○2011 ディベート立論例
Proposition: Japan should abolish capital punishment.
肯定側 立論
Advantage 1 ＜残虐な行為をなくすこと＞ Advantage 1 の説明
導入
肯定派の私たちは，日本は死刑を廃止すべき だと論じます。
プランは「2012 年から死刑の執行をやめる」 です。
プランにより，２つの利点が生まれます。「残虐 な行為をなくすこと」と「深刻な間違いをなくす こと」です。
We on the affirmative team strongly argue that Japan should abolish capital punishment.
Our plan is that "From 2012, the Japanese
government will stop the practice of executions."
（その他のプランは立論の内容次第で付け足しても可、ただし死 刑の代わりに終身刑を導入することはＮＧ）
With our plan, we will have two advantages; No.1 no more cruel acts and No.2 no severe mistakes. １点目の利点は，残虐な行為をなくすことです。 Our first advantage is no more cruel acts
現状分析（現状に論題の採択によってしか解 決されない問題があること）
Present situation
私たちは，暴力はなくなるべきだと習ってきま した。教育基本法も体罰を禁止し，憲法も残虐 な刑罰を禁止しています。例えば私たちは，泥 棒の腕を切り取るという身体刑を聞くと，非常 に残虐だと感じます。ところが，もっともひどい 死刑は禁止されておらず，1993年からでも， 86名の死刑が執行されています。
We have been taught that violence must be
abandoned. Thus, 教育基本法, the Fundamental Act of Education prohibits physical punishment. In addition, Article 36 of our Constitution prohibits cruel
punishment.
So, we feel that the physical punishment, such as cutting off the hands of thieves, is too cruel. However, the cruelest of all --- capital punishment --- is still carried out; 86 people have been executed since 1993.
発生過程（プランの導入によって現状の問題 がどう解決するか）
Effect
私たちのプランが実行されれば，死刑は廃止 され，身体に関わる残虐な刑罰はなくなります。
With our plan, capital punishment will be abolished, and we can abandon any form of physical and cruel punishment.
重要性（現状に存在する問題の深刻度） Importance
人を殺すことはいけないと我々は教えられてき We often learn that humans must not deprive other
Advantage 2 ＜深刻な間違いをなくすこと＞ Advantage 2 の説明
２点目の利点は，深刻な間違いをなくすことで す。
Our second advantage is no severe mistakes.
現状分析（現状に論題の採択によってしか解決 されない問題があること）
Present situation
時として，法廷や法律で間違いが起こることもあ ります。これは死刑の判断についてもそうです。 実際，日本でも冤罪が４件起きています。
Mistakes can sometimes occur in courts and in applying the law. That is also true with the judgment of death penalty cases. In fact, there have been as many as four false charges in cases of capital punishment in Japan.
発生過程（プランの導入によって現状の問題が どう解決するか）
Effect
私たちは，例えば航空会社には高いレベルを要 求します。これは生死の問題が関わっているか らです。だから人の判断の結果が生死に関わる 司法にはさらに高い標準を求めるべきです。もし 死刑を廃止すれば，誤って無実の人が殺される ことはなくなります。
We demand high standards of our airlines because they deal with a matter of life and death. Thus, we should demand even higher standards for our system of justice, especially when the consequences of the judgment are life or death. If we abolish capital punishment, no innocent person will be killed by mistake.
重要性（現状に存在する問題の深刻度） Importance
死刑の場合には冤罪はさけなければなりま せん。なぜなら一度刑が執行されたら，もう二度 と命を戻すことはできないからです。しかし死刑 判決ですら間違いはありえます。このような間違 いを避けるために死刑は廃止されるべきです。 そうすれば，最悪の事態は避けることができます。
It is highly important to avoid a false charge in a death penalty case because no one can be brought back to life once an execution is carried out.
However, there is always a possibility of a false charge, even with capital punishment. In order to avoid these false charges, we should abolish capital punishment. Then we can avoid such a tragedy. まとめ
上記の２点「残虐な行為をなくすこと」と「深刻 な間違いをなくすこと」について語ってきました。 これらの二つの利点より日本は死刑を廃止す べきです。
We have talked about two advantages, No.1 no more cruel acts and No.2 no severe mistakes. Because of these two advantages, Japan should abolish capital punishment.
(378 words)
（否定側 立論）
Disadvantage 1 抑止力の低下 Disadvantage の説明
導入
日本は死刑を廃止すべきではない２つの理由 があります。１つ目は抑止力の低下，２つ目は安 全性の問題です。
Japan should NOT abolish capital punishment. If capital punishment is abolished we will see two disadvantages,
No.1 a lesser deterrent effect and No.2 more security problems .
１点目の不利益な点は，です。 Our first disadvantage is a lesser deterrent effect 現状分析（デメリットが論題の採択によって初
めて生じる問題であること）
Present situation
2007 年の CBS ニュースによれば，死刑には殺 人に対して明らかな抑止効果があります。ニュ ースによると，死刑執行が平均して１８件の殺人 を抑止したこと，そしてイリノイ州
の2000 年の死刑停止が続く４年間で 150 の 殺人に結びついたとされています。
CBS news reported in 2007 that capital punishment DOES clearly deter possible homicides. The news reported that "Each execution deters an average of 18 murders" and that "the Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over the following four years."
発生過程（デメリットがプランの導入によって、 どのようにして起こるのか）
Effect
もし死刑が廃止されたら，より重大犯罪が増え ます。そのため，多くの無実の人々が殺されるで しょう。
If we abolish the death penalty, people will commit more serious crimes because there would be no deterrent. Thus, more innocent people will be murdered.
重要性（論題採択で発生する問題の深刻度） Importance
科学者の中には死刑の抑止効果が不明だと述 べている人もいるのは事実です。しかし，不明と は死刑の抑止効果がないかどうか分からない と言うことです。生死に関わることなので，もし死 刑廃止により社会がより危険になるのなら，廃 止すべきではありません。
It is true that some scientists argue that the deterrence effect of capital punishment is unclear. However, that also means that they are not sure if there is NO deterrence effect from capital
punishment or not. This is a matter of life and death and if the proposition might make our society less
Disadvantage ２ 安全性の問題 Disadvantage の説明
２つ目の理由は，安全性の問題です。 Our second disadvantage is more security problems.
現状分析（デメリットが論題の採択によって初 めて生じる問題であること）
Present situation
法務省の犯罪白書2010 年は，刑務所を退所
した40%の殺人者が再犯を犯したことを示し
ています。これは再犯としてとても高い率です。 現状では，死刑囚は仮出所することなく拘置所 にいます。
A Crime Report from the MOJ from 2010 shows that more than 40% of murderers who were set free from jail committed another crime. That is a very high rate for second offenses. In the current situation, the inmates are kept in prison without parole.
発生過程（デメリットがプランの導入によって、 どのようにして起こるのか）
Effect
現在の刑法では，もし死刑が廃止されたら，死 刑囚は無期懲役を受けた犯罪者として扱われ ます。しかしそうなれば死刑囚は仮出所でき，社 会に戻ってくる機会を与えられます。我々の社会 はもはや生活するのに安全とは思えなくなるで しょう。
Under current criminal law, if capital punishment is abolished, the inmates will be regarded as criminals sentenced to life in prison.
However, they can be put on parole and have opportunities to go back into society. Murderers or serial killers could be let out of prison and they will commit crimes again. Our society will no longer be considered safe to live in.
重要性（論題採択で発生する問題の深刻度） Importance
憲法13 条にあるとおり，生きる権利は「公共の 福祉に反しない」時にのみ与えられま
す。死刑の利点の１つは犯罪者を社会から永遠 に切り離すことです。しかしながら，肯定側のプ ランを実施すれば，死刑囚は今よりも簡単に社 会に復帰し，我々の生活はより危険にさらされま す。我々は社会を安全に保たなければならない のです。
The right to life is only given when "it does not interfere with the public welfare" as Article 13 of our Constitution declares. One of the advantages of capital punishment is to shut criminals off from our society forever. However, with the opponent’s plan, inmates can be back in to our life much easier than now and our life will be more dangerous. We must make our society safe to live in.
まとめ
これらの２つの理由，つまり，１つ目の「抑止力の 低下」，２つ目の「安全性の問題」により我々は この論題には反対です。
For these two reasons, No.1, a lesser deterrent effect for serious crimes and No.2, more security problems, we strongly oppose the proposition. (371 words)
Cross Exam example (Asking Questions→Answering Questions)
Affirmative AD2 への質問と答えの例（AD1 への質問例は今回作成していませんが実際は質問します）
質問予想 反論
確 認
AD 深 刻 な 間 違 いをなくすこと
Your second advantage is no severe mistakes, right?
AD 深刻な間違いを なくすこと
Yes.(間違っていた時は、No, our second advantage is no severe mistakes と言う) 現
状
冤罪で亡くなった 人本当にいるの？
Is there anyone who was actually charged falsely and executed? Do you have any data for that?
はい、久間三千年さ んは無実と考えられ ていたが、死刑にな っている。
Yes, there is a man named Kuma Michitoshi who was believed to be innocent but put to death in August 2008. 発
生 過 程
冤 罪 に よ る 死 刑 は、本当に避けら れないのか？
Can’t we easily avoid deaths caused by false charges? (No→Why not?)
避けられません。7 つ の死刑や無期懲役に 係わる冤罪も起こっ ているし、実際それで 命を落とした人もい る。
No, we can’t. As we said in our constructive speech, there are seven false charges in cases with the death penalty and there was actually a person who was killed by mistake.
(Yes. → But they may have to spend their whole lives in prison. Can you really say that they are saved by your plan?)
執行されてしまえば、 無実をはらし社会復 帰 の 機 会 も 失 い ま す)。
execution is carried out, there will be no chance to prove their innocence and return to society.)
Negative DA1 への質問と答えの例（DA2 への質問例は今回作成していませんが、実際は質問します）
質問予想 反論
確 認
DA 抑 止 力 の 低 下
Your first disadvantage is a lesser deterrent effect, right?
DA 抑止力の低下 Yes.(間違っていた時は、 No, our first disadvantage is a lesser deterrent effect と 言う)
現 状
「 死 刑 執 行 が 平 均して１８件の殺 人を抑止した」の はどこの話？ な ぜ 日 本 も 当 て は ま る と 言 え る の？
Where did each execution deter an average of 18 murders? Why do you say we could also have the same effect in Japan?
アメリカです。 なぜ なら 、日 本も 再 犯率が現に高く、もし 凶悪犯が処刑されず、 社会復帰したら、もっ と犯罪がおきるのは 当然だから。
In the United States.
That’s because the rate for second offenses is very high in Japan as well, so it is natural that if violent criminals aren’t executed but released into society, then more crimes will surely happen.
発 生 過 程
な ぜ よ り 重 大 犯 罪が増えると言え るのですか？
Why will people commit more serious crimes?
な ぜ な ら 、 デ ー タ の 示 す と お り 、 死 刑 停 止によって実際殺人 が多くなるからです。
That’s because as the data shows, a moratorium on executions leads to more murders.
重 要 性
死刑の抑止効果 が 不 明 だ と 述 べ ている人がいるの に、 どう して 死刑 廃止で、社会がよ り危険になるの？
Some scientists said that the deterrence effect of capital punishment is unclear. So why would abolishing the death penalty make our society more dangerous?
コンストで述べたよう に、不明とは死刑の 抑止効果がないかど うか分からないと言 うことです。また、実 際に死刑停止により 犯罪が増えたという 例もある。
As we said in our constructive speech, it means that nobody knows if there is NO deterrence effect from capital punishment or not. Moreover, there is data which shows that a moratorium on executions leads to more murders.
Attack Speech (NEG) Affirmative に対する Negative 側のアタック
They showed us 2 advantages in their constructive speech. No.1 no more cruel acts and No.2 no severe mistakes.
About their 1st advantage, they said our Constitution prohibits cruel punishment. However, the
Supreme Court ruled capital punishment constitutional in 1948. The judges at the time also said that if the time comes when capital punishment will be unnecessary for many people in Japan, it will be abolished. However, the number of those who think that they need capital punishment has been increasing. According to the Cabinet Office 2010, the percentage of people who agree with capital punishment is about 90%, which is very high. So their argument is unreliable.
About their 2nd advantage, they said innocent people will be saved by abolishing the death penalty. However, as they showed, mistakes will happen again in the future. And there is no guarantee that falsely charged people will be proven innocent. In that case, they may have to spend their whole lives in prison. It is a very painful life for them to accept. So we cannot say that innocent people will be saved by this plan. Therefore their argument is not important.
For these reasons, their plan should not be implemented. Thank you.
AFF questions to NEG side about their attack speech (and answers):
Q: Please tell us what the first point you brought up in your attack speech was about. A: It was about the Constitution.
Q: What about the Constitution?
A: You had claimed that because cruel punishment is outlawed in Japan, capital punishment should also be outlawed. However, we showed that the 1948 ruling by the Supreme Court found capital punishment to be constitutional.
Q: And what did you say about the public’s opinion of capital punishment?
A: We showed that capital punishment is still extremely popular with the public. Up to 90% of people agree with capital punishment, according to the Cabinet Office.
Q: Thank you. Now, your second point in your attack speech was about innocent prisoners who have been charged with capital punishment, yes?
A: That’s correct.
Q: What did you say about those prisoners?
A: Well, you had said in your constructive speech that if the death penalty is abolished, then no more innocent prisoners will be falsely executed. However, we said in our attack speech that such prisoners would still be forced to live their whole lives in prison anyway. That would still be very painful for them. Q: Thank you. That’s the end of our questions.
Attack Speech (AFF) Negative に対する Affirmative 側のアタック
They showed us 2 disadvantages in their constructive speech. No.1 a lesser deterrent effect and No.2 more security problems.
About their 1st disadvantage they said people will commit more serious crimes if our plan is introduced. However, as they said, some scientists said that the deterrence effect of capital
than that of 1975, the year before the death penalty was abolished. So their argument is unreliable. About their 2nd disadvantage, they said violent criminals can be put on parole and have opportunities to come back into our society under our plan. However, according to MOJ 2010, the number of those who died in prison is almost double that of those who were put on parole for those 10 years. Furthermore, there are only around 100 inmates in prison now. So if our plan is introduced, the number of prisoners who are put on parole will not increase much at all. Therefore their argument is not important.
For these reasons, our plan should be implemented. Thank you.
NEG questions to AFF side about their attack speech (and answers)
Q: Your first point in your attack speech regarded the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Is that right?
A: Yes, that’s right.
Q: And you said that it is wrong for us to claim that abolishing the death penalty would make our society more dangerous?
A: That’s right.
Q: Please could you confirm why we are wrong to claim that?
A: Yes. It’s wrong because you yourself presented the opinion of scientists that the deterrent effect is unclear. Therefore you can’t say for sure that abolishing the death penalty would make society more dangerous.
Q: Thank you. You also gave some evidence in your attack speech about Canada. Where was it from? A: The evidence came from Statistic Canada 2009.
Q: Please could you explain the significance of that evidence?
A: Yes. The evidence shows that since the death penalty was abolished in Canada in 1976, the murder rate has actually gone down. Therefore, we have shown that abolishing the death penalty does in fact act as a deterrent and can reduce the murder rate.
Q: OK. Your second point in your attack speech was regarding violent criminals getting parole, yes? A: That’s correct.
Q: You said that because there are only around 100 inmates related to capital punishment right now, the number of violent criminals granted parole would not actually be so great?
A: That’s correct. Therefore, there would be no great increase in the threat to society. Q: Thank you. That’s all our questions.
Defense speech (AFF) Affirmative 側のデフェンス
About our 1st advantage, no more cruel acts, they refuted it by saying that the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment constitutional in 1948, and they gave us the data to show that many Japanese people agree with capital punishment now. So our first advantage is not important. However, this is not true, because as they said, if the time comes when capital punishment will be unnecessary for many people in Japan, it will be abolished. Also as we said in our constructive speech, we should stop killing people even if it is a legal punishment and think about how to make prisoners pay for their sins whilst
alive.
About our 2nd advantage, no severe mistakes, they refuted it by saying that under our plan, falsely charged people may have to spend their whole lives in prison. It doesn’t mean that an innocent person will be saved by our plan. However, this is not true because with the death penalty, the prisoners’ lives are taken, and they develop a sense of fear up until they are executed. It IS very painful and cruel, isn’t it? In fact, there are as many as four false charges in cases with capital punishment in Japan. We should not repeat such terrible mistakes.
Therefore our reasons still remain. Thank you.
Defense Speech (NEG) Negative 側のデフェンス
About our 1st disadvantage, a lesser deterrent effect, they refuted it by saying that some scientists said that the deterrence effect of capital punishment is unclear. Also, they gave us data from Statistics Canada 2009 to show the deterrence effect of abolishing capital punishment. However, this is not always true because as we said in our constructive speech, it means that nobody knows whether there is a deterrence effect from capital punishment or not. So they can’t deny the deterrence effect from capital punishment. As for their data from Statistics Canada, they didn’t show any evidence for the same effect in Japan. So it is unreliable.
About our 2nd disadvantage, more security problems, they refuted it by saying that the number of prisoners who are put on parole will not increase so much, and gave two pieces of evidence. However, this is not true or reliable because they didn’t tell us how many prisoners were put on parole for those 10 years, so we don’t know whether the number is big or small. Also, they showed us that there are about 100 inmates in prison now. So this means that if capital punishment is abolished, the number of prisoners put on parole will increase. We cannot ignore that!
Therefore our reasons still remain. Thank you.
Affirmative Summary
We still approve the proposition. We have clearly shown our plan will bring a great improvement to our country. Let’s review this debate. They gave us 2 disadvantages.
About their 1st disadvantage, a lesser deterrent effect , they said we should not abolish capital punishment if it will make our society less safe. However they admitted that the deterrence effect is unclear. We also gave data from Statistics Canada 2009 to show the deterrence effect of abolishing capital punishment.
Now, let’s compare their disadvantage, a lesser deterrent effect, to our advantage no more cruel acts. There cannot be a problem in abolishing a death penalty whose deterrent effect hasn’t been proven. Moreover, we would rid Japan of such a cruel punishment.
About their 2nd disadvantage, more security problems , the negative side believe that violent
There are not so many inmates now. So were they to be released, the crime rate wouldn’t change much. Besides, there will be no more people who are killed by mistake.
For these reasons, we agree with the proposition. Thank you.
Negative Summary
We still oppose the proposition. We have clearly shown that their plan will not bring any benefit. Let’s review this debate. They gave us 2 advantages.
About their 1st advantage, no more cruel acts, they said that the Japanese government should stop killing people as a legal punishment. However, we said that the Supreme Court decided that capital punishment was constitutional, and much of the population still thinks that the death penalty is necessary, as Cabinet Office 2010 data shows.
As we said in our 1st disadvantage, a lesser deterrent effect, this is a matter of life and death, and if the proposition could make our society more dangerous, we should not support it. Also, we gave evidence showing that capital punishment DOES clearly have a deterrent effect.
About their 2nd advantage, no severe mistakes , they said that there have been four false charges in Japanese capital punishment cases so far, and that such mistakes will happen again. However, under their plan, there is no guarantee that such people will be proven innocent. We can avoid such mistakes only through careful investigation and judgment.
As we said in our 2nd disadvantage, more security problems, violent criminals may be released, which will lead to more crimes. Also, even if their plan is introduced, as they said, innocent people can be falsely accused. Their plan will surely make our society worse.
For these reasons, we disagree with the proposition. Thank you.
