Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a Death Penalty.

Thanks. I’d like to apologize in advance, my rebuttal may seem rude, but I am not trying to be. Con’s first argument is simply a fallacious appeal to emotion [1]. He offers no support for his claims other than an emotional appeal. Con asserts that killing is always wrong, however this has not been demonstrated. For example, if a man is trying to kill me, if I kill him in self defense, where is the wrong? He then compares the 9/11 attacks to capital punishment. This is a false analogy, because the 9/11 victims didn’t cause any injustice. Furthermore this commits another fallacy known as the guilt by association [2]. Con’s next argument says life is a right. Since life is a right, we shouldn’t take the life of someone, regardless of action. This reasoning refutes Con’s initial proposition. We all have a right to live freely in society. I shouldn’t be held in a small cell for the rest of my life because that violates my right to life and liberty. This means we can’t punish people at all. Forcing people with the threat of violence to live in a small cell and eat a certain amount of food at certain times also violates the right to life and liberty. It is reasonable to take away said rights if one harms the rights of others. Gandhi’s eye for an eye quote misses the point. It is only reasonable to take an eye if the first eye was taken unjustly. This would not make the whole world blind. Con also states that “Two wrongs do not make a right”. This commits the fallacy of begging the question. He’s assuming the death penalty is a wrong, to prove it’s wrong. Con’s third argument is another guilt by association fallacy. Just because countries that do not have as good as a living standard as us have a death penalty, doesn’t mean we should remove it. The same goes with countries that have great living standards. It is of no significance. Con then refutes an argument for the death penalty. However, this again is of no significance to the debate. It’s a red herring, I never made the argument and furthermore the last round is presenting arguments in favor of your position. Not refuting arguments other people have made against it. But I do agree with Con here. The cost effectiveness argument is flawed. Con brings up that a death penalty would be harming the family of the assailant. However, prison itself causes suffering to the family too. If the murderer truly did murder, the family should be saddened by their actions. If a family member of mine committed murder and I knew it was wrong, I would accept the penalty as a just punishment. We shouldn’t not punish people because relatives won't like it. I agree the state must do its job in the least invasive, harmful and restrictive way possible. However, sometimes it may be necessary. What is it meant by invasive? An execution doesn’t have to be by something such as an injection. Do murderers deserve a second chance? First, we would have to look at the cause of the murder. The murderer may have something chemically wrong or they did it because of some absurd reason. In the former, the murderer would never have remorse or change. If a murderer fits the case of the latter and admits he was in the wrong, then it shows they are reasonable and analytic enough to realize their wrong doing . However, if a death penalty was in place a reasonable and analytic person would have been deterred from the murder. Con states that a study in 2005 showed that a substance used to suppress the pain may not be enough. There was no citation, however I don’t doubt the study exists. This isn’t an argument against the death penalty, it’s an argument against the logistics. It can be fixed and if this is true, a compromise can be implemented. We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Next Con argues something surprising. That a life in prison causes more suffering than the death penalty. First, a just punishment isn’t how much we can make a prisoner suffer, that’s the very opposite of a just punishment. Second, this seems contradictory, as Con himself critiqued the death penalty, claiming it was “....not justice, it is cruelty, it is not humane, it is cold-blooded”. Yet now Con is saying a life in prison is more cruel. This means, if Con wishes to be consistent, he is against a life imprisonment and for a death penalty. Thanks and sorry for being a little late. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion [2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...