luck!

Title: Death Penalty Content: accept

Title: There should not be a Death Penalty. Content: Please vote for me.

Title: Death Penalty should be abolished Content: .

Title: There should not be a Death Penalty. Content: Extend my arguments.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: People who are threats to the innocent should be stopped but putting them into prison doesn't really solve what they did to the innocent not only that but it cost, 760,000 a year . They shouldn't be allowed to live if they killed someone. They should get what they deserve. It's just like the golden rule . " treat others the way you want to be treated". If you kill someone, then you should get punished for your actions.

Title: The Death Penalty should be legal Content: Extend.

Title: Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes. Content: In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.

Title: Death Penalty Content: .

Title: The Death Penalty Content: Let us begin

Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept

Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept

Title: The Death Penalty should be banned in the U.S Content: I will be arguing for the ban of the death penalty. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) That you must clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time,- Faust

Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Extend arguments. I hope that Pro returns to the site, and that my harsh critisisms did not deter her from the debate.

Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: I'm not sure why Pro challenged me specifically to this debate, especially given that my profile says I am for the death penalty, but since it was directed towards me I felt obligated to accept. I thank my opponent for this debate, and am honored to be debating "the-great-debater". Since my opponent A) Challenged me and B) Is Pro I feel he should have burden of proof. I will not argue this round so as to let him present his case first. This should be a short and sweet debate.

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.

Title: Should death penaltys be brought back Content: What do you think?

Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. This is a debate, and debates entail an exchange, not talking past each other and ignoring the other side.Now, on to the mesh of one sentence arguments...the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. 1) This is irrelevant. If jails should be harder, it only follows that the jails should change, not that the death penalty should be allowed. 2) Why are jails not hard enough? Please provide support. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right1) I developed a lengthy argument last round which addressed the moral responsibility of individuals and the unjust nature of the death penalty. I invite Pro to read it.2) Pro only appeals to emotion. She doesn't make an argument. you need to learn from your mistakesUnfortunately, you'll find that when you try to use capital punishment to educate someone, their capacity to remember what they learned is greatly impared. it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty Deterence is a contentious issue, so Pro cannot make an argument for it without providing outside research. In 2008, a survey was conducted on members of the prestigious Fellow in the American Society of Criminology. 88.2% of the experts do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. 74.7% say that research refutes the claim that death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring states without the death-penalty. In fact, death-penalty states had 42% higher homicide rates than non-death penalty states in 2007. [1] Also, in a 1995 national survey, two-thirds of nearly 400 police chiefs and county sheriffs responded that they did not believe the death penalty significantly lowered the number of murders [1]. “Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment”[1] A study was conducted a few years ago by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies [2]. The study covered over three decades of research and concluded that there were three fundamental flaws in current studies on deterrence: 1. “The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.” The conclusion of the study was that research is not informative about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates and, therefore, should not be used to inform policy judgements. There have been a vast amount of studies regarding capital punishment and deterrence such as the 10 mentioned between 2004 and 2012 here [3]. The only thing we can gather from all these studies is that the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates can’t be established, as the mentioned article concludes. There are, however, reasons why the death penalty might have very little deterrence or no deterrence at all. The first reason is the consensus of experts against deterrence. The second is presented below. For the death penalty to deter, criminals need to actively weigh the thought of execution to their potential crime. This is problematic; one, because executions happen so little in America and are applied so arbitrary that no one would believe they had much chance of receiving the death penalty. Also, murders are largely committed in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or because they are mentally ill--little thought is given to the possible consequences. Those murderers in the minority, who plan the crime in advance, are counting on not being caught; they expect to avoid punishment altogether.[4]or harsher and stricter jails This debate has nothing to do with the debate.People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done Correction: Live and eat and spend the rest of your life in prison. No one contends that murderers should recieve punishment. Pro has simply given no rational argument for why it warrants the death penalty. I've already given many reasons why the death penalt is unjust. Pro can't address any of my arguments nor even give one of her own.i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims No, I haven't.Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. The only way to stop recidivism is to execute every murderer, which no person wants, or life without parole, which is an alternative to the death penalty.Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe.Seriously... The answer to our prison population IS NOT TO JUST START KILLING PEOPLE. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us.Pro obviously did not even attempt to read my case.Sources: [1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...;

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: Yes people don't believe it but you have to have faith but that's besides the point. I My next claim | this is what you would say. \/ There are more pros to the death penalty than cons. Yes people can get wrongly executed One of the arguments of opponents of death penalty is the inevitability of sending innocent people who are wrongly accused to death row and eventually execution. In relation to free will, some criminals are suffering from mental illness or are having clouded judgment at the time of the crime.Opponents contend that there are instances where people commit pre-meditated crimes and are aware of what they are doing. However, it does not discount the fact that crimes can also be committed out of passion or extreme anger triggered by a situation which makes an offender act on impulse. There are also those who are suffering from mental illnesses and are not taking medication which can lead to them committing offenses they have no control of. It is an added cost to the government and taxpayers" money, With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the government spends more taxpayers" money in handling cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired and the overall process. They contend that there are two trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and another for the sentencing, not including the number of appeals that will be submitted while keeping the convicted prisoner inside maximum security. Death penalty is a form of revenge, While proponents say that imposing capital punishment is a form of retribution, that is, to punish who has committed a crime, opponents argue that it is revenge. For the latter, to avenge a crime committed to another individual may be understandable but killing someone for murdering another person is also unconstitutional. It is crime in itself that is only masked by the term capital punishment and in truth, only continues the series of violence. It is a platform that is anti-poor and discriminatoryand Those who are death row inmates and sentenced to death are mostly based on racial discrimination as evidenced by a high percentage of inmates being African-American and members of the minority. Moreover, accused individuals who are poor are mostly the ones who get the death penalty for the reason that they lack the finances to seek for great and powerful defense attorneys. They don"t have the money to pay for good defense. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is my info -Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. -It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies and Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. - The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase.As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. -It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. -Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. All of this shows that it is constitutional, and it would make the victim get peace or have freedom. What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Content: i agree

Title: The Death Penalty Content: I accept

Title: Should the death penalty be abolished Content: I accept.

Title: Death Penalty Content: The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.

Title: The United States should have a death penalty. Content: I accept

Title: Death penalty Content: t

Title: The Death Penalty Content: win

Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: unless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept!

Title: The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment. Content: I enjoy a good debate on an important issue so thank you for offering me that opportunity. However, it seems to me that this debate is just going to keep going in circles. You say that if we execute murderers we are no better than they are, but I would once again argue that the opposite is true. I believe that the only morally right and responsible thing to do is to ensure that these criminals are never allowed the opportunity of committing these brutal acts again. If we simply lock them away for the rest of their life in a state that does not allow for capital punishment then what is to keep these individuals from murdering while in jail? As I said before, they have nothing to lose in so doing. In addition to that you can never rule out the possibility of their escaping, and in our current justice system it is far from uncommon to see these people back on the streets after a few years. I don't think I can stress this point enough. If we allow them to live we are in fact valuing their lives above the lives of the countless innocent. We can never fully vouch for their safety while these people are allowed something they so reprehensibly denied others. I don't think you fully understood what I was trying to convey in our last round. I was referring to capital punishment and not punishment in general. I assure you I was not trying to insult your intelligence by assuming such a thing. It just seemed to me that the structure of your opening argument seemed to indicate that you felt that execution equaled no more than an act of vengeance. So if I offended you I apologize sincerely. I disagree that punishment is about reform. Reform can be a happy outcome of punishment, but it is not the purpose of punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed for wrongdoing. In the case of murder there can simply be no expectation of or allowance made for reform. Unlike minor crimes, murder is a crime that can never be undone or recovered from, and it is certainly one we are morally bound to never let the same individual perpetrate again. The criminal can simply never be trusted in society again, and can never be trusted around inmates. I'm afraid that in order to attempt to prove their point deathpenaltyinfo.org used very unrealistic and misleading averages. Some states are more prone to crime than others and that goes for both pro and anti-capital punishment states. However, since there are so many fewer states against capital punishment than there are for, the average can only be misleading at best. For a state-by-state look at crime statistics I recommend going to http://www.disastercenter.com... U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2006 I understand that the certainty level for trials can not always be 100%, but DNA testing is proven to be at least 99% accurate and the rigorous court proceedings usually eliminates any reasonable doubt from the case and more often than not proves undeniable guilt. If it is not proven adequately there is no possibility that 12 people will agree on one decision. That is why we have the court system set up the way we do. To provide as much certainty as is humanly possible and protect the innocent. I'm all for better technology, but to use your logic a case could never be officially closed and the process would never end. I understood the statistics you used. In fact, they usually go much higher than that, but we are debating the moral issue and not the monetary. However, to briefly cover that topic, court cases would not cost nearly as much if we would limit the appeals process to within reasonable bounds. You are more likely to die of old age than execution on death row.

Title: The Death Penalty should be abolished Content: ! !

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal. Content: First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. However, I did notice that my opponent lives in one of the states that allows it, Texas, and I am from New Jersey which does not. So, I recognize that possibly being a reason for our opposing views, but am still respectful of my opponent's views as well. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked "suspicious" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he "apparently" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve "the system", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? More importantly, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: This is my first debate so I am not as good as others but I must state that prison is a much better way of discipline than killing. You are taken away from your family, have to follow a strict regime and are in with a bunch of strangers. I am OK with that as at least you have a longer life and I think life is the most important thing in the world. Without life, you can't enjoy even the simplest of things. I agree that something must be take away from criminals, but life is too important to take away from anyone.

Title: Death penalty Content: Do you think the death penalty should be legal even now

Title: Debater's Choice Content: The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.

Title: Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty) Content: Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: And why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people!

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Content: Accepted.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: https://www.biblebelievers.com... http://time.com... Yes I would would want to get the death penalty because I would deserve it and I wouldn't live with myself These are reasons that the death penalty should be allowed 1).The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. Killers are to be killed, and God's will has not been fulfilled until our governing bodies have executed wrath upon those who have killed others. 2).God has actually promised to bless us if we follow His plan of using the death penalty? Notice Deuteronomy 19:11-13. The death Penalty also brings closure for the people who got seriously injured or loved ones who got killed, their families will get closure. "Many in the survivor community feel like the death penalty offers a sense of justice being done. And that's what his sentence felt like to me. I hope it also brings closure to those who lost loved ones that day. There are, of course, many in the survivor community who feel that he should spend his life in prison and sit in a cell and think about what he did. I don't speak for everybody". Anyways, it also stops from the person from committing another murder/crime. And they deserve what they get and it pleases the Lord. Thanks for debating me:)

Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: I note that you have failed to establish that the death penalty is "wrong". I assume you are dropping that claim, which means you lose the debate. And no, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish capital criminals. And no, killing is not a crime;., murder is a crime, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Surely, you do not believe killing animals for food is a "crime"? Nor do you believe that killing man to stop him from raping your wife would be a "crime". It is certainly not in the U.S. Capital punishment is just because God says so. And I am not trying to stop killing. I am trying to punish capital criminals. I have no problem with killing, especially cows and chickens. You will have to do better than that.

Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I accept.

Title: The death penalty should be illegal Content: Extending...

Title: The Death Penalty Content: I accept.

Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: Say, you were an innocent young teen at a party. Someone put 1.5 pounds of liquid marijuana in a plate of food. Baked it inside so there was no scent nor visibility of the drug. You were hungry so you ate quite of few bites. You stay for a while and the party gets crashed by police officers. You have to take a drug test and are arrested for illegally taking drugs. Fair? I think not. The person whom planted the oil or drug into the food is responsible for the crime. The death penalty is meant for inhumane crimes. Not idiotic, unfairness.

Title: Death Penalty Content: post

Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.

Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: I appreciate my opponent's response, and will close by saying that I hope all is well with him!

Title: Death Penalty Content: Meh

Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: in americaca we belive to live however unless it hurts others killing over simple drug use is wrong

Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: I thank my opponent for his refutes and for him ceasing to call people "anti-death penalty zealots". Now, as per the rules of this debate, my opponent and myself are not allowed to make any new arguments or any new refutes. So, my contentions will not be addressed by my opponent (unless it is a recap, of course) in round five, unless he is willing to break the rules. So, I will recap everything. Contention 1: Innocent executions. I pointed out how people have probably been executed in the past. While I cannot prove this, the probability is high, considering the amount of cases that were closed due to lack of funding and resources. Now, it seems that this fails when compared to alternatives. Contention 2: Cost. I showed how the cost is far too high for what it tries to archive - which is justice. I showed how other methods meet justice, too, but with a much lower cost. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my refutation. I extend the contention. Contention 3: Deterrent failure. I showed how punishments are, at least in part, for deterring the person from committing the crime again. Killing the person doesn't archive this. Yes, it stops them from killing again, but that's because they're dead, not deterred. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my refutation. I extend the contention. Contention 4: the 8th Amendment. I consented this contention to my opponent. Contention 5: Racial equality (or lack thereof). I showed how people who are not white have a higher chance of being executed for no discernible reason in the USA. While I admitted that this was not unique to capital punishment, the death penalty should not be acceptable as a punishment for it is racially bias, but at the same time, deals in absolutes. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my contention. I extend the contention. Contention 6: The right to live. I demonstrated simple logic in that: P1:The right to live is human right. P2: The death penalty kills people. C: Therefore, the death penalty violates human rights. While I offered my opponent to show how either P1 or P2 are incorrect, he has not addressed this. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my contention. I extend the contention. Now, my opponent stated that: "I will knock down the last two contentions, race and "right to life,"... in Round 5." I would remind my opponent that he is not allowed to address these contentions, as it would count as a new refute and violate the rules of the debate. Now, I will make my closing statements: I have shown how the death penalty fails at many things over alternatives, but why should this warrant for it to be illegal? To answer this, I will give examples: (DP = death penalty, LiP = life in prison) Does the DP bring justice? Yes. Does LiP bring justice? Yes. Can the DP kill innocent people? Yes. Can LiP kill innocent people? No. - Better Does the DP cost more than LiP? Yes. Does LiP cost more over the DP? No. - Better Does the DP work as a deterrent? No. Does LiP work as a deterrent? Yes. - Better. Is the DP racially bias? Yes. Is LiP racially bias? Yes. Better. (Why? Because since the death penalty deals as an irreversible*, bias system, it is worse than a reversible, bias system.) Does the DP violate the right to live? Yes. Does LiP violate the right to live? No. Better. So, how does this chart constitute making the death penalty illegal? Because it is a weed - a weed that drains our money, it doesn't work as a deterrent, it violates human rights, it is worse suited to a racially bias system, and is irreversible*. And like any weed, if you remove it, the flowers will shine, so to speak. Making the death penalty illegal will open the door for more money, more tolerated human rights, systems that are better suited to racial equality, and systems that work better as a deterrent, and can be corrected. I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent, DavidMGold, the audience, and the voters for this interesting debate. I have refined my reasons as to why the death penalty should be made illegal. Until next time! Kind regards, J *irreversible once the punishment has been carried out.

Title: Death Penalty Content: My position as Con will be to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed while Pro will have to argue that it is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is. Pro has to post his opening argument in round 1 and skip his last round.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: My opponent has decided to use the bible as justification for the death penalty. I will point out 2 problems with this:1) The Bible is not trustworthy or reliableThere are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, even the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 don't match up. For a list of contradictions in the Bible, here is a source for that: [4]I will point out just two of the many contradictions:, Genesis 1:25-27 reads:"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."While Genesis 2 reads:"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."As you can see, the order in which God created animals differs from when he created mankind in these accounts. In Genesis 1, the animals were created first. In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve(who are believed to be the first humans by most Christians) were created first. A second contradiction is here:In Mathew 18:3, Mathew 19:14, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17, it is suggested that to enter heaven you should like a child. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 13:11. 1 Corinthians 14:20, and Ephesians 4:14, we are told we should not be like Children. There exists many more contradictions which you can look at in the source I provided.Thus, with this many contradictions, it should be clear that the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information. It should also be noted that there are thousands of Christian denominations: this is likely because of the many contradictions in the Bible: some Christians choose to believe one thing, while others choose to believe something else the Bible says. Neither are exactly wrong, because for the most part, what almost every sect believes in is likely supported by the bible, but what they believe in is also contradicted by the bible elsewhere. If the Bible was not contradictory, I'm sure there would be fewer Christian denominations and interpretations of the Bible.2) The new Testament tells us the old testament laws were fulfilled, and contradicts what my opponent suggestsIn Mathew 5:17, it is stated by Jesus himself that the old testament laws are going to be fulfilled by him. Now, I grew up as a Mormon and while in this sect, I was taught that this meant that the punishment for these laws are fulfilled by Christ, and people no longer need to be punished for breaking these laws, if they seek Jesus in their lives. I feel like this is a common view of most Chrisian sects: that you no longer need to be punished for not following Old Testament laws so long as you rely on Christ. Next, there are many examples where Jesus tells people not to punish people for breaking old testament law, such as with the adulteress woman in John 8. He says "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". In old testament law, a person who commits adultery would be stoned to death. Well, Jesus essentially told them that they can't and shouldn't stone the woman. If there was a murderer in the New Testament that was brought to Jesus in the same Fashion, just based off of what we know about the Biblican Jesus, he would have likely said the same thing. Thus, I believe my opponent has not offered a strong argument in this round in favor of the death penalty. Additionally, it would only appeal to those who are Christian or Jewish. And probably not even those who are Christian since they believe in the New Testament in a way usually of what I said about it. Sources:[4] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Title: Should we abolish death penalty Content: I accept.

Title: Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions Content: Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.

Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: For this round, and final round, I will rebuttal against my opponents arguments for the Death Penalty. I will do this by going in order from 1-10 for the arguments.1. Too Many Inocent People: In the previous argument, I brought up the fact of how the chances of a "mistake" is at a low. My opponent argues about killing an innocent individual for a crime that he or she has not done. I will admit its sad if something happens like this, but I must ask whose fault is it to me in jail in the first place? The criminal him or herself, which falls under my argument of "self responsibility". They made the decision to do the crime in the first place, so they should suffer the consequences. For mistakes that happen, it can happen any where. Take this for example, you are walking down the street and a driver hits you by mistake because of sneezing for one second. Its a mistake that took someones life, but does that mean we should ban drivers because of someone possibly getting killed by mistake? No, that would be idiotic; and it is the same scenario as the Death Penalty. Mistakes happen, but we move along in society. And my evidence still stands strong where the mistake is only 4%, stated under "US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent". And my opponent even agrees that the number is low with the given quote "The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online on Apr. 28, 2014, estimated that 4.1% of death row sentences (1 in 25) were wrongful".2. There is Racial and Economic Discrimination in Application of the Death Penalty: This is a common form of argument to use within the given topic. People can argue that it is "racist" for the Death Penalty, but I will prove otherwise. The evidence my opponent revealed is actually very ludicrous because of the high numbers, one number being 99% which is factually impossible, and not being able to find the evidence given my opponents sources. I, on the other hand, will provide evidence to prove that the Death Penalty is not racist or discriminatory. To prove that it isn't racially bias, given the link here: http://deathpenalty.org... is seen that 56.6% of whites were executed with the Death Penalty, than a combination of Latino's or Black's. That is very different, then my opponents "ludicros" number that he or she presented.3. It may be true that the Death Penalty can give publicity, but what is wrong with that? Stated under "Media Influence in Capital Pumishment", it states that the showing of the Death Penalty actually puts more fear into people, than encouragement. The Death Penalty helps show what not to do in society, and actually was said to "cure" up to 67% of people from commiting crimes. The highest being murder, so this disproves my opponents point. And so what if it is gettiong publicly noticed, people see the horrors of what can come if they do not become responsible with themselves.4. Because of time, i will quickly rush through these. Medical Doctors actually choose if they do or do not want to put the Death to someone. Stated under the Death Penalty website itself.5. Once more, self responsibility. If you don't want to get in trouble, than don't do it; and it is not hypocritical when someone takes the life of an innocent individual. Follow the saying "An eye for an eye".6. This is debatable about government havin too much power, but that is not the main focus on the Death Penalty. Just do not do the crime, once more!7. We both provided evidence about the Death Penalty being in the Bible. Some lines for, and others against. This can be a clash of evidence, but we would not get anywhere if we keep talking about the Bible for, or against, the Death Penalty.8. And there is another better alternative, don't do the crime!9. The cost for the Death Penalty is actually cheaper, the reason why it costs a lot is because of the pricing for trials. I brought this argument in the previous round, where we spend about a billion dollars a year for an ongoing "goose chase".10. Mentally ill people have a small chance of happening within prisons.Also to conclude the argument, my opponent neglects my argument about making the Death Row instant; and resolving mot of the issues witrh the Death Penalty.Sources (All): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org... htp://www.biblebelievers.com......http://www.theguardian.com......http://www.washingtonpost.com......http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org......http://www.nytimes.com....../www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0012st.pdfhttp://www.bjs.gov......http://thinkprogress.org......http://www.heritage.org......http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu......http://www.vice.com......http://www.theonion.com......http://www.seattletimes.com......

Title: Death Penalty should be instated Content: Waiting

Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: How unfortunate, my opponent has forfeited. Well, I might as well make an argument anyway.1. CostsThe Death Penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, we should not use it.2. Innocent PeopleIf you throw an innocent person in jail, you can yank them out again if you can show their innocence. You can't bring back someone from the dead.While these arguments are poor of quality, they are still more than what my opponent provided.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Death penalty Content: I will argue against

Title: The Death Penalty should be abolished Content: Tie

Title: Debater's Choice Content: Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,

Title: God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament. Content: An example that I have is: You shall not commit murder. -Deuteronomy 5:17 NIV In Leviticus 24:15 it says " Say to the Israelites:"If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible." You stated that they blasphemed God's names, they did not commit a crime the basically just disrespected God. So God is saying to punish man who blasphemes his name.

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Used Content: This sucks.

Title: Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia Content: My opponent didn't actually outline a case against the death penalty.The death penalty isn't just about enacting revenge, as my opponent assumes. 1. The Death Penalty protects others from potentially being infringed upon in the future.2. The death penalty is an actual punishment. Prison is not. Some people will purposely get themselves into prison, just to survive off the government.3. Justice is not strictly about revenge. Due cause does not have to erase the bad things someone did, and it never will. It's about giving the criminal the same treatment they gave their victim to equivilate the crime to the punishment.4. Again, why just Australia? Should the Death Penalty be allowed everywhere else?

Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.

Title: There should not be a death penalty Content: First of all, some people are so twisted that even therapy won't help them. Second of all, Pro can't provide sources because this is the last round.

Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: Contention 1: Innocent executions. The US government has executed innocent people before, and should not be allowed to take this risk. Examples of innocent executions include Cameron Willingham[1], Carlos DeLuna[2], and the Meeks[3]. This system is clearly fallible and yet serves an irreversible purpose - to legally murder people. Should a system which allows for error, allow for the potential (and in some cases fulfilled potential) of mistakes to be made and incorporated when combined with an irreversible outcome? No - not when compared to alternatives. For example, life in prison. In one scenario, someone is killed and, no matter what evidence comes up, s/he will remain killed. In another scenario, s/he is sentenced to life in jail and, if evidence comes up again, s/he can be released if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that s/he wasn't the perpetrator. But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released[4]. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent. Contention 2: Cost. The cost of executing people is huge when compared to life without parole[5]. In fact, Californians alone could save $90,000 in tax every year by eliminating the death penalty, because they spend about $90,000 more (per year) on death row prisoners than on prisoners in regular confinement[5]. This money could be spent on things such a police stations, to help reduce the crime in the first place. ". .. Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. "[6] As you can clearly see, this phenomenal cost is very taxing on the public. Is it worth it? No. This idea that it's somehow "worth it" because they end up in the ground after being injected, gassed, hanged, or shocked appears to be personal opinion and nothing more. If I'm wrong and there is reason behind this, I would ask my opponent to provide counter evidence for this. I think two contentions is ample for now; I will introduce more in round three. I await my opponent's response(s)! I would like to thank my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this! Source(s): [1]. http://www.chicagotribune.com... [2]. http://www.theguardian.com... [3]. http://edition.cnn.com... [4]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5]. http://www.deathpenalty.org... [6]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...

Title: The death penalty should be banned in the United States. Content: I regret to inform my opponent and those spectating that I simply won't have time, due to numerous reasons, to be able to post in the next two hours. I was excited to see that an opponent I wanted to face was debating a topic a felt strongly about. I assure him that, were he to give me another chance, and possibly more time ofr rounds to fit my busy schedule, that I would've given him a fun match.But ironically, I have to leave for an actual debate meeting with my club, which will prevent me from posting my argument.Congrats to my opponent, and I hope that he considers offering up this challenge again, with more time allowed, and possibly an extra round (or no limits on when someone can rebut contentions).

Title: The Death Penalty Content: In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?

Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: I want to apologize for being absent during this debate. Some things came up during this week/weekend that did not allow me to continue on this debate. I apologize to Bladerunner especially and appreaciate all his work. My sincere apologies again to all

Title: The Death Penalty Content: The death penalty is something that should be allowed and utilized. If there is sufficient evidence to convict someone of a serious crime, they should not be able to appeal and re-appeal their case, costing millions of dollars per case, most of which, if not all, is paid by taxpayers. It is less of a financial burden to humanely kill those guilty of severe crimes, and it ensures they won't do it again. If the justice system can hold firm on ensuring that those who commit severe crimes are punished accordingly, it should serve as a deterrent to committing these crimes, as most people don't want to die.

Title: The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions Content: Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.

Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal. Content: :/ this is unfortunately coming to my opponent not responding time.

Title: Should their be a death penalty Content: The death penalty is used on people who COMMIT murder

Title: The United States should abolish the Death Penalty. Content: Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.

Title: Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed Content: If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.

Title: The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty Content: Good luck! First round is for acceptance, second is constructive, third and fourth are for rebuttals. As always (in my debates) cross-examination is permitted.

Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in "regardless", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: I would like to begin round two with one argument. First, I strongly believe that it is immoral. This argument is divided into two parts. First, how the government is actually letting themselves kill the citizens. Second, how it will be sending out the wrong message. (1) The government is justifying themselves to kill the citizens. In a way, the government is making a contradiction. According to the law, killing people is not justified. In other words, killing people is banned. If murdering is banned for individuals, the government should not be killing either. Of course my opponent (the proposition) may argue that people who had done serious crimes that had caused a detrimental harm to the society should be killed for the rest of the citizens' safety and happiness. For example, they may say that the family of the victim (of a murder incident, or any other violence) will become more relieved. However, then what about the murderer's family? Why is this society only respecting one side and not even thinking about the other? In any way, I believe that the government should not have the justification to kill the citizens. (2) Not doing the duty as a government. Isn't the government there to protect the citizens? However, if the government starts killing people who are criminals, then it will not be fulfilling the duty as a government. The proposition, of course, can argue that murdering criminals who did crimes would be able to protect the rest of the society, but there are two points of rebuttal. First, I believe that there are better ways to treat criminals. Is the only way to deter the crime rates to kill somebody? I think that criminals can be put in prison and be limited in many different rights, but as a government, the government itself should not be violating the right to live. Second, will executing people actually deter the crime rates? The answer is a no. Just because the government executes people who do crimes doesn't mean that there would be less criminals, because there are still mentally ill people, and some psychopaths who don't know anything. Not only that, the government has to be responsible to create a policy that has a problem that is solved. However, this policy, the government executing, will not solve any problem but instead, will only give the government too much power.

Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: The Death Penalty should NOT be made illegal in the USA because think of the criminals actions to the victims family, and what will happen if the criminal walked freely from prison in around 10 or so years. He/She would end up hurting someone else, the victim deserve justice, the victim's family demands it. The criminal who taken a life of a person, should not be allow to live and cause havoc and tax payers money. Like the saying goes' A life for a Life'.

Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: well marijuana is harmless nobody has ever died from it.death over something that doesint even kill is nonsence. i agree with you death penalty should be for inhumane crimes. and drugs are not inhumane. every body in the world has a drug of there choice (caffeine, booze,weed,nicotine,ect) Albert Ienstien even did DMT and LSD. Unless Given poison like from frog snake(yes considered drug) then should death penalty be in forced, because thats trying to murder. all people are close to one another 1 guys knows this guy that knows that guy ect. there going to get hurt also for what being nice and giving someone something. anyone in possesion of DMT are called instantly for death penalty no court. and there still yet to find one thing wrong with dmt. what if it was in your pocket someone had you hold on to it. and your found with it you will die and cant say idk what it was or your holding on to it you die.

Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Sorry, I have to make this round very quick. The formatting might not be on par with my previous roundsR1: Aplogizes, my 67% stat was referring to something else. What exactly do you mean by value of life? Do you think we should keep waterboarding legal, because it still gives the value of life? Also, your numbers for innocent people in prison are wrong. It stats that 2.5% can go up to 5%, and 2.5% is alot more prisoners than the 4% of DR prisoners. Pro you are making up hypothetical situations. Nobody has ever been released from LWP, and that is a fact. Like I explained before, LWP cases, do not get special consideration like they do for DP. This is exactly why some DR inmates, prefer the DP, instead of LWP. http://blogs.berkeley.edu...R2: It is true African-American inmates, are more likely to be executed, however this trend can be witnessed in the entire Judicial system itself. Black people simply commit more crimes, than any other race in the United States, despite being only a minority. https://en.wikipedia.org...R3: Pro is simply repeating what she mentioned before. Pro never provided any reasons as to why the DP is the reason for these media coverings. The coverage for the Boston marathon bomber was already present, long before he was sentenced to death. R4: What Pro mentioned are simply pre-cautions to make sure the executioner does not have to live with guilt for the rest of his life. Pro kind of already answered her own question, nobody would know who actually killed the criminal, so thats why those pre-cautions exist.R5: Pro didn't exacty refute my argument here, so I will leave it at that also. Saying its wrong for killing somebody for killing somebody else, would mean all the efforts we took in previous wars, were all wrong.R6: There isn't really any opiniated statement right there. I simply was comparing what chances LWP convicts, go through compared to their DP convicts. I'm not going to repeat my self, but readers, you can compare the differences and see whether who receives a more fair trial.R7:Pro, No where in the constitution does it say that it is because of the Bible we made such law. Just because some religious people are saying something doesn't mean it should be in the law. R8: They actually are taken more seriously than LWP. I actually provided evidence with sources, whereas Pro did not. I did cite my evidence. Please refer to the 1st round. Your source does not specify on what type of crime the prisoner was in jail for in the first place. I have no way of knowing, whether it was for rape, homicide, etc.. Obviously, a Rapist would think different than a Murderer.R9: We shouldn't only be talking about the cost of the execution itself. As a whole, like I mentioned before, Plea Bargaining can help avoid serveral procedjures in a DP case, which would astromically reduce the cost. And all your sources, do not take Plea Bargaining into factor. Pro also dropped my arguments regarding the cost being the same in some juristrictions. Pro, you actually dropped some of my arguments.The Amount of lives saved from an executionThe non-capital punishment states trends frrm the capital punishment states.Sources from my previous round (in the same order) .http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... http://www.fbi.gov...... http://www.bus.lsu.edu...... http://www.wesleylowe.com...... http://www.pnas.org...... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.cato-unbound.org...... http://www.cjlf.org...... 12. Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...... http://www.heritage.org......

Title: Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed Content: It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...

Title: Death Penalty Content: Ext