Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

Secondly, I just want to clarify this debate. My opponent has made the topic of this debate: Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your out. .. Him being the con to this side, I would normally assume that he is trying to show this: Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out. .. in other words, he is supposed to go against the topic shown. However, after reading my opponent's argument, I have realized that what he intended to do was to make him supporting the death penalty. I don't really understand why he made himself con, but I think that it was just a slip on his part. However, I think that to clear up the debate, we should assume that pawletoe is actually debating the Pro side of this argument, and I am debating the Con side of this argument. So with that aside, let's get to the debate. So for this debate, I am supposed to argue against the topic, which is about basically instituting a "3 strike" rule for Killing. My opponent is supposed to argue in favor of having this "3 strike" rule, and I am supposed to argue against this 3 strike rule. Let me point out however, that the burden of proof lies on my opponent, not me. So I don't have to prove my case, I just have to disprove my opponents. However, if in disproving my opponent, I prove my own stance, so be it. Let me begin by refuting my opponent's points. I do not think that we should be showing killing is wrong by killing those who kill. Does that make sense? ?? We are deciding to punish those who kill and show that killing is wrong by strapping those people into a chair and electrocuting the living daylights out of them? ?? Melting their eyeballs, and all that horrific stuff that go with the electric chair? ?? Or should we be sticking needles into people to inject chemicals that are supposed to do their job of making the victim numb and not to be able to feel anything, but it is shown too often they fail? ?? So instead of dying a painless death, these victims are subject to extreme pain beyond anything we can measure, and they die that way. Do they really deserve that? ?? However, there is a flaw in this argument. In order for this to happen, the murderer would need at least 2 lives. Let us assume that we are talking about the state of California, seeing as you live there, and therefore would probably be more familiar with the laws there. In the state of California, if you are guilty of first degree murder (usually understood to mean pre-meditated murder), then you will either get life in prison without parole, minimum of 25 years to life in prison, or death. So if you kill once, you would get life in prison, or a minimum of 25 years. Lets not get into the death part yet, since that is the point of this debate. Lets say that you are lucky and get the minimum of 25 years, and you kill again. This is your second murder, and seeing as it is again premeditated and you were jailed once and released, the courts would most likely not take a chance and jail you for life. Therefore, there is no way you are coming out again, so you can't really kill 3 times, get caught all 3 times, and then get death penalty. So this negates your first and only argument. My points: 1. I do not have to prove that the death penalty should not be used. That is not the purpose of this debate. The direct interpretation, which I am assuming my opponent is using, is that this debate is about whether or not we should institute a "3 strike" rule before we kill the murderer. My opponent has the burden of proof, and he has to prove that we should indeed have this "3 strike rule" All I have to do in this debate is to disprove my opponents arguments like I did above, and then I will win this debate. However, if in doing so I show some arguments of my own, so be it. 2. I propose that we should not use a 3 strike rule, but instead we should use a 1 strike rule. If you kill someone in a premeditated murder, you should be punished immediately. Why in the world should we allow these people a second chance to kill someone else? ?? That is like making that murderer's life more valuable than your average citizen because if the murderer is allowed to kill someone, and that murderer is released back into society, and can kill again, you are saying that that murderer can kill 2 people before he will be killed. So 2 average citizens= 1 murderer. That makes no sense. Imagine if we gave them a third chance! ! Thats all for now, but remember it should be enough since all I have to do is disprove my opponent's points in any way I need. Thank You