Instigator / Con
Alec's avatar
6
Alec
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#1816

Death penalty solely for murder

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
3,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
oromagi's avatar
21
oromagi
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all others rounds are okay. The BoP is shared. I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round.

Round 1
Alec's avatar
Alec
Con
#1
Round waived.  I wish oromagi good luck, even though based off of his record, he probably doesn't need it.
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Pro
#2
thx, Alec


DEATH PENALTY SOLELY for MURDER


OBJECTION: Ambiguous thesis.  CON's thesis sentence has no subject and no verb.  Under ordinary circumstances, the instigator's first round argument would provide enough context to resolve this ambiguity but CON has elected to forego R1, forcing PRO to define the topic

  • Most CP questions are public policy debates, PRO will assume public policy
  • Both debaters are US residents so let's make the subject US Federal policy
  • Because there's no verb, we can't tell what "solely" is supposed to be modifying.
    • Shall the USFG reserve DP exclusively for murder cases (not treason, espionage, etc as is current law)? 
      • or
    • Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?
      • PRO elects to toss out the adverb out as unparsable
    • PRO's sense of CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment, so PRO offers the following reframe of thesis:
RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

DEFs:

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA [US] is "a federal republic and a representative democracy consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions"

RETAIN is "to keep in possession or use"

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT [CP] is "a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime"

MURDER is "the crime of deliberately killing another person without justification"

CON has defined the BoP as shared.

PRO interprets the resolution to mean that CON will demonstrate why CP should be abolished as USFG punishment.  PRO will defend status quo

ARG 1.1

  • In a democracy, public policy should reflect the majority's will
    • DP enjoys majority support in US.
      • 2018 Pew: 54% of US favors the death penalty for people convicted of murder
      • 2019 Gallup: 56% of US " " " " " " " "
ARG 1.2

  • CP is explicitly sanctioned by US Constitution
    • 5th AMD "No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime...without due process of law"
    • 14th AMD "No State shall...deprive any person of life...without due process of law"
ARG 1.3

  • The 8th AMD  forbids "cruel and unusual punishment"
    • By any measure, long imprisonment inflicts more suffering (cruel) than a quick death
    • CP has "been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations"
      • prison=less usual
    • In the land of "give me liberty or give me death," deprivation of liberty is crueler
ARG 1.4

  • As far back as Hammurabi, justice is defined as proportional retribution, "an eye for an eye"
    • CP is the only truly proportional retribution for murder available to courts
ARG 1.5

  • CP deters crime
    • Although there are many studies supporting both sides, a major meta-analysis of 104 studies found
      • "a statistically significant deterrent effect"
    • Dead murderers can't re-offend
ARG 1.6

I look forward to CON's R2 reply
links to sources in comments








Round 2
Alec's avatar
Alec
Con
#3

If we let the murderer live, we can force the murderer to donate blood 6x per year, the legal limit for how much someone can donate blood(https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html).  500 ml of blood saves 2 lives on average, and can save up to 3 lives(source needed), so forcing 1 murderer to donate 500 ml of blood every 2 months can force that murderer to save 12 lives per year as merely an average.  Multiply this by the 1500 murderers per year that murder in the US(source needed), and we’re looking at 12,000 lives saved in the first year. However, the murderers wouldn’t donate blood for merely one year, they would be giving blood the rest of their lives.  Therefore, a mathematical pattern would develop, since the murderers would accumulate with time. One year after forced blood donation of murderers (FB DOM) is implemented, 18,000 people would have their lives saved from people who are going to be doing this the rest of their lives.  In the 2nd year after FB DOM is implemented, since the number of murderer convicts would double in that time, so would the number of lives saved in that time. Since I’m a math guy, given that the average murderer lives to be about 75 years old, and dies after that, assuming the average age that a murderer commits their murder is 25, we can collect blood from them for 50 years.  In 50 years, or sooner if we force existing murder convicts to donate blood to save other people, we can save up to 900,000 people per year, simply by letting murderers live and taking their blood every 3 months.  
 
Only 60,000 people in the US die a year from lack of blood(source needed).  Therefore, we would have more blood than we know what to do with in terms of saving Americans.  Maybe some could be sent to Iraq as an apology gift because we destroyed them in the Iraq war. Maybe some of the blood can be traded to African nations in exchange for natural resources that would make America rich, and it would help save some Africans in the process.  This sounds like a better punishment for murder than the death penalty, an our current life imprisonment without parole, which makes murderers leeches to the state because the murderers would be giving back to a society that they have murdered from.

Thoughts?


oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Pro
#4
thx, Alec

RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

  • CON has expressed no objection regarding PRO's reframe of thesis. 
  • CON has expressed no objection regarding PRO's definitions
  • PRO assumes the resolution and definitions are agreed as presented

ARG 1.1
Popular Support

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.2
Constitutional

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.3
CP Unconstitutional

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.4
Proportional Retribution

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.5
Deterrence

  • CON has made no reply
ARG 1.6
Savings

  • CON has made no reply
PRO assumes that CON has conceded all of PRO's arguments.

If we let the murderer live, we can force the murderer to donate blood 6x per year, the legal limit for how much someone can donate blood
COUNTER 2.1

  • According to CON's source,
    • https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
      • "Persons who have been detained or incarcerated in a facility (juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison) for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days) are deferred for 12 months from the date of last occurrence. This includes work release programs and weekend incarceration. These persons are at higher risk for exposure to infectious diseases"
        • By definition, life imprisonment in a high security Federal prison disqualifies the incarcerated on a permanent basis
      • The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in the blood of prisoners made wholesale exclusion a prudent protection beginning in the mid-1980's
COUNTER 2.2

  • A donation cannot be forced
    • A DONATION is "a voluntary gift or contribution for a specific cause"
      • but PRO's plan is to "force the murderer"
        • FORCE is "power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power; violence; coercion"
          • PRO suggests CON needs a new verb:  "extract" as in "extract blood from prisoners" or suck could be used colloquially if the vampiric associations are not too contrary to CON's intent
COUNTER 2.3

  • PRO has already argued that life imprisonment is more cruel and more unusual than the traditional death sentence and thereby violates the convict's 8th AMD protections
COUNTER 2.4

  • PRO and CON agree that CON has a whole lot of sources needed
    • 1 pint of blood save 2 lives, maybe 3
    • avg murderer lives to age 75
    • avg murderer is convicted at age 25
    • 60,000 US people die from lack of blood
      • PRO is unable to verify any of this
COUNTER 2.5

  • Noting where sourcing is required is worse than not noting.  CON demonstrates awareness that the argument is unsupported without offering any satisfactory remedy for that lack of support.
COUNTER 2.6

  • Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
COUNTER 2.7

  • Africans don't want US murder-blood

Round 3
Alec's avatar
Alec
Con
#5

      • "Persons who have been detained or incarcerated in a facility (juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison) for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days) are deferred for 12 months from the date of last occurrence. This includes work release programs and weekend incarceration. These persons are at higher risk for exposure to infectious diseases"
I didn't find the quote from the article and I don't even think the article mentions criminals.

The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in the blood of prisoners made wholesale exclusion a prudent protection beginning in the mid-1980's

The reason why the prisoner group is more likely to have STDs than anyone who has never been a prisoner has been due to the fact that people have been jailed for drug use, and injecting drugs into someone makes them more likely to get STDs.  I don't see any evidence that confirms that murderers are more likely to have STDs than non murderers, the BoP would be on you for this.

Any murderers with no STDs can be forced to give blood every 2 months to save more people.  The murderers with treatable STDs can still give blood once we treat them or their blood for STDs, and the murderers with untreatable STDs can have their blood taken, stored in a way that their blood can last for 10 years or so, and if we find a cure for the diseases in that time frame, then more lives are saved from the treated blood.

PRO very much doubts that forced bleedings can be defended as a necessary infliction
It's necessary to save other people.

  • PRO and CON agree that CON has a whole lot of sources needed
    • 1 pint of blood save 2 lives, maybe 3
    • avg murderer lives to age 75
    • avg murderer is convicted at age 25
    • 60,000 US people die from lack of blood
I forgot to include the sources.  They are:

https://www.bnl.gov/hr/blooddrive/56facts.asp(1 pint of blood saves up to 3 lives)
2 and 3 are estimates.
The 60,000 number I found was a different number.  My fault.  It turns out that the number is 4.5 million (https://www.bnl.gov/hr/blooddrive/56facts.asp).

Africans don't want US murder-blood
They would if it saves their lives.

One thing we disagree on is what is harsher, death penalty, or life in jail plus forced blood giving.  Death is scary, especially since a lot of prisoners are religious and they don't want to go to hell and while prision isn't a good place either, the notion that you get to socialize with other prisoners and enjoy their company with time would imply that life in jail is definitely a less cruel punishment than putting someone to death.  Making them donate blood every 2 months, which is barely additional punishment, would be less cruel than a death sentence and would help society by saving 900,000 lives per year, and the only ones who suffer are people that were going to suffer more by putting them to death.  To live anyhow is better than to not live at all.

I am out of space.
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Pro
#6
RESOLVED: The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER

5 of PRO's 6 arguments have been ignored by CON and according to CON's rules may not now be addressed in the conclusion

ARG 1.1
Popular Support

ARG 1.2
Constitutional

ARG 1.3
Life Sentence Unconstitutional

  • CON argues death is harsher punishment than life + forced blood extraction
    • Death is constitutional, life + forced blood extraction is not constitutional
    • The USFG ought not be compelled by considerations of murderer's salvation and/or comfort

ARG 1.4
Proportional Retribution

ARG 1.5
Deterrence

ARG 1.6
Savings

CON has only made one argument:  US should forcibly extract 6 pints of blood from convicted murderers

COUNTER 2.1

  • I didn't find the quote from the article and I don't even think the article mentions criminals
  • I don't see any evidence that confirms that murderers are more likely to have STDs than non murderers, the BoP would be on you for this
  • Healthcare providers reject blood from any and all US prisoners, the nature of the crime is irrelevant.  The point is that there is zero demand for the commodity you plan to extract from these murderers
COUNTER 2.2

  • PRO argued that it's not a donation if blood is taken by force
    • CON has made no reply
COUNTER 2.3

  • PRO argued forced blood extraction is an unnecessary and wanton infliction in violation the 8th AMD prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment
    • CON argues that punishment by blood extraction is necessary because potential blood beneficiaries need blood
      • Some blind people also need eyes: shall the eyes of murderers therefore be likewise forfeit and forthwith extracted?
      • Respect for each individual's autonomy and welfare irregardless of the greater good is a core principle of ethical medicine
        • BMC Medical Ethics writes: 
          • "The frequent focus of public health on benefit for populations holds the potential for concern with individual welfare to be side- lined. Embedding respect for autonomy firmly within public health ethics teaching and learning provides a fundamental reminder that every person has a high value – qua her or his autonomy – and cannot merely be treated as a means to the end of others’ good"
COUNTER 2.4
COUNTER 2.5

  • CON cites list of facts offered by a US Dept. of Energy blood drive, rather than any healthcare or HHS stat

COUNTER 2.6

  • Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
    • CON has made no reply
COUNTER 2.7

  • If US healthcare excludes USFG prisoner blood as tainted, exporting bad blood to foreign nations must be poor foreign policy
CONCLUSION

  • PRO has offered 6 good reason for USFG to retain CP as one constitutional remedy for murder.  CON's plan to commodify convict blood is unethical, unconstitutional and medically unsafe.  VOTERS should award argument to PRO
thx, Alec











Round 4
Alec's avatar
Alec
Con
#7
Sorry, but my parents won't let me do DART.  Because of this, I don't think I can post.
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Pro
#8
Per debate rules, this round is waived.

Thanks to Alec for debating and thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE PRO