Death Penalty

I will only do rebuttals, as my opponent can not response to any of my arguments. ==R1==My opponent says that he will give me an example of a real man, but failed to do so. He does deserve to live, as everyone has right to life, no matter their actions. It is not your opinion that decides the fate. I have already said why people ask for life instead of death in court. My opponent says it is illogical to let a scum like that live. However, he shows no evidence for it being "illogical. " Thus, he presents an empty argument that I do not need to refute. If garbage gets burned. it has a negative effect on the climate (pollution. ) A dog does not get put down for biting someone. My opponent fails to provide evidence for that claim. Furthermore, my opponent dropped these rebuttals:-Bryan Stevenson's quote/argument-That we do NOT possess the right to take away another man's life==R2==Instead of directly refuting my arguments, my opponent has an empty claim with no evidence whatsoever. I looked back and I fail to see any cost arguments in your fourth argument of round two. My opponent fails to argue any of my arguments, thus he dropped the following points:-He put out a graph specifically for my side-It doesn't matter the conditions if DP is really a big deterrent-Data is not biased, like he claimed-LWOP is effective-That his countries argument is ineffective. ==R3== My opponent states his idea has not been put into effect because of all the controversy. However, this is not a valid reason. If his idea would really work, the government would put it into effect to clear up the controversy and help the pro side of the death penalty, which they have, quite obviously, not done. My opponent failed to get my rebuttal to the "less court time argument. " His idea would pose way more risk for the innocent people, as the evidence would not be looked over so well due to the faster court times. His last idea directly contradicts the former argument. Having more evidence to convict them would make jury time longer, as there would have to be a more through evidence search. He also states NO valid ways to make the trial shorter, making his argument not strong and easily refuted. My opponent dropped the following arguments:-Death Penalty is unconstitutional-We add risk [of executing someone innocent] when we shorten the trials==R4== My opponent states that experts have no way of knowing what a killer is thinking, and thus are not right. The experts have studied the death penalty inside and out, analyzed the people on death row, etc. To say they so not know something about the death penalty is simply not credible. If you read their reasoning [1][2] you would understand how they know. My opponent also shows no evidence that they would be thinking differently if they faced death themselves. Thus, his argument is empty. I have already refuted that the size of the state does not matter, as the data is shown not in the total murders, but murders per 100,000. Plus, some countries (some in Africa, for example) have much higher murder rates than bigger countries. I have already refuted that if the death penalty deters like you said it did, guns would not have to come into effect. Crime rates that aren't murder shouldn't have an effect if the death penalty is such a big deterrent, as you state. The different cultures in the area (again) shouldn't need to come into effect if the death penalty is such a big deterrent like you state. My opponent has dropped the following arguments:-It doesn't matter if the states are smaller or bigger (murder rate is per 100,000)-Gun control is not relevant because he states DP is deterrent-Minnesota having small crime rates means LWOP is effective. -Drops my countries argument entirely=R5==I do not see much to refute in this rebuttal that I have not already refuted. He concedes that murder has changed over 5,000 years, and that means the Hemorabi system may be somewhat flawed, now that we have fair trial, laws, etc. My opponent dropped that back then people did not have a fair trial and basic laws, which leads to the conclusion that the Hemorabi system is weak or not strong. ==R6==I have already refuted that if the death penalty is as big of a deterrent as you state, then variables such as size and population do not have to be accounted for. My opponent does not even TRY to refute my last paragraph. My opponent dropped:-Death penalty does not deter as much crime as LWOP-Why are states without DP have lower murder rates if DP is accountable for drop? -Drops my argument that death is not the most feared thing. I have shown that the death penalty is of a very high cost. In not one state does LWOP cost more, which means I have fulfilled my BoP that the death penalty can never be cost efficient. I have shown through states and countries that LWOP may work better than the DP, which means I have fulfilled that part of my BoP. I have also proved that through the Constitution, the death penalty is not just because "no cruel or unusual punishment shall be used. " My opponent's three things that he states I did not fulfill have actually been fulfilled. My opponent never proved the death penalty deterred more murders than LWOP (he never cited any studies, experts, solid data, etc) like I did. He also states he proved the death penalty is not morally justified, which is my BoP. He has clearly not shown that the death penalty is cost-efficient. He never refuted that the California death penalty costs 308 MILLION dollars, more than 300 MILLION MORE THAN LWOP IN TOTAL. The BoP is shared, not solely on you or me. Thus, I believe I have won this debate. I thank you for reading, and I thank cooldudebro for an awesome debate! [1] "DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES? : THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS. " Vol. 99, p. 501. [2] (Alternative) . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...