You are on page 1of 9

DEBATE OF NURSING PROGRAMME

A. DEBATE
1. MOTION
THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS DEATH PENALTY

2. MEMBERS
a. Moderator : Nym Ayu Sri Meldya R
b. Time Keeper : Chandra Dewi
c. First Speaker of Affirmative Team : Dewa Gd Wisnu Budi S
d. Second Speaker of Affirmative Team : I Putu Bayu Suadnyana
e. Third Speaker of Affirmative Team : Putu Diah Pebrisundari
f. Replay Speaker of Affirmative Team : Ni Putu Tamara Suci Artini
g. First Speaker of Negative Team : Ni Ketut Ratih Kimilaningsih
h. Second Speaker of Negative Team : Ni Gusti Ayu Santika Dewi
i. Third Speaker of Negative Team : I Gede Patria Prastika
j. Replay Speaker of Negative Team : Ni Made Aprilayoni Astuti

3. DEBATE
Act Explain
Moderator
First Speaker of Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and
Affirmative Team Gentleman. 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.
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.
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.
Thats all about my argument and then I will bring back
the time to moderator.
Time Keeper
Moderator
First Speaker of Negative Good morning Mr. chaiman, Madam chair, Ladies and
Team Gentleman.
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.
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.
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.
Thats all about my rebuttal and argument and then I will
bring back the time to moderator.
Time Keeper
Moderator
Second Speaker of Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and
Affirmative Team Gentleman. I am Bayu as the second speaker of the affirmative
team.
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.
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.
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.
Thats all about my rebuttal and argument and then I will
bring back the time to moderator.
Time Keeper
Moderator
Second Speaker of Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and
Negative Team Gentleman. I am Santika as the second speaker of the negative
team.
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.
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.
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 system- greater
policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that
are far more cost-effective.
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.
Thats all about my rebuttal and argument and then I will
bring back the time to moderator.
Time Keeper
Moderator
Third Speaker of Good morning Mr.Chaiman , Ladies and Gentleman. I
Affirmative Team am Diah as the third speaker of the affirmative team.
The main problem with our apposition case is their
theme which states By executing convicts, the govermnmen is
effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the
process , that theme is wrong because a just state regularly
abrogates peoples rights when they intrude upon the rights of
other.
The main problem with our apposition case is their
theme which states capital punishment im poses a very high
cost on tax payers, which far out weighs the cocts of alternative
punishment such as life in prison , that theme is wrong because
justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive
than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it far
and proportionate punishments should be independent of
financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the
death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shor thening the
appeals process or changing the method of execution could
reduce its costs.
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.
The death penalty can also help provide closure for the
victim 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 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.
Thats all about my rebuttal and summary argument as
third speaker of affirmative team. I bring back the time to
moderator. Thank you.
Time Keeper
Moderator
Third Speaker of Good morning Mr. Chaiman, Madam Chair, Ladies and
Negative Team Gentleman. Im Pras as third speaker of negative team. Now I
will read my 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.
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 my rebuttal and summary argument as
third speaker of negative team. I bring back the time to
moderator. Thank you.
Time Keeper
Moderator
Replay Speaker of The
Affirmative Team
Time Keeper
Moderator
Replay Speaker of The Good Morning Mr.Chairman. My name is Yoni as a replay
Negative Team speaker, in this time i will bring my summary of negative and
affirmative speaker

1. First affirmative speaker


The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do
not escape back into society or commit further crime while in
prison.while in prison it s not uncommon for those receiving life
in jail, since their is no worse punishment they can receive.

2. First speaker negative


The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By
executing convicts, the goverment is effectively condoning
murder, and devaluing human life in the proses.

3. Second Affirmative Speaker


The death penalty can also help provide closure for the
victims family and friends, who will no longer have to fear the
return of this criminal into society

4. Second Negative Speaker


Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayer,
which far out weight the costs of alternative punishment such as
life in prison

Ok that all about my summary. Now i give back the time to


moderator

Time Keeper
Moderator