Death penalty solely for murder
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
- 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:
- 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 " " " " " " " "
- CP is explicitly sanctioned by US Constitution
- 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
- 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
- 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
- CP saves taxpayers money
- Avg 2017 daily cost of Fed inmate= $99.45 X 1yr= $36,300
- Avg 2016 cost of Fed CP trial= $600,000
- CP is cheaper than keeping prisoner for 17 yrs or more
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.
- 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
- CON has made no reply
- CON has made no reply
- CON has made no reply
- CON has made no reply
- CON has made no reply
- CON has made no reply
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- In Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977), the US Supreme Court found that the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
- In Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992),
the Supreme Court found that a prisoner need not suffer
significant injury bin order to suffer an 8th AMD violation.\
- PRO very much doubts that forced bleedings can be defended as a necessary infliction
- 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
- 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.
- Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
- Africans don't want US murder-blood
- "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"
The high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis in the blood of prisoners made wholesale exclusion a prudent protection beginning in the mid-1980's
PRO very much doubts that forced bleedings can be defended as a necessary infliction
- 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
Africans don't want US murder-blood
- 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
- I didn't find the quote from the article and I don't even think the article mentions criminals
- On the given link, click on HEPATITIS EXPOSURE
- 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
- PRO argued that it's not a donation if blood is taken by force
- CON has made no reply
- 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"
- CON cites list of facts offered by a US Dept. of Energy blood drive, rather than any healthcare or HHS stat
- Making citizens "leeches to the State" ain't right
- CON has made no reply
- If US healthcare excludes USFG prisoner blood as tainted, exporting bad blood to foreign nations must be poor foreign policy
- 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
Arguments: Pro offered multiple, credible arguments which Con allowed to stand without rebuttal. Points to Pro
Sources: Pro had many sources. bot for argument and rebuttal. Points to Pro
Conduct: Con forfeited two rounds - automatic fail
Well Pro made some good points about bad effects forcing blood donation and the health.
Pro made some points that Con did not see or deal with. Thats the issue here Pro made a bunch of points and Con did not even pretend to see them
I dont buy the cost saving aspect. A few of those comments I dont agree with. And Pro did not qualify them but the points are clear. With evidence.
The entire debate was Pro --- Here are reasons (like em or not) Con --- Nah let them give blood instead
Better sources by Pro
Spelling and stuff. Well con missed a bunch of spaces before brackets and that was very distracting. Made it hard for my simple brain to read.
Conduct. I dont think its dudes fault mamma kicked him off the komp. Cant fault him.
ARGS
For one, I will see the resolution as-”The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER.”Pro offered this resolution and Con never objected. I will also view this debate as being centred around the United States of America, Pro stated that this debate should revolve around the United States and Con never objected.
How Realistic is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
It is clear that the American constitution endorses the death penalty. As a result of Con not responding to this argument, I am left believing that the American constitution would side with Pro. Moreover, the American people seem to side with Pro as Pro pointed out in R1 with his Gallup polls. Seeing as Con failed to respond to this point, I have to believe that the American people wouldn’t endorse Con’s position. Also, it’s clear that an inmate donating blood is not permitted in the United States of America. In short, it’s clear that the Americans and their constitution would not support Con’s position, as a result, I am left with the impression that Pro’s position would be much easier to implement in the United States of America.
How Effective is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
Con’s argument revolves around extracting blood from prisoners to save American lives, and to try to sell or donate this blood to foreign countries. But, killing the murderer instead of extracting blood would also come with its own monetary gains. Providing for murderers is very costly as Pro points out, costing tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner. Moreover, because extracting blood from prisoners would not be permitted, it appears that the potential monetary benefits would be very hard to capitalize on. We also see that killing murderers significantly lowers crime rates, this point gets dropped by Con. But, Con was able to establish that blood extraction could save lives. However, seeing that extracting blood from prisoners is illegal, this point gets knocked down a bit. So, crime sides with Pro because Con never contested this point. The fiscal benefits side with Pro because killing murderers to save money is much more practical than selling blood to foreign countries. But, if it could be implemented, Con’s position could save many lives.
I believe Pro won arguments because his position is much easier to implement, along with it deterring crime and saving money. Also, while Con’s position could save lives, it seems like that would be very hard to capitalize on as a result of the barriers to implementing Con’s position.
SOURCES
No problems from either side.
CONDUCT
No problems from either side.
S AND G
No problems from either side.
I don't believe 6 times a year is correct. I only do it 2 times a year and it wipes me out when I do. It seems excessive.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
There is no argument to be had. Pro forfeited and got banned from debateart by his parents. That means even the Con could argue for just about anything and be considered to have the better argument
>Reason for Mod Action: To vote solely off the basis of forfeits, it must be a full forfeit (FF) debate where at least 50% of the rounds were forfeited by one side. Only one round was forfeited, so this vote is insufficient. There was no concession either, just a small blip about not being able to post. This violates the Voting Policy and is thus subject to removal. Sorry for the inconvenience, but feel free to case another vote.
************************************************************************
Thanks for voting
PRO's R3 sources
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/manage-my-donations/rapidpass/what-you-must-know-before-blood-donation.html
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/
Sorry I ran out of space again.
TBH I think it's necessary in times of war to combat desertion and cowardice.
I figured I'd do counterarguments in the 2nd round. I was out of space with my response, so that's why I didn't address those other points.
PRO's R2 sources:
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/donation
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._McMillian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I have a good alternative punishment to the death penalty.
I neglected to link the line
"been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations"
to (of course) Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#History
(PRO regrets the error)
I now can't read the debate without thinking about DP the wrong way... Or maybe the right way...
I chose the initials CP in preference to DP because I didn't want to write any hysterical double entendres but now I note that I didn't double check that I changed all the DPs to CPs. Now I'm cracking up at:
"Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?"
(and shall we put in on pornhub?)
"CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment"
"DP enjoys majority support in US."
two-to-one, at least
PRO's R1 sources:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329028740_The_Deterrent_Effect_of_Executions_A_Meta-Analysis_Thirty_Years_after_Ehrlich
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09062/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fdpc2010.pdf
Ok! I'm looking forward!! @Orogami - go ahead and take it!
I'd prefer it if oromagi took this debate. I want to try and beat him. No one has so far.
Alec-
If Virt doesn't take the D.A. position, I would be willing.
Too many interrupts in the debate conditions to make it an equitable debate. BoP shared? The Instigator has Burden of Proof, just as in a court of law as borne by the prosecutor. The Contender, also as the defense in a court of law, need only plant doubt in the Instigator's arguments, but need not prove a bloody thing.
Also, you imply that definitions must be shared, whereas, I've seen many debates with this proposition that fail only because neither side can agree on definitions. I believe the Instigator must provide definitions within the argument phase; best in the first round, or as I prefer, within the long description in proposing the debate. The Contender may argue the validity of the definitions, and that becomes, then, a construct of the opposing arguments, in which, again, the Instigator has burden of proof.
If you want to waive rounds, just lessen the number of rounds, otherwise, you have unnecessarily, but a little too conveniently favored the debate to your side. Bad form.
I tweaked the title to get rid of the word immediate.
It's part of my strategy. I like getting in the last word and I argue primarily with rebuttals.
Take our immediate and I’ll play devils advocate
Why waive the first and last rounds?
I doubt anyone will accept due to the word "immediate".
Practicality. Even though I'm against the death penalty, I don't sympathize with the murderer at all.
Are your arguments grounded in morality or practicallity?
Think anyone will accept or is everyone on this site against it?
Good topic.