Should We Abolish the Death Penalty?
190+ people have been exonerated from US death rows since 1973. The US still executes prisoners alongside China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Is state execution justice — or state-sanctioned murder that no system can make safe? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Monday, August 31, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
The question is whether a democratic government can authorize killing its own citizens knowing, with certainty, that some of those citizens will be innocent.
The Matchup
The Positions
State killing is irreversible, racially biased, more expensive than life imprisonment, and has never been shown to deter crime.
- Over 190 people have been exonerated from US death row since 1973, proving beyond reasonable doubt that we have executed innocent people — and irreversibility means the wrongful-conviction argument is not a procedural objection but a categorical one.
- The death penalty tracks race, county of prosecution, and quality of defense counsel more reliably than severity of crime: two defendants who committed equivalent acts receive different sentences based on zip code and public defender caseload, not justice.
- Every peer democracy has abolished capital punishment; the US now keeps company with China, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia as the world's leading executioners — a fact that should prompt serious reflection, not reflexive nationalism.
Debater: To be announced
For the worst crimes — mass murder, genocide — death is the proportionate response, and society has the right to demand it.
- For crimes of extreme magnitude — mass murder, terrorist attacks that kill dozens — life imprisonment is a disproportionately light response that fails victims, distorts our collective moral seriousness, and cannot be the final word.
- The wrongful-conviction argument proves too much: wrongful imprisonment also occurs, and no one argues we must therefore eliminate incarceration. The answer is better process and higher evidentiary standards, not abolition of the ultimate sanction.
- Many murder victims' families support capital punishment as the only response that matches the magnitude of what was taken from them — their moral standing is real, and a system that ignores it in favor of abstract principle is not justice but philosophy.
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Make Your Case
Record a 60-second video on either side — or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“Over 190 people have been exonerated from US death rows since 1973, proving that we have executed innocent people. Irreversibility means the wrongful-conviction argument is not a procedural objection but a categorical one: a justice system that cannot guarantee it never convicts the innocent should not have an irreversible sanction.”
“The death penalty tracks race, county of prosecution, and quality of legal representation more reliably than severity of crime. Two defendants who committed equivalent acts receive different sentences based on zip code and public defender caseload, not justice. A punishment allocated this arbitrarily cannot claim moral legitimacy.”
“For crimes of extreme magnitude — mass murder, terrorist attacks that kill dozens — life imprisonment is a disproportionately light response that fails victims, distorts collective moral seriousness, and cannot serve as the final word. Some crimes are categorically different, and the punishment must acknowledge that difference.”
“The wrongful-conviction argument proves too much. Wrongful imprisonment also occurs, and no one argues we must therefore eliminate incarceration. The answer is better process, higher evidentiary standards, and restricted eligibility — not abolition of the ultimate sanction for the most serious crimes with the strongest evidence.”
How It Works
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
Rebuttal
PRO
Rebuttal
CON
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
Closing Statement
CON · final case
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
~28 minutes of debate · audience vote follows closing statements
Don't Miss It
Stay in the Loop
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Monday, August 31, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Get Involved
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
More Debates
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Free Speech vs Content Moderation: Where Is the Line?
Does content moderation protect democracy or threaten it? Two debaters take assigned sides on the defining free speech question of the digital age. You pick the winner.
Should Billionaires Exist?
The US had 13 billionaires in 1982; it has over 800 today. Billionaires gained $5 trillion during the COVID pandemic alone. Is extreme wealth a reward for value creation — or proof of a rigged system? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Should Parents Be Allowed to Genetically Design Their Children?
He Jiankui's 2018 gene-edited babies led most countries to ban germline editing. CRISPR can correct hereditary disease — and select for intelligence before birth. If science makes your child healthier, is it wrong not to? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Is Democracy Still Humanity's Best Bet?
Freedom House reports 18 consecutive years of democratic decline. Churchill called it 'the worst form of government except for all the others.' Is democracy humanity's best answer — or too slow for the crises we face? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.