Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

Thank you guys for your feedback!

Not casting a formal vote, as I do not feel motivated enough to do a lengthy analysis of each point...

In short, I'd say pro wins: The value offered is easy to weight (as he showed it in raw dollars). Whereas con's counter plan was more about instilling a feeling that some people ought to be killed, never-mind the extra innocent people who would be killed long before their DNA can be tested. Plus the reinvestment required by the counter plan, are not guaranteed.

The least moving point to me was Hitler, given that WWII war criminals fall outside the scope of the local US legal system. I was very curious to read up on con's offered repeat killers, but the sources were not well organized (the cluster dump at the end, doesn't tell me which one will have information on anyone unless their name is in the URL).

Thank you guys for your vote!!!

7.) conclusion: This is really the tale of two plans

I think both sides agree that innocent people need to be protected.

Pros plan does this by eliminating the possibility of death to any innocent person by removing it as an option.

Cons plan does this by trying to reduce the crimes and increase the burden of proof for those crimes. - meaning he goes with pros plan - except for the “worst crimes”.

I was mostly willing to overlook cost, unless it was a tiebreaker. While relevant - it was difficult to rate the impact of cost vs the death of an innocent person, or punishment of someone who deserves execution.

Con has the ability to win here with the counter plan he presented - I think the approach he took was valid, but in my view was so lacking in critical detail, as pro pointed out, that he never gave me a reason to pull the trigger.

I was willing to give a little bit of the ambiguity in favour of con - as I implied at the start due to the inherent burdens: but while I get where Con was going, he didn’t give me enough to believe his plan would truly reduce the number of innocents killed to such a low degree to be in that ambiguous area simply due to the fairly vague definitions of his plan.

Con has to show a fairly clear line, and give me reason to believe so few innocently convicted people are on the other side of the line to make it identical to pros plan, but with evil people punished with death. Con didn’t show me enough of where that line was, and how he could justify it - so as a result I must hand arguments to pro.

All other points tied.

4.) Counter plan - heinous crimes and shorter appeals.

While this would certainly make the process cheaper - and limiting the pool of execution applicable crimes will reduce the number of innocent people put to death, I have to agree with pro here. Con doesn’t give me a line I can draw with any reasonable intuition.

To award this point to con in light of the issues pro raises (innocents being killed), I have to assume that the line is drawn at a place where there is a minimal pool of cases - and to assume that none, of very few of those cases could be reasonably expected to be prosecuted on an innocent person. I get the idea that con is advocating, but I have to make too many assumptions in cons favour to award him this point.

3:0 pro

5.) The death Penalty is just. Hitler.

So, this is a bit complex to disentangle here: but bear with me.

I feel con offers a good argument here to establish his default burden: that there must be some reasonable or tangible benefit to the death penalty. I feel cons Hitler argument, and the argument from justice was good enough to convince me that there is an inherent benefit and, potentially, justification in execution in some cases.

This is to say that pro doesn’t lose this debate on inherent burden.

However, in weighting - I feel pro is corrects; the mostly agreed values seem at odds with cons logic. I find pros general argument consistent with values : that I have to weight the innocent people killed by cons plan - and not just whether the death penalty is justified.

6.) innocent people go free.

I feel pro adequately addressed this in his plan, while there is a tiny chance of a guilty person killing again, pro convinced me this is so substantially small that I can’t consider it benefit of cons plan.

So: with VD pro argues inherent unfairness of the system that will render invalid verdicts. I think both sides agree this is unjust.

Pros main issue raised is the issues to justice caused by racial disparities on juries. I feels cons counter plan addressed that specific issue with the rule to ensure racial setup in his jury pool: to the point where the majority of pros argument about the harms of all white juries is mitigated.

However, pro rightly points out the major issues of skew due to judges - and existing problems.

In this case, pro correctly makes the case that cons CP is as harmful as the SQ, so pros plan is better than cons here on the values of justice

1:0 pro

2.) Public Defenders.

Pro makes the case that lack of public defenders, and lower quality defense is substantially harmful, and that wrongful executions are likely to be at least 4%. I find this argument pretty compelling.

Cons counter case, doesn’t address public defenders at all. Referencing back the “heinous crimes”, for cons plan to have less harm than pros - the pool of crimes have to be so small, and the burden of proof so high to mitigate so as to prevent a substantial majority of the wrongly convicted due to poor prosecuters. I side with pro - I feel con did not offer sufficient detail for me to take his side.

2:0 pro

3.) Cost.

Pro makes a reasonable appeal to purse strings - arguing that it substantially cheaper to house criminals for life than an execution.

Con references a counter plan, to limit appeals and shorten time till death.

On purely financial terms - I would render this point a draw. While no numbers were given, a charitable interpretation of cons plan feels it is a similar cost.

Note: there were a lot of cross arguments in cost, I will be accounting for them separately.

1.) Value/BoP issues

I have to start by outlining the value and weighting I feel is warranted after the debate. Pro appears to argue that I must weigh the consequences to society and individuals, and con appears to mostly agree. So I’ll be using this lens to weigh the plans.

I felt the distinction and argument from should/ought was relatively meaningless, and has little impact on how I view burdens:

That being said, Cons appeal to weighting/burden suggests that if he finds one example where the death penalty is justified - that I must deny the resolution. That is opposed to the value he just agreed to - where he agrees that the death penalty should have an overall benefit to people in order to be valid.

I will say, however that con must establish some benefit of the death penalty to win: pro must be able to show that the resultant harm is substantial. Given the inherent intuition of the harms of innocent people being killed, I think pro is likely to find establishing his position easier, so I am going to take this into consideration in border line cases.

2.) Voire Dire

Con concedes all the issues pro raises with VD here. His rebuttal is in the form of a counter plan.

On a technical note here: While I considered it, I’m going to reject pros objection to offering a counter plan. Pro offers it as a rebuttal to a point in his first rebuttal round, it doesn’t appear to modify his inherent advocacy too much (its more along the lines of an extension), and in the context of the debate I don’t think it’s put undue burden on pro.

While the violation is probably technically true, I’m only going to entertain these sorts arguments when it clearly harms one sides ability to render an argument (it’s too big, too complex or too late), though I will very much take into account the depth and scope of the plan for pros counter.

Thank you for the vote.

There you go.

RFD 1/6
First things first, Pro has a faulty YouTube video choice in the debate's description. You don't do something like that man, you do something like this:

ESPECIALLY FOR THIS DEBATE TOPIC ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8A2JQp0A3s

You should read up on that anime's storyline. It's one of the best single pieces of art to make it clear why vigilante justice can be superior morally to bureaucratic justice but still leaves a lot to question about the main 2 char's moral compass overall as it progresses.

Now, blamonkey boy did his usual shit here at first but then he went proper RM on Virty Boo... He brings in that raw on-the-spot counter-martial-art and WRECKS THAT BOY awoooo!!! Con stands there rebuking Pro's case against the validity of Juries and the justice system itself being sufficient to decide who is guilty and thus deserves death by saying... "Oh yeah juries are indeed an issue"... Oh yeah, LET'S JUST DO AWAY WITH PLEA BARGAINING AND THAT WILL SOLVE IT ALL... WOOP! WOOP! wait... Hold on, I hear something....

"I am assuming that he is referring to one of the many flaws of the voir dire system that I mention. However, the latter portion of his plan creates a gargantuan skew that perverts justice. For one thing, judges are not representative of the people that they represent."

AYOOO, Virty made the dirty justice system MORE CORRUPT! What's the reply? What's the retort? NONE.

Then I hear a RREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAWWWwwww, the monkey dragon is about to breath some gentle smoke before the fire consumes Con...

RFD 2/6
"Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendant"

How will we AFFORD TO IMPROVE public defence? Reply is?... Con? Smoke begins to make him cough bim bam boom it's only just begun...

See, Con is already barely gasping for air at this point as Contention 1, that the system is biased, bent in favour of the rich and that the least we could do is to stop them killing those found guilty before they have the chance to be cleared is not only conceded entirely, it’s compounded back onto Con with Contention 2 (cost) adding to the brutality of the strike.

Con begins his rebuttals with:

“As noted in my opening, I agree with my opponent's framework of consequentialism. The government's duty to protect the welfare of the people is utmost important.”
and Pro points out that earlier, Con says

“If I can justify the death penalty in even one case or rare and extreme cases then repealing the death penalty would ensure that justice in those cases can never be properly done.”

RFD 3/6
But this is contradicted by the fact that Con admits that if the OVERALL drawbacks of having the death penalty outweigh the OVERALL benefits, then one instance or a rare case where DP would be desirable is INSUFFICIENT because this isn’t consequentialist but absolutist.

Pro attacks this first, asking WHY morals should supercede implementation/application:

“Where is the reference to moral imperatives? If the resolution had the word “ought,” then my opponent would be correct in his analysis. As it stands though, I see no reason to value moral principles over substantial, tangible benefits to the people.“

Then later by clarifying that Con just conceded something:

“My opponent cedes that consequentialism should be the method that we use to determine who wins the debate. He drops his argument suggesting that if Con can prove one instance in which capital punishment is justified then he wins.”

Con ends the debate summing up his ENTIRE CASE as the following:

“Recall the syllogism I posted

P1: If the death penalty is sometimes morally justified then it should not be abolished
P2: The death penalty is sometimes morally justified
C1: Therefore the death penalty should not be abolished.

P2 has conclusively been proven as Pro completely concedes. I've shown why p1 is true and now we are left with the inevitable conclusion: the death penalty should not be repealed. A vote for CON is in order.“

RFD 4/6
But wait a minute, P2 was just clarified by Pro in the quotation-chain I brought up, to be insufficient to prove your case in and of itself. Pro makes it very clear that one needs to explain how they can apply their system and how the real-world consequences of it matter more than the moral absolutes or justification behind it. So, while Pro does concede P2, Pro also sufficiently cornered you, Con, into conceding consequentialism and not moral absolutism is the framework in the debate. Pro even clarifies what this entails in the quotes I brought up.

Something else I noticed Con did wrong is to bring up Hitler when the debate was restricted to the US and on top of that to a time-scale of ‘from this day towards the near future’ given that it says ‘should abolish’ and now ‘should have’ or ‘should permanently’.

“It is a bold, but nonetheless false argument to suggest that by proving that the death penalty should be used in a few circumstances that the Con side automatically wins. While morality is tantamount to this debate, we still need to weigh the arguments of the Pro and the Con, which is something that I originally brought up in my framework.
“Ergo, the consequences of my plan and contentions should be weighed against my opponent’s to see who poses more tangible benefits to the people.” – Me in my first post.”

This entirely decimates the HItler point, you can’t just say ‘oh yes it’s relevant’ and expect to win.

The ENTIRE CASE OF CON is literally that all practical applications of DP in the US should be IGNORED if even in one or two cases it can be proven to be morally desirable to have (and not even to a US-specific villain or present-day figure, no he brought up Hitler…).

RFD 5/6
Pro explains how it’s neither financially nor morally net-beneficial to keep the DP legalised and implemented as it is now nor even in any way that Con could offer in a counter-plan.

Con’s counter-plan was to genuinely, unironically abolish plea bargaining, to do ‘something’ to make public defenders better at their jobs and to go to the most extreme cases of a ‘supervillain’ to explain how we must legalise the DP for him. Even more curious to me, is that Con assumes he explained why the DP is desirable over life imprisonment or even rehabilitation (which he concedes from the get-go is an aim of the justice system) and basically says KILL THEM BEFORE THEY HAVE THE CHANCE TO BECOME BETTER, WORSE OR THE SAME. This is literally his case. I am sorry but the entire Contention 2 of Pro was not even touched on by Con. Con is saying it saves money to slaughter them and then does the most hilarious thing of the entire debate… Oh Virt, just listen here:

You, Virtuoso as Con, said that if you can prove in one case or rare cases that DP is desirable that DP must be kept legal and implemented as is. Conversely, you completely concede that all proven cases of wrongly accused people who got killed by DP are one-off and rare cases that decimate your cases at the core AND AT the seams as if we invert your standard onto you, you lose. Pro simply leaves it as this:

“Due to bias in the current system that:
a) Cannot be addressed by my opponent unless he shifts the goal posts and
b) Cannot be solved by his proposed ideas even if he could use a CP halfway into the debate,
We see that innocents will likely die. Under the agreed framework of consequentialism and fulfilling the role of government, we scan easily

RFD 6/6
Last part of RFD

You genuinely conceded a and b to him because you said:

“The current way in which the jury selection is used is deeply flawed in my opinion. Pro highlights some of these important issues. I agree that an all-white jury on an African American defendant is highly problematic.”

Er… So how will you fix that? Letting JUDGES DECIDE MORE?!

Then you say “we need to completely abolish all victimless crimes such as prostitution, drug possession, selling drugs, etc. We need to completely stop prosecuting such crimes”... What the hell do you know about how pimps treat prostitutes? Do you even know how horrific human trafficking is? Your source is so superficial with what it proves, Pro retorts:

“Even if we get rid of the laws that penalize drug offenders, we still do not grant clemency to every single person convicted of a non-violent crime under Virt’s plan. Money is still used to feed and clothe people in prison, which means declining resources still present us with the problem of weakened representation for poor defendants. “

So what now?

What now?!!!!

WHAT?!

No.

I am fine with it.

I was worried about you or Bsh1 reporting it.

I think your vote is OK. I'll let blamonkey make the decision. If he's ok with it then I'll allow it to stand.

My "vote" since I'm worried about voting for real:

Spelling, Conduct and Sources: Tie for each of these. Both debaters cited and their spelling and conduct was comprobly good.

Better arguments: Virt. Virt had a good argument with pointing out Hitler. Blamonkey did not adequately address this, so I think Virt won the debate 7 to 4. A more thorough analysis is below:

Pro's arguments(R1):
-Death penalty has racial and social class bias.
-Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without parole.

Con's arguments(R1):
-The death penalty serves "justice".
-The guilty party can't murder again.
-Someone like Hitler deserves the death penalty(DP), therefore making the DP justified in extreme situations like this.

Pro's case R2:

- Whether or not the DP serves Justice is opinion based, so if he dropped this, I wouldn't blame him.
- The guilty party almost never escapes from jail and when they do, they are recaptured within a day. Con does not counter this, so Pro wins this battle.
- Pro drops the Hitler question so Con wins this battle.

Con's case to R2:
- Under his plan no one innocent is executed. This is wishful thinking. He agrees with the race based claim, so that point can be put to the side. He offers a solution to this by making every defendant have at least half of the members of the same race on his jury. That will mean that black people will be more likely to be on jury then white people, since blacks are more likely to commit murder. I don't think this is a problem.
- His cost argument is to decrease the amount of time spent on death row. However, this results in more innocents getting killed. He states, "If a just punishment is more expensive than an alternate unjust punishment, don't we have a moral obligation to go with the more expensive just sentence?" This was a poor argument for Virtuoso to make since his argument contradicts what he said here.

Over. Please vote.