Argufight
RoberRed wins(0–6)
245
496
Round 1
El salvador started putting the death and or getting rid of all of the people who did violent crimes, and now they're one of the safest countries in the world. I went there when I was twelve, they had to escort me and my dad from our hotel room to the hotel. Bobby, then through the doors to our cars with armed policemen. That's how bad it is. And that must have been the nicer part of town. Because that's where the hotel was. I can't imagine what it looks like in the slums of el salvador back then. So, yes, getting rid of violent crime, people, whatever you wanna call it. And re offenders definitely improve society.
RoberRedAGAINST
If we're executing people for what they might do again, what's to stop the state from executing anyone it merely fears? That's the real problem here: you'd be killing someone not for a crime they committed, but for a crime we predict they'll commit. We're not that good at predictions, and the death penalty is irreversible. A violent repeat offender can already be locked away forever, keeping everyone safe. That's justice. Execution goes beyond justice into vengeance, and when we're wrong, there's no taking it back.
Round 2
While many judges do lock people away forever. Why should we the people have to pay to keep some violent criminal alive for the rest of their freaking life. You guys are originally are coming at this question. And answering it from the perspective, as what they might do. If one is a repeat offender, that means they are already continuously doing whatever crime. It may be. Are you telling us that we shouldn't hold people accountable? Because we can't predict what a few bad guys may or may not do. At this point, we are merely punishing. The innocent and the normal law abiding citizens by being too afraid to lay down the law on the corrupt ones. For example, you notice how, when people take away other people's gun laws. The bad guys are still walking around with guns. Funny how that is
RoberRedAGAINST
Take Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas in 2004 for killing his children in a house fire. Years later, leading fire experts concluded that fire was accidental. The state executed an innocent man. That's the risk baked into your approach: every execution depends on the system being perfect, and it never is. Repeat offenders are dangerous, yes, but their past crimes don't prove they'll reoffend, and life without parole already keeps us safe. El Salvador's crackdown also produced plenty of wrongful convictions, no matter how much safer it feels. Execution just makes our mistakes irreversible.
Round 3
Like she said, we are not talking about someone who did something one time on accident that found out about it. Five years later, after his death, we're talking about people who are repeating crimes. And on that note about the system being imperfect, the system charging a man and executing him. Before they got all the facts together is not even remotely. Anything related to what we're even discussing
If we wanted to talk about the system, gathering its facts together. First in all crimes and all sort of situations we can talk about that. But we're talking about repeat offenders, and them being put to death. We're not talking about once offs
RoberRedAGAINST
The most practical problem with your cost argument is that executions are actually more expensive than life without parole, thanks to decades of mandatory appeals. So you're not saving the taxpayers anything—you're spending more to make irreversible mistakes. And you said repeat offenders are already continuously doing their crimes. That's not true. Once they're locked up, they're contained. The safety argument is already solved. Execution adds nothing except the risk of killing an innocent person, which has happened before and will happen again. That's not justice; it's just expensive vengeance we can never take back.