EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
719

That the death penalty should be abolished globally

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
Moral Argument:
While people have committed heinous act, one is never justified to take someone's life like they are repaying a debt.

A culture in which wrong doings are corrected by another's equivalent wrong doing does not coincide with the current social norms of society. If this were the case, if someone stole from you, you could steal from them. If someone raped you, you could rape them. These ideas seem ridiculous at first glance. However, why is it when I suggest that when someone kills someone, they are now subject to give their life away, does this idea suddenly become reasonable?

As Mrs. Manzueta says, it may not be as simple as "an eye for an eye".

"But it is still morally wrong to take the life of an individual, no matter how despicable that individual may be?
Answering this question is extremely tricky. After research, My standpoint in this question, is that Capital Punishment is morally wrong.
Sooner or later, innocent people will get killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system. This has been the case so far. In the last decade, thanks to DNA and technology, many individuals have been released and found not guilty for the crimes they were said to have done. According to Amnesty International USA, since 1973 over 130 individuals have been released from death row due to wrongful convictions. As Descartes points out in his second mediation, sometimes you can make an error in judgment. People do make mistakes and these mistakes can contribute to loss of life. Many errors have been made by Eyewitness Misidentification, Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science, False Confessions / Admissions, Government Misconduct, Informants or Snitches and Bad Lawyering." (1)

Furthering my point, let's see how many people are wrongly convicted on Death Row.

There has been over ten people wrongly convicted of murder which ended up costing their lives. How can one argue for a system that is meant to punish criminals; but, ends up killing innocent people as well? (2) An example of such injustice:

"Jesse Tafero was executed by electric chair in 1990 for murdering two Florida police officers, Phillip Black and Donald Irwin. The murders occurred on Feb. 20, 1976, when Black and Irwin approached a parked car at a rest stop and found Tafero, his partner Sonia “Sunny” Jacobs, her two children and Walter Rhodes asleep inside. They were ordered to get out of the car when the officers saw a gun lying on the floor inside the car and, according to Rhodes, Tafero proceeded to shoot both officers and took off in their police car. They disposed of the police car and stole a man’s car, but were arrested after being caught in a roadblock. The gun was found in Tafero’s waistband, although it was legally registered to Jacobs. Tafero had been convicted of robbery and had served seven years of a 25-year sentence before being convicted for murder. Tafero and Jacobs claimed that Rhodes was the lone shooter, but Rhodes testified against them in exchange for a lighter sentence. Rhodes later admitted that he was responsible for the killings, but Tafero was still sentenced to death."

To Refute My Moral Argument, Con Must Prove:
That An "Eye For An Eye" Culture Is Morally Justified
That The System, Despite Killing Over Ten Innocents, Is Morally Justified

The character limit restricts the length of my cases. More arguments are to come.


1. http://bit.ly/2jefRJh
2. http://bit.ly/1DHBS6L

Return To Top | Posted:
2017-01-07 10:58:42
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
ultimate.debaterultimate.debater
Don't think I was involved in 3 tournaments because 3 of these debates have started
Posted 2017-01-09 23:41:55
adminadmin
@ultimate.debater were you two involved in a tournament that started debates automatically?
Posted 2017-01-09 23:40:19
ultimate.debaterultimate.debater
I never accepted this debate @admin@cooldudebro
Posted 2017-01-09 23:38:41
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Time to play good ol' devil's advocate....
Posted 2017-01-07 10:42:38
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 1 day