FIRST AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER

1. Greeting
Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentleman.
2. Definition
Id like to give our motion today. Our motion today is This House Supports The Death
Penalty. The definition of motion is:
a. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned
practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime.
The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death
sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution.
From the motion we will give our theme line. That we as affirmative team absolutely
agree that supports the death penalty. Then our parameter today is that we just talk
about the death penalty in the world.
3. Team Split
I am Wisnu as the first speaker I will deliver my argument welfare view, and Bayu as
the second speaker who will deliver argument from humanity view the next, Diah as the
third speaker will deliver rebuttal and summary argument and the last is Tamara as the
replay speaker will deliver summary the argument. Now, I will start to give my
argument from welfare view.
4. Outlines of Argument
5. Argument
The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into
society or commit further crimes while in prison. While in prison, it is not uncommon
for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes
while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive. Putting dangerous
murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from
prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees. Thus, the only
way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to
execute them.
6. Conclusion
FIRST SPEAKER NEGATIVE
1. Greeting
Good morning Mr. chaiman, Madam chair, Ladies and Gentleman.
2. Rebuttal

The main problem with our apposition case is their theme which states While in
prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit
homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they
can receive, that theme is wrong because escapes from prison, though sensationalized
by the media, are relatively rare occurrences. In 1998, according to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. Given a total
prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over half a
percent of the total prison population. On top of this, it is not impossible for people to
commit further crimes while on death row. Those sentenced to death may be even more
eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting life in prison, so it is not
true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes.
3. Link Case of Argument
I am Ratih as the first speaker I will deliver my argument from humanity view, and
Santika as the second speaker who will deliver argument from economic view the next,
Prastika as the third speaker will deliver rebuttal and summary argument and the last is
Yoni as the replay speaker will deliver summary the argument. Now, I will start to give
my argument from humanity view.
4. Outline of Argument
5. Argument
The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the
government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process.
Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life,
which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a
humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty.
6. Conclusion
SECOND SPEAKER AFFIRMATIVE
1. Greeting
Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentleman. I am Bayu as the
second speaker of the affirmative team.
2. Rebuttal
The main problem with our apposition case is their theme which states By executing
convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in

the process, that theme is wrong because a just state regularly abrogates people's rights
when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for
instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from
convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain
heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather
affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so
heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution. As for the executioners
themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which
might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to
become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full
awareness of the risks involved.
3. The Split
My first speaker of my team give the arguments of the case from welfare view. I will
continue to give my argument from humanity view.
4. Outlines of Argument
5. Argument
The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who
will no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to
worry about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater
degree of closure. Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the
death penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated
'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system.
Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done.
6. Conclusion
SECOND SPEAKER NEGATIVE
1. Greeting
Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentleman. I am Santika as the
second speaker of the negative team.
2. Rebuttal
The main problem with our apposition case is their theme which states The
death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will
no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society, that theme is wrong
because many victims families oppose the death penalty. While some might take
comfort in knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that
the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state

killed another human being on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, Stanford University
psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails to provide
closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed
from experience it. Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims'
families, sentencing is simply not about what the victims' families want. Punishment
should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the alleged preferences of
victims' families.
3. The Split
My first speaker of my team give the arguments of the case from humanity view. I will
continue to give my argument from economic view.
4. Outlines of Argument
5. Argument
Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs
the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison. A single capital litigation can
cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and long appeals
process that are required by capital cases. The cost of death row presents an additional
financial burden associated with the death penalty. Savings from abolishing the death
penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for every case in which the
death penalty is not sought. In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year
beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life. This money could instead be better
spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the criminal justice systemgreater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that are far more costeffective.
6. Conclusion
With the disparate views pointed out by proponents and opponents of death
penalty, deciding on which group was able to prove a more logical perspective on the
issue can be challenging. Legislators should consider all the issues presented by the
public and listen to what they have to say. In a nutshell, they should let the voice of the
people be heard.

THIRD SPEAKER NEGATIVE

1. Greeting

Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentleman. Im Pras
as third speaker of negative team. Now I will read my rebuttal.
2. Rebuttal
The first speaker of oppositions team said that The death penalty is the only
way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes
while in prison. Then he said Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers
other prisoners and the guards. But, in my opinion this argument is wrong, because
the death penalty is not the only way that criminals do not escape and commit crimes,
even endanger other prisoners or guards. All it will not happen if the prison has a high
security system. Besides that, criminals can be isolated from other prisoners, so as not
to endanger others. Here, the government's role in making a judgment that could deter
criminals without the death penalty for their
The second speaker of oppositions team said that The death penalty can also
help provide closure for the victim's family But, in my opinion this argument is
wrong, because the death penalty does not provide closure for victims' families. But
the death penalty can actually cause more crime, such as a family of criminals dont
accept the sentence of death, so a family of criminals could conflict with the families
of the victims that could lead to criminal action again. In addition, the death penalty
views of humanity value cant be done, because criminals also still have the right to
live, so the death penalty is the same as inhumane.
3. Summary of Argument
Now I am going to read a summary of the arguments from the first and second
speaker of my team.
The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. Such acts violate the
right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right
not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far
outweighs the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison. In California,
death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts
for life. This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much
greater benefit to the criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other
crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective.

Thats all about me as third speaker of negative team. I give back the time to
moderator. Thank you