There is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned .

My opponent quotes potential statistics, rather than existing statistics of reality. On several occasions my opponent mentions that they believe the way the government currently operates isn't sufficient. Yet my opponent fails to list any meaningful reforms. My opponents math skills may not fail him but he does appear to be making numbers up now. Why the opponent adds 20 and 100 are beyond me, if the convict is 20 years old upon incarceration and then is in jail for 60 years, that would make his age 80, or 9 years above the average life span of a male. Those are the numbers that are at hand, not 20+80 or 20+70. In short, yes, I am sure of my math and numbers. My opponent states the rise in the cost of lethal injection from 80 dollars to 1,200 dollars. I would state that 1k dollars is a very small some in the face of almost 2 million dollars for legal proceedings, so I refuse to acknowledge the validity of this argument. I would also ask that in the future my opponent use more reliable sources than ask.com. And I would point out that indeed if we are not talking about the way the government operates than this is very foolish. The way the government operates is a perfectly good thing to discuss when arguing on why the death penalty should be banned. It is thoroughly relevant, despite my opponents refusal to accept or inability to understand this. Also, I would ask that my opponent address statistics that are real, instead of hypothetical statistics such as his statistic that says there stands the potential to reduce the cost to under 400k per death. Which, is still a sizable sum, but all together an unrealistic one. The idea that we could cut the cost in fifths and retain the same level of efficiency, integrity, and thoroughness is laughable at best. If my opponent believes that we should indeed continue with the death penalty and would like to criticize the current system I would appreciate it if he could propose some meaningful reform to it other than changing the lethal injection formula, which was changed to avoid conflicts with the 8th amendment. If my opponent wishes, however, to quote Kansas correctional statistics than I would encourage him to look at the existing statistics from Kansas that state the median cost of the death penalty 1.26 million and the median price of life time incarceration is 740k . I do remember Andrei Brekvik and Hitler and I do not believe it is in my hands to decide the fate of another man. I don't put so much power in my hands, or the hands of any other human, but I'm glad that my opponent is so confident in his knowledge and understanding of the world that he can pass death sentences on people. I believe my opponent should stop speaking as if what he says is axiomatic and universally true and back his statements up more with facts, I do not believe anyone can say that someone is non-deserving of life. I would point out that though my opponent says my point is not significant because my opponent never made a counter-argument, this is because my opponent has made no points at all to this point so to provide any reasoning (as he refused to). Perhaps in the future if my opponent would like me to avoid making arguments that he cannot argue against he should take a principled stand and list reasonings instead of stating that it is my duty to prove him wrong. Again, I have proven that it's too expensive in comparison and if my opponent can provide any way in which it is not I would appreciate that as opposed to potential statistics. Your views may not be religious but many are, and you refused to put any of your views for some bizarre cowardly reason. Again my opponent speaks in axioms. I would say that the death penalty is barbaric, and though the bible calls for many deaths, most are old testament, and modern christians etc do not call for blood. I would say that a death sentence shows an unenlightened populace, not an immoral society. An enlightened society realizes that killing someone isn't a way to get retribution. I think as a society we do not have the right to kill a man who does not pose a threat to society. I don't think man has the right to kill man. I think anyone who is enlightened realizes this. My opponent should have better references than wikipedia and ask and pro con.com as well. I believe my opponent, instead of being a coward and backing down from the challenge of providing information and hiding under the shell of not needing to prove anything, should instead have taken an assertive, logical, statistic backed argument. I believe my opponent has failed in all of these aspects. If any speculation is had on the legitimacy of my sources allow me the opportunity to provide the links. Here is one: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... As this will be my last opportunity to rebut my opponent I ask simply that he propose counterarguments to my arguments. I await his reply and hope that his statistics are more sound, citations more reliable, and grammar more correct than previously.