The Death Penalty should be Abolished

"Unfortunately for you, since I have been the only one who has provided arguments, this debate rests on those arguments and not on any content you have provided." You want me to make original arguments? Fine. 1)The death penelty is good for society because it forces murderers to expierience what they have done to others. Since a murderer destroyed not only the life of the person killed but also affected the family of the victim, the murderer has done irreversable harm to the family. Since they have committed irreversable harm to society, they must have irreversable harm put on them. 2)Life imprisionment is not as feisible because it is less painful than death. To live anyhow is better than to not live at all. My opponent thinks that I don't value life. However, given that I place someone's life as more important to them than time in prision, while my opponent doesn't, it seems that I reletively place life as higher than my prisioner does since I believe that having life, even if your inprisioned is better than not having it at all. 3)Innocents getting executed is rare and outnumbered by the homicide rate decrease that is made up. Given that 4% of executions are on an innocent person, it would just mean that the homicide rate would have to decrease by .04 per 100,000 in order to save more innocent life. Has this been done though? Yes. South Africa does not have the DP, Ethipia does and Ethiopia's homicide rate is much lower, despite SA being richer and less power hungry than Ethiopia. In fact, SA has the highest homicide rate in Africa, dispite it being so rich. This could be due to SA not having the DP. Anti DP Angola has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP Chad. Anti DP Columbia has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP Peru, GDP per capitas similar. Anti Death Penelty Greenland has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP USA. You thought the USA had a high homicide rate? WHat about Greenlands? This is when the US has an urbinization disadvantage. Anti DP Mongolia out murders Pro DP Kazikstan. I have provided 5 examples, 5 epitomes from a majority of the contenents of times where the DP saves more lives than it kills. I know Wikipedia isin't the most reliable source, but 3 wiki links are more reliable than a Left wing Canadian site that is my opponent's only source. https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... My reasons for supporting DP are: 1) It forces murderers to expierience what they have done to others. 2)Life imprisionment is not as feisible because it is less painful than death. 3)The DP saves lives by reducing homicide. Time for what I do best in arguments, rebuttles: Next, my opponent claims that I did not rebuttal about the pain of DP. I said that the DP was carried out by lethal injection, which is painless, but I support more painful teqnicks since it is deserved. I argued, not why it's is painful, but why I think it should be. This is a different debate. This debate is about whether or not murderers should get executed at all. "Society is undoubtedly racist to an extent and therefore injustice exists. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp." Black people could be killed innocently because they could be more likely to be convicted innocently because they could be at the wrong place at the wrong time due to the poverty that I hope they get out of on their own. "Next, not only did you give up your position that prisoners would cause violence, but you provided us with the argument of deterrent." If they are in solitary confinement, then they would not cause violence. However, solitary confinement is often cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, most wouldn’t exist, not even for murderers. However, if prisoners are allowed contact with other inmates, which inevitably happens, then violence could occur. Racism exists, but it only exists to a small and fringe extent within the justice system. It has way more to do with other factors then how much melanin is in your skin. Also, my opponent’s first claim was that innocent people are dying, but then made it mostly about race. If you had a race argument, save it for a different bullet point. I was saying that it was bad, but not as bad as many think. It’s like saying a job at McDonalds has perks (I don’t know if that’s true). If someone said that they aren’t inherently saying that it is a good place to work, they may believe the opposite, but they may think that it is a bad job with perks. You said something that would hurt your argument though. You said, “What is relevant is that prisons can be controlled by governments in order to meet the satisfaction of the public.” Most Americans support the death penalty for murder. According to this quote, it is saying that murderers should be killed since that’s how most of the public wants them to be treated. We need to mitigate some suffering, not all suffering. If we were to aim to eliminate suffering, even amongst criminals, then they would get sent to a paradise island away from everyone else. They would have cops watching them to prevent fights. However, this is ridiculous because some suffering is good. You suffer when you study for a test. You suffer as a punishment so you won’t compete the same bad task multiple times. You suffer restitution fees if you eliminate something that’s not yours. You should pay restitution with your life if you eliminate a human life that is not yours. “I have shown that bias and other flaws in our system lead to innocent people dying and secondly why this is bad enough to abolish DP.” Your argument is mostly biased. If is very emotional. Although I have some emotion in mine, I try to put facts that are objective. You only cited once in your 4 arguments, and it was to a biased source. I cited 13 times to an eclectic amount of relevant sources. I ironically cite my debate as proof of that(http://www.debate.org...). “Please explain why an eye for an eye is a moral standpoint rather than just making catchy sound-bites” My opponent accuses me of just rebuttling, but now they ask me to rebuttle. So be it. An eye for an eye is a just way of measuring punishment because it is proportional. If I break someone’s IPAD deliberatly, it would be great if I apologized, but An eye for an eye would say that I would have to buy a new IPAD, not even pay the money for an IPAD, but to buy a new IPAD, since buying something requires work. This translates to murder. If one murders, then they must pay it back with their life since that is what they took. You reap what you sow. If you reap murder, then you sow execution. “In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.” Drug offenses are not worthy of the death sentence. Murder (including murder from terrorism) is worthy of the DP. “Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities” Age and disability status should not be relevant as to whether or not the person receives the death sentence. If Osama Bin Laden was a 10 year old kid who did the terrorism he did at that age, I would still want him killed. Just because your mind is not fully developed does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions. “People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.” This is good because it gives the court system time to seperate the guilty from the innocent. THis saves innocent lives. “What kind of society do you want to live in? I want a society when the state is fair and just, where it punishes people humanely on behalf of all citizens and helps those punished to become better people. I don't want a society where the state murders on behalf of raw and emotional hatred behind this medical mantra of "an eye for an eye".” You are being more emotional than I am.