Debate help?!

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

Ok, so I am a freshman in high school and I am taking Debate 1.

On Tuesday we are having our first debate real debate.

The debate is a CX (team) debate over the topic of "Should the death penalty be abolished in America?"

My partner and I chose the side of being against is being abolished.
My 3 arguments are as follows
1. It costs the public a lot of money to keep someone is prison for life.
2. The is already an overcrowding problem in U.S. prisons and the death penalty might help cut down on that.
3. The idea of the death penalty might convince someone not to commit the homicide they are planning.

I am here to ask all of my fellow (and probably senior) debaters on this site for help.

1. I am supposed to find facts I can use and print them off. The problem is I need to find credible sources for these facts. If anyone could find sources that can be taken seriously it would be appreciated.

2. If anyone would like to help in a less work based way, if anyone would like to provide any other arguments for me to use or any counter arguments that I’m likely to face, it would a big help.

I am just asking for anyone who might be very bored or just would like to help a fella out, I’m a very nice guy you know

[Red Celt]

1. It costs the public a lot of money to keep someone is prison for life.
2. The is already an overcrowding problem in U.S. prisons and the death penalty might help cut down on that.
3. The idea of the death penalty might convince someone not to commit the homicide they are planning.

Thanks for the chuckle. Reasons 1 & 2 are basically about saving money. Reason 3 is false. In this debate, you're going to get your arse handed to you on a plate. With a side-serving of relish.

Work out what the other team are going to throw against you - and then make sure that your points address those.

e.g.

A regular complaint about the death penalty is that society should not lower itself to the point of killing a human being. In that sense, society is as bad as the murderer it's executing.

Address that with:-

We already have necessary wars (the word "necessary" is an important one, as conflicts such as Iraq were very very unnecessary). During such wars, we kill others.

Until we reach a time that necessary wars are no longer necessary, society can not separate the killing on the battlefield with the killing in a prison's execution chamber... as both have their place for the greater good.

If you have room for humour, suggest that people on death row should be parachuted into Helmand Province with "Allah sucks off goats" tattooed on their foreheads.

I'm not writing the rest of your debate for you, but that's the approach you should take: counter their arguments and make those counterarguments more impressive than whatever they throw at you. In order to know what they'll throw at you, work out how you would object against the death penalty. Oh, and perhaps watch The Life Of David Gale.

And not everything is about money.

Oh, and to make my above point clear... the death penalty is not a deterrence. Look up the stats. With that off the shelf, you need to concentrate on the idea of justice.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Oh, and to make my above point clear... the death penalty is not a deterrence. Look up the stats. With that off the shelf, you need to concentrate on the idea of justice.

Excellent post. Translation; I agree.

I'd be interested in you opinion:

A moral relativist and utilitarian (among other things) I have no problem with the notion of the State killing some people as punishment,in principle. EG for the rape or murder of a child or murder for personal gain. I say in principle because as far as I am aware there is no legal system on earth which guarantees a safe conviction for ANY crime. However, I think an argument could still be made on utilitarian grounds.

Further,it is my observation that any connection between the law and justice is more a matter of happy accident than of design.

[Angrboda]

Actually, number 1 is false, as death row appeals cost more money than simply housing the prisoner would.

As to number 3, it depends on how you measure the deterrent effect. One way, there is no evidence for deterrence, the other way appears there is. I forget, but I think the second approach is called 'econometric', but don't quote me on that.

Either way, bone up on stats for Texas. That's likely your worst case scenario. (As well as recent execution of someone widely presumed innocent, but condemned out of hand by Governor Perry.)


Oh, and this is a truism of hollywood law shows, that as a lawyer, you never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to; in debate, that translates into never advancing an argument if you don't know its counter-argument. And if your opponent introduces something you're not thoroughly familiar with, avoid or dismiss it. A general tactic gleaned from online debates, pick the few weakest points of your opponent, and make them out to be his whole case; if he lets you, he loses the strength of his argument; if he doesn't let you, he appears to be whining or badgering.

[Red Celt]

A moral relativist and utilitarian (among other things) I have no problem with the notion of the State killing some people as punishment,in principle. EG for the rape or murder of a child or murder for personal gain. I say in principle because as far as I am aware there is no legal system on earth which guarantees a safe conviction for ANY crime. However, I think an argument could still be made on utilitarian grounds.

As a liberal, I'm probably on fairly lonely ground when it comes to the death penalty. To me, there are some crimes which just void your right to continue as a member of society - and lifelong incarceration isn't an answer; indeed, lifelong incarceration could be called crueller than the death penalty.

I would need to expand on that, however. For a death sentence to be carried out, there would need to be no doubts whatsoever as to the guilt. The death of a single innocent is too high a price to pay. They would basically need to be caught doing it (on CCTV, perhaps) with no grounds for appeal... but even then, the judiciary would need a level of confidence above and beyond what has been demonstrated in the past.

Anders Behring Breivik would be a good (recent) example. I applaud Norway's liberalism and their refusal to take the path of countries like the USA or UK, where acts of terrorism have resulted in the abandonment of civil liberties... but the end result should have been the death penalty.

Taking a cue from my earlier humorous remark, imagine Muslim-hating Anders being parachuted into a remote part of Afghanistan. He wouldn't be a happy bunny... and, having taken 77 lives, he doesn't deserve to be a happy bunny.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

.

To me, there are some crimes which just void your right to continue as a member of society

Agreed. I also make the caveate of a safe conviction.. I also agree that revenge is not always wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGMZsKXz94


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA1ceQWmzMQ

[Minimalist]

1. It costs the public a lot of money to keep someone is prison for life.
2. The is already an overcrowding problem in U.S. prisons and the death penalty might help cut down on that.
3. The idea of the death penalty might convince someone not to commit the homicide they are planning.

The state of New Mexico recently abolished the DP because of the cost.
New Jersey also abolished it because of the likelihood of mistakes... and because of the cost.

Second, a far easier manner of reducing overcrowding is to stop filling the prisons with non-violent offenders. When California had to relieve overcrowding they ordered the release of minor offenders not the wholesale slaughter of violent criminals.

Here's a chart showing the states listed by "murder rates" ( scroll down ). Only one of the top 20 ( Michigan ) does not have the DP. Clearly there is no "deterrent effect."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-r...-and-state

You will be demolished by facts if you go with your 3 points. Best stick to fuzzier things like the simple desire for revenge. It isn't very noble but at least you can argue it.

[Red Celt]

You will be demolished by facts if you go with your 3 points. Best stick to fuzzier things like the simple desire for revenge. It isn't very noble but at least you can argue it.

Revenge? No no no no noooooo! That argument will be destroyed. If the judiciary is simply about revenge, that gives the green light for citizens to handle the revenge themselves.

Incarcerations are (supposedly) for the following reasons:-

1. Justice
2. Rehabilitation
3. Deterrence
4. Public Safety

With the death penalty, number 2 can be taken off the list. It isn't a deterrent, so take 3 of the list. So you're left with:-

1. Justice
2. Public Safety

These are both applicable to the death penalty and (true) life imprisonment. You just have to find a way of arguing why the death penalty is a more suitable solution (within those 2 parameters).

[Minimalist]

If the judiciary is simply about revenge, that gives the green light for citizens to handle the revenge themselves.

That's a non sequitur. The state takes the place of citizens having to handle revenge. Like that scene in Lawrence of Arabia where he shot a criminal rather than start a blood feud in his army by letting them do it themselves.

[Red Celt]

If the judiciary is simply about revenge, that gives the green light for citizens to handle the revenge themselves.

That's a non sequitur. The state takes the place of citizens having to handle revenge. Like that scene in Lawrence of Arabia where he shot a criminal rather than start a blood feud in his army by letting them do it themselves.

Sounds more like justice than revenge, to me