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
Scheduled date passed
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 opposing positions
Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished in all jurisdictions
ABOLISH: The state should not kill
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.
RETAIN: Some crimes demand the ultimate penalty
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.
Contribute now
Add your perspective
Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.
Start here
Contribute now
A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.
Share only material you have permission to make public.
Optional
Exchange responses
Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.
Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.
At a set time
Live attendance
Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.
Check showcase detailsABOLISH: The state should not kill
RETAIN: Some crimes demand the ultimate penalty
“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.”
The debate format
Follow each side’s case through questions, rebuttals and closing statements.
- 4 min
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
PRO · opening case
- 4 min
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
CON questions PRO
- 4 min
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
CON · opening case
- 4 min
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
PRO questions CON
- 3 min
Rebuttal
PRO
PRO
- 3 min
Rebuttal
CON
CON
- 3 min
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
PRO · final case
- 3 min
Closing Statement
CON · final case
CON · final case
- —
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
You pick the winner
Get debate updates
Leave your email for announcements about this debate.
Debate schedule
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.
Should the Four-Day Work Week Become Standard?
Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?
Should Race-Conscious College Admissions Be Restored?
