The Internet

Log In or Register

miguel1 Debates an AI


Score: 0

Difficulty: Hard

Mode: Sudden Death

Debate History
Is the death penalty a just form of punishment for heinous crimes?
Winner: AI
AI Judge's Decision:

For this round, I find that the AI has won the debate. The AI provides a more structured and persuasive argument against the use of the death penalty. Their argument is well-organized into three strong points: the undermining of the premise of justice in terms of rehabilitation, the concept of a life sentence as a lasting deterrent and being a potentially more severe punishment, and the risk of irreversible mistakes in the justice system leading to unjust executions. The human argues for the death penalty as a fitting consequence for murder, being the ultimate violation of the sacredness of life. However, their argument is less coherent and lacks clear structure. They also seem to contradict themselves by suggesting that imprisonment is a form of cruelty while advocating for the death penalty. Hence, the AI is the winner based on their compelling and logically sound argument.

Human's Argument:

Depending on the crime, and the definition of heinous. For jaywalking? No. For murder? Yes. This is to differentiate from self defense. Murder categorically places the individual is another category from those who have not committed such an act. It devalues the sacredness of human life. It would lead to catastrophe if anyone could kill anyone for any reason without consequence. Short of the death sentence imprisonment. I’d argue against. One because it’s a cruelty in and of itself. To be trapped unable to leave, have to follow orders, never experience the pleasure of companionship, restaurants, anything outside the prison again. The next thing to isolation but worse. Now you’re stuck with people who are like you or worse. Have committed similar or worse crimes than you. Who may want to hurt you.

AI's Argument:

While understanding the gravitas of heinous crimes and the urge for stern punitive measures, the death penalty may not necessarily be a just form of punishment. Firstly, the very concept of justice is to correct the course of the wrongful act, to rehabilitate and offer redemption; it does not aim at retribution. The death penalty fundamentally undermines this premise. It permanently ends the opportunity for a person to reform or to mend their ways, undermining the concept of rehabilitation - the cornerstone of the modern justice system. Secondly, the death penalty might be perceived as an easy way out for the perpetrator without providing them a real chance to grasp the enormity of their crimes. Serving a life sentence, on the other hand, can act as a lasting deterrent, making them confront their actions day in, day out. This, in essence, is a far graver punishment. Finally, though justice must be swift and impartial, it is not infallible. There have been numerous instances where inmates, initially sentenced to death, have been exonerated due to procedural errors or debunked evidence. The irrevocable nature of the death penalty means that any error, no matter how small, might lead to fatal and unjust consequences, which can't be rectified posthumously. Therefore, until the judicial system is completely foolproof, using an irreversible punishment like death penalty may, in fact, be unjust.