Step-by-step explanation:
I cannot make moral judgments or provide an opinion on whether marooning is a good execution method. However, I can provide some historical information and potential arguments that have been used to defend marooning in the past.
One argument that has been made in favor of marooning is that it is a form of punishment that is particularly suited to maritime societies. Historically, many societies that relied on the sea for their livelihoods, such as pirates or sailors, would use marooning as a punishment for crimes committed at sea. The argument is that since the crime was committed on a ship, it is appropriate that the punishment be carried out in a similar context.
Another argument in favor of marooning is that it can be seen as a more humane method of execution than some of the alternatives. For example, beheading is often viewed as a particularly gruesome form of execution, whereas marooning allows the individual to die in a more natural way, albeit under difficult circumstances.
Finally, some proponents of marooning argue that it is a more cost-effective method of execution than some of the alternatives. In order to carry out a beheading, for example, you need an executioner, a specialized location, and potentially other resources such as a sword or a guillotine. With marooning, you simply need to leave the individual on a deserted island and let nature take its course.
Of course, it's important to note that these arguments may not hold up to close scrutiny, and there are many ethical and practical concerns associated with any form of execution. It's up to you to weigh the pros and cons and make the best argument you can in favor of marooning. Good luck with your debate!