Question: Should the death penalty be allowed?

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

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

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: Death Penalty Content: I will show try to show why the Death Penalty should not be allowed in the United States. My opponent will try to show why the Death Penalty should be allowed in the United States.

Title: Death Penalty Content: Resolution: The death penalty should never be allowed as a form of punishment. capital punishment –noun punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.

Title: Death Penalty Content: Do you think that the Death penalty should be legal everywhere?

Title: the death penalty should be band Content: If I understand correctly, I am arguing that the death penalty should be banned. If this is incorrect, just argue your position and I'll argue the opposition.

Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I accept your challenge. I would love to take the other side of the argument as I do consider the death penalty should be given for the guilty. Nonetheless, I love debating, so I shall be defending that the death penalty is not justifiable. Looking forward going against you.

Title: Capital punishment as a form of justice Content: I am putting forward an open debate relating to capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be considered as a form of justice and therefore, should be allowed.

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

Title: The Death Penalty Should be Illegal Content: I think the death penalty should be illegal. I am very interested in hearing my opponent's argument.

Title: Death penalty legalized in all states Content: The death penalty should be legal in all states across the United States considering some people commit crimes knowing they will get away with it. If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act.

Title: Death Penalty Content: Do you think the death penalty should be used in a court of law?

Title: Death penalty should be supported. Content: Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.

Title: The death penalty Content: This is a debate on the Death Penalty. No slurs or bad language, I will let my opponent go first since I am against. Enjoy!

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 Content: ~ Intro & Definitions ~ This debate will be focused on whether or not the Death Penalty should be legal. Death Penalty - A sentence of punishment by execution. http://www.answers.com... My arguments will be given in Round 2. My opponent can feel free to argue in Round 1, if (s)he chooses to. I look forward to a good debate.

Title: should the death penalty be harsher Content: should the death penalty be harsher

Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept and will be arguing the death penalty should not be in place. I have actually never debated this.Good luck to pro :)

Title: Death Penalty Content: The death penalty should be enforced. I say this because of the harsh manner of crimes committed in some cases. I believe crimes such as Paedophilia and the like should be punishable by death. They are heinous, disgusting and ridiculous.

Title: The Death Penalty should be illegal Content: I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.

Title: The death penalty should be banned Content: Hello there Billy! My name is Rahmet, and I am arguing that the death penalty should NOT be banned. Furthermore, I will argue that the death penalty should be limited, and overseen a little more carefully, but not banned. Thank You for letting me accept this debate; I appreciate it. First off, we must note that with the death penalty there is the death row. Death row is the place, often a section of a prison, that houses prisoners awaiting execution. After persons are found guilty of an offense and sentenced to death, they remain on death row during appeal and habeas corpus procedures, and if those are unsuccessful, until execution. In order to be convicted of the death penalty, there are certain boundaries and crimes that must be committed before the idea of jail time or a fine is removed. Since I do not want to list all thirty to fifty crimes that are to be warranted by the death penalty, here is the site where I got my information: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . If you didn't know, the Supreme Court in 1976, heard the Gregg vs Georgia case, where they overruled their previous decision to ban the death penalty. Today, the death penalty is legal in 32 states, including major states like : Virginia, California, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. My opponent states that: "The occasional mistake is more risky than it's worth." Although it is not impossible, the facts behind a person who should have been executed, or was on death row, when said person was innocent is 150. Since 1973, there have been approximately 150 people who have been exonerated from the death penalty because of new evidence, or whatever the case may be. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . In his second argument, my opponent states that " racial and economic discrimination take part of execution." Although, the statistics of many source and his own source would force me to agree with it. I would like to say that the racial and economic conditions of the defendant does not matter. It matters on the bias of the judge(if any), the jury(which will allows by there based on past experiences, culture, etc), and the media(because they stick their nose in everything and many times manipulate the facts). However, I have a statistic from 2000-2010, that states that a racially biased number of executions has not occurred; 317 (57.5%) people were white, 180 people (32.6%) were black, 45 (8.2%) people were Latino, 6 people (1.1%) were Native American, 1 person (.2%) was Asian, and two people were listed as "other." - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com.... However, one must also look at the number of death sentences through the year of 1976 to present year. To this day, with the exception of 2007, the number of death sentences has decreased substantially; but also the number of actual executions has also dropped, in the recent years. Furthermore, I would like to state even with the amount of different barriers, the US Justice System has to defend those accused with the death penalty; there should be other barriers to prevent what my opponent states as innocent deaths by the state. Thank You Billy for your time! I am looking froward to continuing this! :)

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: Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia Content: The Death Penalty should be allowed anywhere, where justice is due to those who have committed heinous crimes, mainly Murder in the First Degree, IE with a pre-meditated intention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... But I don't see why you think Australia should not get the Death penalty, compared to any other country in the world. The BOP is on my opponent, so I will assume the debate will begin in R2. Good luck.

Title: should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person Content: should there be death penalties? yes I do partially believe there should be death penalties but only for horrible crimes. I believe that if there is a death penalty, the person should be killed by an injection, this is because of many reasons. 1) if we use a shocking chair, it uses up a lot of power. 2) it is less expensive. 3) it is a natural ay of dying instead of being shocked, starved, or what ever else they do to people, but back to the death penalties. if people do something horrible like kill multiple people then they should get one if there was no reason. But, if there was a good excuse i.e. if one feared his own life or the stand your ground law, then no death penalty should be sentenced, but if lied about or not good enough, one should be stated

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: Capital Punishment Content: I would like to see my opponent try to prove points/facts on why the death penalty is NOT acceptable in America. Good luck!

Title: You slice the Cake, I pick the first piece. Content: The resolution of this debate shall be, "The death penalty is morally acceptable. " If my opponent does not wish to debate this subject, I shall advise him to simply make a new resolution for the debate and just start it off from there.

Title: Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used Content: I gladly accept this debate and will be representing that the Death penalty should be used. Thank you Torquedork for starting this debate, may the winner of this debate go on to win the Novice Tournament.http://www.debate.org...;

Title: death penalty Content: Hi. I'm assuming this is just an acceptance round. I support the death penalty's existence for extreme crimes. Good luck con.

Title: The death penalty should not be outlawed Content: The opponent must simply argue that the death penalty should be outlawed. I will defend that it should not be outlawed.

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: Death penalty Content: I think death penalty should be approved in every single prision that exists in the world. Criminals need to pay for what they did, and also they need to be punished, because the crime they are acused of is something that is very serious.

Title: Death penalty Content: I believe that the death penalty should be legal in every state. First, people that are crazy enough to commit murder shouldn't be in jail or on the streets. The criminal serving in jail will be their for life. Do you really want taxpayer's money going towards keeping some scum bag alive. I am completely for the death penalty. Good luck to you.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I think the Death Penalty should not be used** I accept. Good Luck!

Title: Death Penalty Content: Resolution: The Death Penalty should remain a sentencing option in the United States. First Round will be for Acceptance. If there are any questions, please ask them before joining.

Title: Death Penatly Content: Death Penalty . should legal in all 50 States i will let my opponent have the opening argument.

Title: the death penalty should be band Content: The death penalty should be banned.

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: Death Penalty Content: I'll accept the challenge on the death penalty. I will now state why I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be brought back. The death penalty could be used to kill people who haven't committed the crime. There has been some cases where they kill the man, then later come to find that he never committed the crime. In my opinion this solution is just far too permanent for something that may not be 100% sure.

Title: The Death Penalty Content: I saw some people discussing this earlier and thought someone would at least consider trying to change my mind. I think the death penalty, or capital punishment, should not exist. Pro will obviously be arguing to keep the death penalty where it is already in place, or implement it in more regions. Please no semantics. Good luck!

Title: Death Penalty Content: The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept your challenge and obviously I will be arguing against the death penalty. You can start the arguments...

Title: The Death Penalty Content: Okay, so for this please site any sources that you may use and Spend the first round to just state your opinion, the second to rebuttal and the third to conclude. Please do not quit on me. The death penalty is just plain wrong. Why should the loss of a life result in the death of another? Or in the case of many lives, why should death = death? What is the point of killing someone when they can just spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the cost of putting someone there but if the state can't afford jails then why put laws in place in the first place? Additionally, who is it up to to decide what is punishable by death. In some countries it's mass murder, others speaking out against the government, others being gay, and even in some watching Desperate Housewives will get you filed for treason and executed. Who decides what is suitable and why do they have that right? Let's say the judge decides, in what country is the judicial system without error? As long as the capital punishment persist innocent people will die at the hand of the state. Every court system makes mistakes and after you've killed someone you can't just say, "Opps, jk my bad." It's done. There's no going back. Now, let's look at what happens when we give the state the right tot kill. The holocaust happened. The state had the right to kill these people and it escalated and no one questioned them because they were allowed to do that. For the record, as soon as the war was won Germany officially banned the death penalty and even refused to try the Nazi war criminals. Now look at Germany, it's a European Power House. The death penalty is inhumane. In saudi Arabi a person can be publicly stoned to death and it isn't the only country in the world to do that amongst other horrors such as: hanging, electric chair, injections, fire line, etc.. the Universal Declaration of human rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, tortures or inhumane treatment or punishment. I would say that all of these methods meet the criteria. Some may argue that injections are painless, I say how do you know the physical, let alone the emotional, pain and stress of dying? Did you ask someone? No, because they're dead and can't tell you. In conclusion the death sentence is morally and politically wrong and should be banished world wide. source: the universal declaration of human rights (please see article 5) http://www.un.org...

Title: There should be death penalty for murderers. Content: I agree with the Death Penalty. Murderers should face Death if they take someone's life. Take a life,lose your life.

Title: The death penalty is morally impermissible Content: I'm looking to debate about the resolution. I am defending that the death penalty is morally permissible.

Title: Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes Content: The United States should have death penalty for capital offenses, which include first-degree murder and treason. Don't hesitate to state your opinions but be respectful.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I am pro for the death penalty. I believe that the people who have done heinous crimes deserve to be put down. They do not belong in the world. Challenge me! you won't be able to defeat me.

Title: The death penalty should be bought back Content: The death penalty. It's a controversial topic. Should we bring it back?

Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: Wonderful! I appreciate how sporting you are. I look forward to the debate. I will begin by presenting my points in favour of the death penalty. If of course, you are not comfortable taking this side of the debate, I welcome you to start another debate and take the side I have adopted. I will be more than willing to oblige. Argument 1 - It keeps society safe The death penalty is reserved, almost exclusively for crimes which the state and its laws deem to pose a major threat to a country and/or its people. These include crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide), espionage, mass murder, and drug trafficking, to name a few. All these crimes place society in danger, and the power to deal with them with the capital punishment allows the state to keep them at bay. With most of such cases, a judge evaluates the case qualitatively and considers the remorse of the criminal and/or his/her potential of reform. A criminal who shows remorse or potential for reform is often given a reduced sentence of life imprisonment. Argument 2 - It comes at a lower cost To imprison someone for life incurs an immense cost to the average taxpayer in a country. Why should the average citizen pay for the sustenance of non-reformable criminals who pose a threat to his/her fundamental rights? Why should this money not go instead to furthering the prospects of people who have the capability of contributing more to society? This money could go towards education, research and development, aid for people in poverty-stricken countries, rather than spent on maintaining criminals. Argument 3 - It acts as a deterrent You will undoubtedly find countless sources that say that it does not actually deter criminals who are already prepared to commit such crimes. The capital punishment, however, acts not primarily as a deterrent to existing criminals, but to potential criminals. A criminal contemplating capital crimes would have a much higher opportunity cost, and would think many times before placing his life in such grave danger. Death penalties, which are swift and sure, such as the mandatory death penalty, are much more likely to have a strong impact. Argument 4 - Anything less is unjust Murder refers to when someone deprives another of their fundamental right to life. A punishment less than the same would simply be inadequate in terms of justice. Argument 5 - It makes absolutely sure that the crime cannot be committed again History is replete with examples of criminal network leaders maintaining their networks from prison, mass murderers killing other prisoners while in prison, or the criminally insane, who end up killing their caregivers in a mental asylum. Only the death penalty can make absolutely certain that these criminals do not repeat their crimes. Argument 6 - It works Countries such as Singapore which have used the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and the death penalty for several other offences, can be observed to have some of the lowest rates of crime, especially serious crime, in the world. Drug trafficking, to draw a clearer link, is almost nonexistent in the country. The steep penalty plays a part. Abuses of the death penalty are not covered by my arguments. These abuses include the death penalty for adultery or apostasy, unless sanctioned under legitimate state laws. My arguments refer only to the death penalty as sanctioned by a state. For these reasons, I maintain that the death penalty should absolutely be kept in force. Please note that you would have to provide arguments along with counters to my points. I look forward to your responses.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I've set this debate up with LegalizedProstitute because it's been a while since I've had a serious debate, and I saw that his opponent in his last death penalty debate was new to the site and probably wasn't giving him a satisfying debate. So, should LegalizedProstitute choose to accept, here are the terms. I, Con, shall be arguing that death should not be a punishment for any crime. Pro will argue to the opposite.

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 Content: Should the death penalty be aloud in the United States? the answer is yes

Title: The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances Content: This debate is on whether or not society should have the death penalty. Now I believe the death penalty is accepted under curtain circumstances like serial rapist, serial killers, mass murders and if the suspect is not insane and/or is atleast 19+ years old. The first round is a introduction round. The debate should start in round 2. There are 4 rounds in total, voting period is 1 week, time to argue is 48 hours and argument max is 6,000 characters. Also another thing before we get started is if you say "life sentencing" it would be assumed that you mean imprisonment until death by old age. The reason why I state this is because in Canada life imprisonment = 25 years maximum.Definitionsserial rapist: sexually assault 2 or more peopleserial killer: Murder 3 or more people with a time interval between one of the murders. For example Ted Bundy, John Gacy, ect...mass murderer: Murder 3 or more people with no time interval between any of the murders. For example James Holmes.Rules No TrollingNo ProfanityCiting your sources is optional unless the your opponent ask for it.My opponent is able to add any definitions or rules however can't change any of the definitions/rules already listed.

Title: The death penalty IS wrong Content: Thank you, now my inital argument is that the government should and does not have the right to decide that taking a life is the ABSOLUTE right way to punish a person for any act in question. Its the moral equal to the mob killing a snitch. in thett3's debate with larstheloser, he used the philosophy that by killing someone, the person in question, he or she has violated the rules of society and in turn deserves to die. now I am personally a democrat, and a liberal, so pathologically geared towards looser sentences, (being that I think a lifetime sentences are a safe enough measure) I think that death sentences are, in turn, murder. wich, from my opponents philosophy, is a violation of society.

Title: Death penalty Content: The death penalty should be illegal because someone could be seriously hurt or sometimes, someone could die ):

Title: Death Penalty Content: Yes, the death penalty is accepted as treatment or actions of taking care of people who commit crimes for good. However, I feel killing them for their crimes is getting them out of their punishment, as the real punishment is to be locked away. Meaning being killed would give them the easy way out of their life punishment.

Title: The Death Penalty Content: Looking for a serious intellectual debate on this topic here. I had a long and very interesting conversation with a friend about this and would like to see how my arguments stand up here. R1) Introduction of argument R2) Main body of argument R3) Cross examination of opponent's argument R4) Defence of own argument R5) Conclusion of argument I will first define the debate as a whole. I, as the Proposition, take it upon myself to prove that the Death Penalty (that is to say the state-sponsored execution of a convicted criminal) is a morally acceptable punishment to the very worst crimes where the perpetrator is likely to reoffend. I am going to argue this on 3 main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment I will lay these out in this first round and from there expand on and defend my position in future rounds. I'd like to thank any challenger in advance for accepting. My burden of proof is only to show that certain crimes should warrant the death penalty, and I will be examining why in later rounds. I'll look at concepts like the human rights of the convict and why human rights aren't inalienable. I want this to be a competently argued debate that focusses on the philosophical side of the issue. Thanks in advance.

Title: Death Penalty should be instated Content: In this debate we shall discuss weather the Death Penalty should be reinstated or not. You may take the following definitions: Death Penalty: A legal process wherein a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. I will be taking the position of Pro/For, and will debate why I think the Death Penalty SHOULD be instated, my opponent will discuss why it should not. Thank you, Dag

Title: death penalty Content: To my worthy competitor, I must say that I actually do agree with you, but as the debate is I am the con. I hope to have a fun and lighthearted debate. As to keep in the spirit of this debate I hereby declare... ... ... The Death Penalty Should Not Be Legal Penalty!!!!!!!

Title: Man injects a woman with HIV: should he gotten death row Content: I will take a general approach in this instance, and argue for why the death penalty should never be used, and this would include this specific case my opponent has introduced to us. I'd like to point out that it's not possible to have the debate outlined in the fashion pro stated. There are only 3 rounds, but they say we should have up to round 4.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I noticed jp was in a debate with someone over this topic, but his opponent didn't respond. It's been a while since I've done this topic, and now I'd like to revisit it. Thank you in advance for accepting, assuming you do. Anyways, one clarification. I am for the death penalty in extremely specific, and likely hypothetical circumstances. If someone keeps breaking out of prison and killing people, he should be put to death (imagine the Joker as an example). Otherwise I am opposed. Additionally, we must keep our arguments centered around the current form of execution in the US. This debate is not about reform. First Round is for Acceptance. Any questions, ask me in the comments before you accept.

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: Death penalty Content: i disagree death penalty. Death penalty is immoral and it can kill innocent people too.

Title: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Content: I agree; Canada should allow the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes.

Title: Death Penalty Should be Banned Content: I accept.Good luck to my opponent. I request my opponent to clarify what he means by death penalty.The one given by judiciary or the one given by others like goons,moneylenders etc.

Title: Capital Punishment Content: In this debate pro will have to prove that the death penalty can be justified. Round 1: Accepting Round 2: Opening Argument Round 3: Open Debate Round 4: Open Debate Round 5: Closing Arguments

Title: Should the Death Penalty be Reinstated in the United States Content: Although the death penalty has been banned in most states, I believe that there are boundaries to a crime, and if crossed, there should be a more severe punishment then life in prison. Act all sweet and nice and they'll have time off for good behavior. If you live long enough, you'll walk among us again. I don't want that. Do you?

Title: Death Penalty Content: I, Con, will be arguing that the death penalty should not be legal. My opponent will attempt to disprove my standpoint on this subject.

Title: Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used Content: Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Rebuttals/Closing (no new arguments) Death Penalty- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. This debate addresses death penalty in the US. Pro, me, takes the side that death penalty shouldn't be used. Con, JoshB, takes the side it should.

Title: Capital Punishment should not be legal. Content: Capital Punishment should not be legal. The effectiveness of the death penalty is equal to the effectiveness of life in prison without parol.

Title: there should not be a death penelty Content: I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered. i agree with myself and my opponent. though i meant killing as in murder. maybe some murderers thought "if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers."

Title: the death penalty is a reasonable punishment Content: I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes

Title: Death Penalty (Capitol Punishment) in US Content: I am not going to be arguing the death penalty should not have server restrictions placed on it or that the use of the death penalty should not be reduced. Simply it should be retained for the use of the most heinous of crimes.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I am challenging you to a debate about the death penalty. I am pro. Let's have a respectful debate

Title: Death Penalty Content: I propose a debate on the death penalty, I will be Pro and you will be Con. The first round is just for accpetance. Good luck.

Title: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Content: I believe the death penalty shouldn't go anywhere. If a person has committed a capital crime such as murder, Treason, Or crimes against humanity, They don't deserve to live. It costs the government less money to give someone the capital punishment than to give them life in prison. It arguably deters crime, Since most criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if it meant death.

Title: there should not be a death penelty Content: It's very clear, given what my opponent said above, that she has conceded her case that there should not be a death penalty. If it wasn't the intention of my opponent to concede when she said what she said above, then it must be noted that, as it now stands, my opponent has lost this debate anyways. Why? Because my opponent has not refuted my argument which contends that the death penalty is sometimes necessary in order to bring forth justice, and that some crimes are so evil that only execution is the appropriate punishment.I would also like to respond to something which my opponent said. My opponent said, and I quote, "maybe some murderers thought "if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers." I can't really see how some murderers would think that they could murder murderers because the government kills murderers. It would be nice if you could elaborate on this and give us some reasons as to why you think this is the case. Moreover, I also can't see how this has anything to do with the topic of this debate, let alone how it shows that there should not be a death penalty.My opponent has not been able to defend her claim that there should not be a death penalty. In fact, my opponent herself agreed that the death penalty should in some cases be considered. The resolution remains negated.

Title: Capital punishment to criminals should be banned. Content: I accept the challenge issued by my opponent.To clarify, I will advocate that capital punishment SHOULD be banned, or abolishd. Essentially, I am AGAINST captial punishment or the death penalty.

Title: Death Penalty in America Content: I will argue against the application of the death penalty in the United States , my opponent must argue the merits of the death penalty. Whoever is more convincing should win.

Title: The Death Penalty Content: Here are my rebuttals. Actually, the U.S federal government lists 41 crimes that are punishable by death. These crimes are murder related to the smuggling of aliens,destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death, murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation, retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials, civil rights offenses resulting in death, etc. [1] There are even more arguments you could've made to support the claim that capital punishment should be allowed. Just because it's for only 19 crimes doesn't make it a sufficient punishment. Your argument is not only a bare assertion, it's downright false. I look forward to your defense. Citation [1]http://deathpenalty.procon.org... capital offenses

Title: Death penalty should be supported. Content: Disappointingly, nargiz_gab has once again forfeited his opportunity to advance his arguments. I, however, will reiterate why the death penalty ought not be supported.Humans are not omniscient, thus uncertainty as to someone's guilt will exist. If the death penalty was instituted, miscarriages of justice will occur, miscarriages which, by their very nature, are irreversible and irreparable. Therefore, to maintain the legitimacy of the justice system, the death penalty ought not be supported, however expedient it may be.Thank you, once again, to nargiz_gab for initiating this debate.

Title: Capital Punishment should not be legal. Content: I believe that before a death penalty is given, the crime should be carefully looked over. They should make laws about when to give the death penalty. For example, if a person was to kidnap a child and the child didn't try to fight back and got killed, that person should receive the death penalty. If a person was defending themselves and killed the other person to save their life, they should not be given the death penalty.

Title: The Death Penalty Content: Hold up. you don't want the death penalty. someone who kill some one should die. you got me ok then

Title: the death penalty should be legalized everywhere Content: Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I will argue that the Death penalty should not be legal 'everywhere'. I assume that we will do arguments in round 2, then rebuttals and closing statements in round 3. Thanks!

Title: Death Content: Do you support the death penalty yes or no. I personally think that there should be a death penalty in the united states but, then again I don't think there should be one. I mean when you put someone to death it is murder. So I figured your just as good as the guy who is being put to death the only think with that is that, your murder is "legal". So comment on here and let me know what you think of the death penalty.

Title: Death Penalty Content: I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe that it is a proper form of law, effective punishment, and an appropriate way to serve justice. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I believe that it should also only be brought down on the convicted person under certain circumstances; severe ones, at that. Such as murder. The death penalty brings up an interesting axiom in life: An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. In this particular case, I'll take an eye...and maybe a tooth as well. I await your first rebuttal.

Title: The death penalty should be legal in Texas. Content: I'll just state a quick argument. The death penalty should not be legal anywhere. There is no reason for it it doesn't solve anything. Our jails should focus on trying to get people back into the real world, we should stress things such as therapy, community service, and getting these people back on their feet instead of killing someone for a huge mistake. I understand that some people are sick and twisted but we should not end their life for something they were born with. Prisons should be focused more on helping people rather than hurting people.

Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I extend my arguments intact to the final round. I conclude that the death penalty should not be abolished.

Title: United States should ban the death penalty Content: For who ever takes this challenge up I'm 12 so yeah..no name calling or cussing. (Ps don't be easy cuz I'm gonna debate my history teacher from last year and for UIL this year) :) I think the United States should ban the death penalty because there are thousands of people wrongly sentenced. I think it's too easy because you just end their lives right there when the victims (of the crime) family is thinking day and night about it. When people are wrongly sentenced die, days maybe years later if they find out that they didn't do it they have to tell the family they made a mistake. It costs thousands of dollars to just kill them with appeals when that money could go to something else. So first time doing this if anyone takes this up after they could give me some pointers :) thank you By the way my wifi is down so I can't look up facts but I'm going to be writing a paper on this for fun so if you have facts please give them :D

Title: is the death penalty good Content: I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should not be legal i will allow my opponent to make the first argument

Title: We should ban death penalties around the world. Content: I believe that we should ban death penalties around the world. My 1st point is that if a man or woman is sentenced a death penalty because she/he killed someone then it would not be fair because another man/woman is killing them due to the death penalty. My 2nd point is that if someone did a bad crime that's so horrible then they should just get life in prison.The man that raped 3 young girls in america did a horrible thing and now has life in prison which is good,because instead of dying a quick and easy death they get to have a punishment of life in prison.Ending up mental and full of regret.Knowing that what they did was wrong for the rest of their life in prison. So in conclusion I say that we SHOULD ban death penalties around the world. Thank you.

Title: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Content: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes

Title: The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced. Content: I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine: 7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...) Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc... How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out: Hanging Firing Squad Beheading Public Stoning to death This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide. My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life? http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org... http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Bring back the Death Penalty Content: I accept the Instigator’s challenge, and I thank him for posting this issue. While I am not from the UK, I do believe there is an underlying principle that transcends country to be debated here, and thus my arguments against the death penalty should remain fairly constant from sovereignty to sovereignty. Since no formal structure has been proposed, I assert that the format will be as follows: Round 1: Introduction of positions. Round 2: Arguments Pro/Con (no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals I Round 4: Rebuttals II Round 5: Closing statements My position is that there should be no death penalty, imposed by the state, for convicted murderers and pedophiles.

Title: Death Penalty Content: My opponent is arguing solely using his opinion. However, I sufficiently argued this in a previous debate: http://www.debate.org...Many people sentenced to death are actually innocent individuals. If you had done nothing wrong and had no connection to a crime, yet were sentenced to death, what would you think and say? Would you say, "This is so unfair!" or would you say, "Okay, sure, go ahead,"? This is a valid question. My opponent must answer it. In my previous debate about this topic, I wrote, "It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed." Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice."My challenge is for my opponent to deny that.