CC- SOLIDARITY– DEBATE: IS DEATH PENALITY LEGITIMATE?

The debate on the death penalty followed some traditional lessons during which the students were explained how a debate is structured with distinct phases that guide the flow of the discussion. These phases were designed to ensure that all participants could have a fair opportunity to present their arguments, engage with the opposing side, and respond to points raised during the debate. Below is a general outline of the key phases in such a debate:Introduction Phase the topic was introduced and the context for the debate wasset. The moderator introduced the topic, explained the rules, and outlined the structure of the debate. The moderator briefly explained the significance of the issue at hand—whether the death penalty should be legitimate. Opening Statements Proponents of the Death Penalty The first speaker from the pro-death penalty team presented the arguments supporting its retention. This included points about deterrence, justice for victims, and moral arguments for the state’s right to execute criminals. Opponents of the Death Penalty: The first speaker from the anti-death penalty team presented their position, arguing against its use. They focussed on issues like the risk of wrongful convictions, human rights concerns, and the lack of evidence that the death penalty deters crime.Rebuttal and CounterargumentsThe second speaker from the pro-death penalty team responded to the arguments made by the opposition. This included countering claims about human rights violations or the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. The second speaker from the anti-death penalty team responded to the proponent’s arguments, often focusing on flaws in their logic, presenting more evidence, or bringing up new ethical, legal, or statistical points. Cross-Examination/Questioning Phase After the second speaker’s rebuttal, the pro-death penalty team had the opportunity to ask questions to the opposing team. These questions were meant to challenge the opposition’s stance and force them to defend their arguments. Similarly, the anti-death penalty team could question the pro-death penalty speakers. This phase helped the audience see the depth of the debate and the specific points of contention. Closing Statements The closing speaker for the pro-death penalty team summarized the strongest points made, reinforced their main arguments (e.g., deterrence, justice, public safety), and closed with a compelling final thought or call to action. The closing speaker for the anti-death penalty team reiterated their key arguments (e.g., human rights, the risk of wrongful execution, the lack of deterrence), addressed any remaining issues raised by the opposing team, and finished with a final appeal to the audience’s sense of justice and ethics. Judging and Deliberation Judges assessed the debate considering factors such as the quality of arguments, evidence presented, rebuttal performance, speaking skills, and the ability to address opposing points. The moderator or judges announced the winner of the debate based on these evaluations.