The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Should the death penalty be completely abolished?in United States

WilliamSchulz

I am currently planning to write a 30 page paper about why the death penalty is wrong in a moral sense, but I wanted to get an idea of what you think. Here are my major theses. 

1. The Death Penalty can not be listed as "killing", as in fact, it is in reality a "murder."
2. American Laws were created to protect us from the unjust, but they apply to the unjust and human rights can not be stripped of the unjust. 
3. The heinous actions of one individual meriting the death penalty does not take away from his dignity and virtues of human rights. 
4. A person should not have the job responsible for killing other people, which draws an eerie line between this and euthanasia. 

In doing so, I'll be arguing against the DP from principle and I will have to disprove the Case of Proportionality in Capital Punishment. Any ideas?

someone234

1 is false... It's listed as actually neither just 'killing' nor 'murder' it's called 'execution' and is a unique legal term for the killing of someone in a retributive manner as opposed to a defensive one. This term 'execution' is actually an angle a defence lawyer can take to get a murderer let off on manslaughter as the stress of the situation and rage felt towards the other killing someone leading to them acting (or rather than killing, perhaps raping their daughter). It's rare that the person will get let off innocent but common they will get let off with around a 1-year sentence even if the word used is murder as it's seen as them having a strong moral compass for them to execute someone.

someone234

3 comes down to what the culture thinks. Saudi Arabia's culture totally disagrees with you there whereas most of western Europe is in strong agreement with you.

someone234

2 is false. You as a civilian can't put someone in a jail/prison that you build in your house, that breaks the law but the police can.

someone234

4 is, like 3, a matter of opinion.

WilliamSchulz

Counter-Points:

Let me first state that this a paper on why the death penalty is morally wrong, so you can take the entire paper as a matter of opinion, but I will like a debate be heavily backing my position with evidence. 

1: Although execute is a legal term, it is a guise for killing an individual ,whether for capital purposes or not, it is still ridding a person of his/her life and can thus be listed as murder for the fact that some killing is justified, but never murder.

2. I think you're missing the point here, you are trying to reference something related to the 3rd amendment, and it isn't about breaking laws, its the rights and protections that we associate with them. 

3. My paper will take the European side, again, with that and 4, I am free to take opinions in my paper. 

someone234

WilliamSchulz said:

Counter-Points:

Let me first state that this a paper on why the death penalty is morally wrong, so you can take the entire paper as a matter of opinion, but I will like a debate be heavily backing my position with evidence. 

1: Although execute is a legal term, it is a guise for killing an individual ,whether for capital purposes or not, it is still ridding a person of his/her life and can thus be listed as murder for the fact that some killing is justified, but never murder.

2. I think you're missing the point here, you are trying to reference something related to the 3rd amendment, and it isn't about breaking laws, its the rights and protections that we associate with them. 

3. My paper will take the European side, again, with that and 4, I am free to take opinions in my paper. 

Don't ask for us to point out flaws if you don't want them pointed out, just imprison them then. Yes go ahead.

WilliamSchulz

Part of writing a paper is having the ability to defend them. Instead of discussing the points, you were either trying to list them as "false" or "an opinion." Rather, I would like to hear your moral views concerning the case, not the right or wrong gist of things. 

someone234

No William, I was helping you and coming with four very strong counter-angles to the four things you asked to be critiqued.