Life is tough.
I drew my fate today to be arguing against the acceptance of a death penalty. My personal stance on the issue is hard to say. While it is without a doubt fair to take one’s life if they have taken one or more, it never truly solves the problem. Of course, a life in prison is no life at all, and one might argue that it is better to die than to spend decades behind bars. whether or not this sick definition of mercy is murder is also up to interpretation. Two wrongs don’t make a right is all I can really say. Another point to bring up is that execution is unconstitutional, and often it is. Something we cannot ignore is the terrifying reality that some death row inmates simply are innocent of all charges. What perhaps may be worse is that many cases will never be proven one way or another, being left up to the judge and jury instead of evidence, and so we cannot ever be sure that someone being put to death by the government deserved such a fate. Lastly you must consider that in stricter countries like China, you can be executed purely for political “crimes” and actions that you would be free to make in America, as well as most other nations.
If one uses Google to look into this, you are of course greeted with Wikipedia alongside several clearly biased news sources.
I plan a logical approach to this by presenting what I have told you above, but it would not be hard to accidentally slip into some appeal to emotion or the like. Most do not have pity for violent felons, but nothing is really off the table in a debate. It’s hard to feel remorse for serial killers, so this will not be my approach. If you get technical, you could say killing them out of mercy is the less severe thing to do, and you can see how this quickly tumbles into a paradox. I’ll try at all costs to avoid pulling the skepticism card. Nobody wins that game.
That is an illustration of my Rhetorical Agility.