The death penalty should be abolished

C1: Deterrence My opponents first objection is my sources are out of date (2/4) and where at a time when the DP was not in use. First of all, the Becker study was researching retribution and deterrence theory. This indirectly is linked towards the DP, and is the theory and logic behind its deterrence, but does not need to be in a time during the DP. Only a time where punishment exists. This theory is also psychology, deterrence theory which is a valid theory even today [1][2]. My opponents second objection is to the first DP study in 1974. Its timing on whether the DP exists is irrelevant, as it studied the moratorium, used mathematical hypothesizes, deterrence theory from Becker, and past statistics on the DP [3]. All of this was present at the time of the study. Further, the study was not my main case, rather a historical representation. You dropped the two other studies I directly cited there. Hence I am forced to extend the majority of this point. C2: Recidivism My opponent agrees recidivism likely exists amongst murderers, but LWOP means they cannot get out of jail to commit these crimes. My opponent argues these prisoners where not sentenced to LWOP. This is blatantly false, all of the examples cited where sentenced to LWOP [4]. (he used later stated: "Clarence Ray Allen, serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole [...] still managed to cause the deaths of still more people) There are also dozens of cases of people who murdered children adults, everything, who got LWOP but still got parole on a later date [5]. => Rebuttals C1: DP ineffective A. Appeal to authority There are actually many loopholes to my opponents response, as if one uses an appeal to authority for a response/argument unnecessarily it is a fallacy. If there are direct observations or calculations which are superior to authority, in other words there would have to be no evidence on the subject, then it is still a fallacy [6]. And even if my opponents argument seems to woo you over, it is important to note even if the argument is valid it is still fallacious in nature (an informal fallacy) [7]. No matter how you look at this the way my opponent used an expert is actually fallacious in nature. And my opponent essentially repeats his findings on the "consensus", which is still a fallacy in the way he is applying it. My opponents conclusion to this is flawed as if there are direct observations available, which there are, then it is a weak argument in comparison and therefore is a fallacy unless there is no other evidence [6]. B. Fallacy again?My opponent now is falsely arguing I had an appeal to authority fallacy, which is blatantly false. I was quoting John Lott, who was quoting statistical data. I was NOT saying "Lott says it so its true". I was saying "according to Lott, the statistics show..." Instead of falsely accusing someone of a fallacy, you need to argue the statistics themselves. So the point of the argument stands and is extended. And now my opponent challenges credibility of the source. He argues economists are not qualified to deal with crime. This is blatantly false and the statement itself reaks of, well, a lie. Economists job is to look at the economy, obviously, but also they deal with peoples psychology to understand how the economy works. This is logically showing that economists are very qualified to be in the criminology business. Further, economists play a huge role in the study of crime and their research is considered valid [8]. Lott also has research fields in law and public choice theory [9]. He is a really well rounded guy who, if you look at the facts, is a reliable source if your looking for statistics. My opponent then criticizes another source, Wesley Lowe. I am NOT saying Lowe said it so its true, like you essentially said with the 88% figure (note that's not even a good consensus). Citing logic in the words of others with a footnote is NOT an appeal to authority. It is really only an appeal to authority in the sense I am citing his words, but if this is a fallacy the purpose of sources in debate does not exist. This is an illogical accusation. As my opponent drops the logical and statistical part of the argument, I too extend this point. C. Conflicting evidence My opponent claims because this academy says studies are flawed it should be disregarded. They never said it was flawed, rather that evidence is contradictory and inconclusive [10]. Just because says something is contradictory does not mean evidence cannot lean in any one's favor. And the evidence is not in your favor, statistically or logically. Last round my statistics, which you dropped, still stand. My opponent then says my attack on the journal is unfounded. My opponent obviously did not read my response in any great length. They had a page titled "Anti-Capital Punishment resources" (see round 2). So is that objection really unfounded? My opponent then accuses me, again. Citing an economist opinion on his statistical data is not a fallacy. Explaining someones results is not a fallacy, again if it was the point of sources in debate would be fallacious in nature. C2: Unequal Changing the wording to racist is not inherently bad, its shorter. And its what you are saying. A. RaceBefore I address this, may I ask how would the racism effect not role over on LWOP? Couldn't they just unequally sentence blacks/whites in non-capital cases? My opponent cannot answer this therefore the point is a moot before it can even launch. My opponent then claims I misrepresented him. Did I? I showed whites are executed faster and more often, whites are logically more likely to kill whites in their own neighborhoods. This means it is not racist as whites are more common peoples. Just like if blacks where the majority and killed their own kind more often it would not be biased towards less murdered whites. B. Council I know what you meant, just because private lawyers are worse at defending clients then public ones is not the fault of the justice system, rather the lawyer himself. C3: CostActually, I did address the cost argument. (see round 2, last paragraph) I agreed the up-front costs, the things your sources looked into, for LWOP are lower then the DP. But the life time cost (30-50 years of imprisonment) cost the state 1.2-3.6 million dollars MORE then equivalent DP cases. Here is a picture: Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...My opponent then claims the plea bargain argunment fails. This is again a failure to read my argunment. The DP is more costly on a case per case basis, but over time is cheaper. And with plea bargains makes the oberall trial costs of ALL DP cases and ALL LWOP cases about the same. How do we know this? States that end the DP have no significant drop in trial costs [11]. As we can see this makes any one trial 0$, which really helps the overall averages to make the DP cost the same, when you average every single trial anyway. As stated the DP resulted in plea bargians 50% of the time (round 2). Based on this we can see the DP's overall cost can be cut in more then half on this issue. Conclusion:All of my opponents fallacy accusations where false and he dropped the logical and statistical points of deterence. Based on this I was forced to extend the majori of my case and rebuttals. Also my opponents other two contentions where thorugly refuted. Vote CON.Sources: [1] http://tiny.cc... [2] http://tiny.cc... [3] Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, (1975)[4] http://tiny.cc... [5] http://tiny.cc... [6] http://tiny.cc... [7] http://tiny.cc... [8] http://www.nber.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://www.nationaljournal.com...[11] http://www.wesleylowe.com...