Death Penalty

For the final round, I shall do final Rebuttals toward my opponent while my opponent can only state his or her conclusion. Like stated in the "Structure" section, on Round 4 I get to rebuttal and Con cannot but only state his or her conclusion. Anyways to my final Rebuttals and conclusion on the usage of the Death Penalty.1. InnocenceIn this last round, my opponent argues that there still may be a possibility of innocence within the execution. Once more, I brought up an analogy last round that expressed this "I like to compare this same scenario as getting ran over by a car. Does it stink? Yes, but stuff happens. Just because one car killed one innocent bistander does not mean that society should ban cars now. Stuff happens, and we move on; and the same can be said about the Death Penalty". Once more just because a system may have the chance of doing wrong does not mean it is the worst system. Systems aren't perfect in society, and shouldn't be banned because of one mistake.2. Deter's CrimeMy opponent then states the following: "If you click my second link, you can see very clearly that homicide rates in places without the death penalty are significantly lower than places where which the death penalty exists". First off, I like to please present that my opponent has only used one source to represent this claim. While I presented two, and now three where according to Robert Tanner (1) the Death Penalty does deter crime. It is clear that my opponent only states one source within his argument about how it doesn't deter crime, while I present more.3. CostlyMy opponent argues that the Death Penalty is costly by referring back to his main argument, but this point was disproven in the third round. With even a graph to represent the costs of having it and not having it.4. Bible ArgumentAdmitedly the Bible argument is a little touchy, and will drop this point for my opponent to win this section. Personally, I don't remember what I was thinking at the time.5. Death Penalty is JustFollowing the defintion of "just" being: "Treating people in a way that is considered morally right". The sub-definition of "morally" or "moral" is: "Conforming to a standard of right behavior". Is it wrong to help deter crime, or is it wrong to be economically beneficial with the Death Penalty? It isn't, and proves to be moral in this way leading it to be just (2 & 3). Also my opponent also argues that the Bible is immoral. How is it immoral, when it teaches a majority of Christians to "Love thy neighbor like thyself"? It isn't, and making a claim about the Bible being immoral does not in any way follow the topic on the Death Penalty. For this reason voters, I like to consider this a possible loss of conduct points.6. Environmental Friendly and reduces OverpopulationI'm combining both of these arguments to make it easier to follow. Firstly, my opponent makes the claim that murders do not happen in prison, yet does not provide a source. I will gladly provide a source to prove this statement, where according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (4), it states the following statistics od deaths caused by other prsioners. Pretty high numbers, and it is even proven that murderers who are set in prison behind bars are still capable of murder. Putting more risk of lives to those who did petty crimes, than a simple execution of these murderers and such. "The homicide rate in local jails nationwide hovered around 3 inmates per 100,000" (5). Also I will answer my opponents question. We are more so arguing about the Death Penalty is general, if the topic was a specific setting of the Death Penalty; then you could have a point.Before concluding this argument, I like to please present a statistic about the types of crimes done in prison. Stated under the following (6), it shows that the majority of crimes done throughout the years are related to violence. Why keep the violent criminals behind these bars, and risk the lives of the petty crime prisoners?ConclusionTo conclude this argument, I urger voters to vote Pro for this debate because of having a more solid argument. My opponent provided some points, but his overall argument were many claims without any further evidence. Just because he used one source of evidence does not mean he won the argument, but instead he needed to further that evidence with more evidence. While I did further my arguments, and even provided a solution to gaining the benefits of the Death Penalty. For this this reason, I urge voters to vote Pro! Also, I thank my opponent for this debate!Sources (All):Round 2: htp://www.biblebelievers.com.........http://www.theguardian.com.........http://www.washingtonpost.com.........http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org.........http://www.nytimes.com........./www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0012st.pdfhttp://www.bjs.gov.........http://thinkprogress.org.........http://www.heritage.org.........http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu.........http://www.vice.com.........http://www.theonion.com.........http://www.seattletimes.com.........Round 3: http://dictionary.reference.com......http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://dailysignal.com......http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Round 4 (This Round):1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...4. http://www.bjs.gov...5.http://www.slate.com...6. http://felonvoting.procon.org...