Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

My opponent has proved that he can attack my statement, he does so because of his such narrow range of view on the topic. Yes, true I mistakenly neglected to add in the 'United States' in the original question, my opponent has showed a lack of sources for his statement that 1,500 criminals have escaped from prison. When I was speaking of escaped convicts I spoke of five who have escaped and committed murder again. I will past my source at the end of the round. My opponent has proved to me that he can pick on words and phrases for the smallest negligent mistakes. But has he yet focused on the topic enough? From what I have seen the main argument to the inquiry is prisoners escaping and committing crimes again. If we focus specifically on inmates accused of the death penalty the numbers are quite small. May I remind you only five men have escaped and committed murder again. I have three main points and sub-topics to back up my claim about the topic being ethical. I have proved to give reliable sources and information to uphold my argument. If an argument were a structure Mine would have foundation and a reliable structure atop of it. My opponent has built his argument upon one reason. Therefore making for a small foundation supporting a quivering structure. As his argument is ready to collapse due to all the focus on one point. My opponent has also showed us that his information lacks on the topic he has given. He quoted a few prisoners that said they wanted to escape from prison in round two. Isn't it evident that all prisoners want to escape prison. Also the position you stated with these quotes was that these prisoners wanted to die. I am not sure what else you were implying the paragraph. I do not image a prisoner preferring death over imprisonment. I would like my opponent to please cite a source, if there is one, on any prisoner that has specifically chose the death penalty over life imprisonment. Also when my opponent chose to attack my choice to single out a component of the word: punishment. This argument proved to be just another attack because of his lack of information on the specified topic and his lack of sources. The sources he has stated have merely been definition from an online dictionary. Therefore, his lack of information has caused him to personally attack my arguments and grammar. If my opponent continues to redirect attention at phrases that hold truth. Instead he suggests at something that has happened very little times. Even if we take all the felons that have escaped from prison the ration is almost non-existent. My opponent states that 15,000 inmates convicted of any major crimes have unknowingly escaped due to my opponent's lack of reliable sources. I am pleased to announce that 2.5 million inmates are currently incarcerated and have not escaped. Also my opponent has made a clear remark about the limit of words being at four thousand this limit has been set in place so both opponents may argue the specific point without adding in unnecessary accusations and stay on task with the current subject. Also the only reason my opponent has exceeded the word limit is behalf on speaking negatively about my words. To recap, my opponent has not offered reliable sources and has proved to me that he is skilled and shedding negative light on my arguments. He has also proved he is a firm believer that our prison system which has invested $74 billion dollars to detain these criminals, is not working? He also has built his entire argument upon the off-chance that a murderer will escape and kill again. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cnbc.com...