FIRST SPEAKER (GOVERNMENT)

A Very good morning to the honourable adjudicators, my worthy opponents and members of the house.
We are here today to debate the motion that this house believes that ‘the death penalty is an appropriate
priority for certain crimes’. Before we proceed with our arguments, I would like to first redefine the topic
of today’s debate.

We define death penalty is one of the government's demands for one person who commits special
crimes. Execution should be done on certain crimes offenders has committed. It can not be done without
reason and evidence of the crime committed.

The best is define as The court's decision to punish the offender was murdered in return for the crime
whether it is hanging, deadly injection, being shot and so on.

We also define crime is an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially :
a gross violation of law.

Thus, we stand firmly by the topic that‘ the death penalty is an appropriate priority for certain crimes’.

In order to present our case, I as the Prime Minister will introduce my argument in a minute. My first
Minister will reaffirm our stand on the topic and rebut the argument put forward by the Opposition. Then,
he will present TWO more arguments in the premise of today’s topic . Following that, my Third minister
will rebut ALL the arguments made by the Opposition and reaffirm our stand on this motion. Finally, I
would sum up our case by delivering The Reply Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To our first point

The death penalty deters crime.

The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may
save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential
murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death
is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind
of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them. Numerous studies support the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North
Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at
over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as
executions rise
Ladies and gentlemen,
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today.
For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its
deterrent effect in the United States.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of other eople.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, before I take my seat, let me reaffirm our stand that “‘the death penalty is an
appropriate priority for certain crimes” . But let me remind you - Our fight does not end here. My
ministers will continue to fight for this motion and you will see how true we are

With that, I thank you.

SECOND SPEAKER (GOVERNMENT)

Thank you Mr./Madam,

A very good morning to the honourable adjudicators, my worthy opponents and members of the
house.Before I proceed with my arguments I would like to first re-define the topic of today’s debate.
We define death penalty is one of the government's demands for one person who commits special
crimes. Execution should be done on certain crimes offenders has committed. It can not be done without
reason and evidence for the crime committed.

The best is define as The court's decision to punish the offender was murdered in return for the crime
whether it is hanging, deadly injection, being shot and so on.

We also define crime is an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially :
a gross violation of law.

______________ NOT _____________________________________________

(definition from Prime Minister opponent)

Thus, we agree/refuse the definition given by the Opposition. Our stand still and we believe that ‘’(title
topic)’’

(REBUT - listen to his/her point and write down what you don’t agree)

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
We disagree with him/her . We believe that --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------.
Ladies and gentlemen,
My first point is -
It helps the victims' families achieve closure.

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'1.

Therefore , from the statistic i have given death penalty is an appropriate priority for certain crime and
should become an execuation for certain crime such as murdering or etecetera. Also death penalty help
the offender family to clean their name and help clean the image other country because there will be less
crimes happening.

Ladies and gentlemen,

To my second point is -
The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.

The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional
slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are
more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty.

As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough
to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment
.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that
fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon
the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty.

An eye for an eye. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, such as murder. Why
should a murderer be allowed to live out the rest of their lives in relative comfort, paid for by the public?
To continue to house, clothe and feed them for the remainder of their natural life at taxpayer expense
makes a mockery of justice. They gave up their right to life when they took the life of another person, and
justice can only be served by their lawful execution.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. We have put forward two more arguments why we consider
(topic title). Before I rest my case, let me reaffirm our stand that ‘’(title

With that,I thank you.

 THIRD SPEAKER-(GOVERNMENT)

Thank you Mr./Madam speaker,

A very good morning to the honourable adjudicators, my worthy opponents and members of the
house.

Alas, it’s my turn. As the last speaker I would like to rebut ALL the arguments put forward by the
OPPONENT.

(REBUT- listen to second speakers points and write down what you don’t agree)

The SECOND Minister of the government team said that ---------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------.
We disagree with him/her. We think ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------.
The SECOND SPEAKER also mentioned that ------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------.
We disagree with him/her. We think -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, before I take my seat , let me reaffirm our stand that ‘’
. But let me remind you - Our fight does not end here. My MINISTER will continue to fight for
this motion and you will see how true we are.

With that, I thank you.

 REPLY SPEECH (GOVERNMENT)

Thank you madam speaker, and again a very good morning(or afternoon) to the honourable adjudicators,
my worthy opponent, and members of the hall. Now it is time to wrap up our debate and highlight the
main three arguments that I and my colleagues have presented. However, due to the limited time, I would
like to just make a summary of what we have been debating about.

*define the definition from both sides*

Now let me sum up what we have presented in a nutshell. First,I, the Prime Minister of the Government
has defined the topic as ‘the death penalty is an appropriate priority for certain crimes’ is NOT better
quality than any other form of documenting or measuring one’s knowledge of subject matter.

-The opponent define ___________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________.

*talk about the points given by the government and some elaboration*
(Use third speaker’s note ) -- 2 min ONLY!! I would like to rebut the opposition’s case.

Now let me sum up what we have presented in a nutshell. First,I, the Prime Minister of the Government
has defined the topic as ‘the death penalty is an appropriate priority for certain crimes’ is NOT better
quality than any other form of documenting or measuring one’s knowledge of subject matter.

Then, I also went on to present our first argument, which is The Death penalty deters crime.
By death penalty we can save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. This way, we can make the
criminals will think twice or even thrice because they will probably are not ready yet to end their lives by
doing those crimes. This shows that society will no longer be threatened by the criminals and live
peacefully.

Then, I present two more arguments.

One -
It helps the victims’ families achieve closure. The family of the criminal will not be burdened by uncivilized
people, that will be mocking and gossiping about their dignity. Also death penalty help the offender
family to clean their name and help clean the image other country because there will be less crimes
happening
Two -
The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.
For Justice, I have to put the word, “An eye for an eye” to show that you believe if someone does
something wrong, that person should be punished by having the same thing does to them. Human life is
sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental
precept are punished.

As a word of advice, let us not be deceived by the definition and arguments given by the opponent.The
topic is and remains ‘the death penalty is an appropriate priority for certain crimes’’,
With that, I thank you.